Well if it is meant to distort the meaning of Scripture, it is a bad thing. Let's take the example of 1260 days ("a thousand two hundred and three score days"). The fact that they are 1260 days is confirmed by the use of 42 months (1260/30), which is 3 1/2 years (42/12), which then translates into time (1 year) + times (2 years) + the dividing of time or half a time (6 months).
Now if someone comes along and say "Oh, 1260 days means 1260 years" you know that is totally absurd. But that is the result of spiritualizing what is factual.
I think we've done this dance before...talking about the symbolic use of numbers. So there's no point rehashing everything, really. I suppose the one thing I would ask is: how is it that even Dispensational teachers will openly admit that numbers hold symbolic meaning...like the number 7 meaning completion, etc...and yet when they come to books like Revelation they refuse to "follow through" with what they've just allowed? It's like saying 2+2 doesn't = 4. Someones hermeneutical stability is called into question when they say "God clearly uses 7 to state completion throughout scripture...except in Revelation...there we must take 7 to mean 7".
I think this is a large objection most reformed scholars have with Dispensationalists. They are scholar enough to see how God reveals things in scripture...but when it comes to end times, they dismiss clear revelation and consistant hermenutical principles in favor of their system, which tells them that, for example, in Revelation numbers have to be literal. So they jettison what they know to be true (God uses numbers symoblically) and insist on their own interpretation before that, despite what they have already affirmed. It's inconsistent. And most people can see that. That's where a large part of the objections come from.
But please understand...not all those that 'object' are like those who, just recently, have spewed hate. Like i've said, I've known too many Dispensationalists to believe any of that rot. I may disagree with them, but we have open, friendly dialogue on the matter, as we should be able to. End Times beliefs should not separate the Church.
Now you are off on an entirely different subject. We are talking about the plain literal meaning of words and texts. Of course there is a spiritual battle, but that is not our focus at the moment.
I beg to differ. I believe it IS part of the point. You say we must take the text literally. I say that taking it literally is to understand it to be talking about spiritual realities. The fact that spiritual realities are
so very real that they spill into our world, affecting everything as they play out, means that those of us who "spiritualize" it, are not waving it away as some nice little story or fable. No, the things John sees are very true, and they affect us greatly. But I don't need to believe that at some point demons with heads like lions riding horses (or whatever) are going to rampage throughout the planet to believe that in the spirit world, where that battle between good and evil is raging, a legion of demons
are going forth doing their best to kill and destroy. We don't necessarily see them, but we feel the outcome of their wrath.
If John tells us that the seven candlesticks or lampstands represent the seven churches, and the seven stars represent the seven angels, then the symbols have been explained. So to now keep insisting that they are all symbols is dishonest. There are no "shadows" here. There were actually seven churches in Asia Minor (presently Turkey) and some of those cities can still be pinpointed.
And just about every symbol in the Bible is explained, sooner or later. Take Nebuchadnezzar's dream or Joseph's dreams. They were all interpreted. Taken even the serpent on the pole in the wilderness. It represented Christ on the Cross.
You've actually just helped me make my point. You are correct, absolutely correct. Pretty much every symbol seen in Revelation can be linked back to another scripture. In fact, I would say that, perhaps the only ones 'explained' in Revelation are the ones that can not be traced back to some other place in the OT where we may draw a correlation or meaning from the text.
What Dispensationalist do is come to Revelation and read it like it's a book in isolation, instead of letter scripture interpret scripture.
Well this is a good example of FAULTY SPIRITUALIZING. Revelation 7 spells out the twelve tribes of Israel. 12 x 12,000 = 144,000, and there is no getting away from simple math. We are also given details of each tribe. Then God gives us a glimpse of the Church as a completely different group. So trying to simply confuse and confound the two just because people believe that God is finished with Israel as Israel is not only foolish but dishonest. Here is the contrast (as given by the Holy Spirit Himself):
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (v 4) There can be no mistaking of the term "the children of Israel" (meaning the 12 tribes of Israel).[Note: These are not evangelists as is clear from chapters 7 and 14]
But then we have this so that no honest person will confuse the Church with Israel: After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands (v 9)
The Church does indeed consist of believers from all nations, kindreds, tribes, and tongues (languages), and they cannot be numbered because of the huge number of people in the Church. But there are two distinct groups within the same chapter.
I wonder...do you realize that you have, in your own way, just accused me of similar of what vexatious and reggie belafonte has accused you of? Being a liar (dishonest) and foolish. You also imply my beliefs are the result of believing that 'God is finished with the Jews', although I have repeatedly stated that I do not think that, and many who believe as I do, do not.
Here's the take away, I believe. Disagree with me if you want. I truly don't care. But if you have a shred of Christian decency, stop being a hypocrite. If you want the right to defend your view, you have to also stand for the right of others to defend theirs. If people are standing within the circle of orthodoxy, and discussing matters of an open-handed nature, and you think it's just and right and excusable to throw down and around these sort of accusations, then don't be offended when others come at you with the same sort of words and false claims. Shouldn't we, as the Church, be above that?
