what a deceptive answer you gave. It is a tautology when one learns what actually is being said by the covenatal theologians.
My answer was deceptive, was it? That rather assumes I am purposely lying rather than just being stupid, even if your conclusions are correct. Which they are not.
I salute you for delving into the subject for 2 decades, but clearly that has not bought clarity on what covenantal theology, as a whole, believes.
For it is them that determine if a genre of Scripture is to be understood literal or allegorical. Convenient but dishonest!
I'm sorry, but...seriously? You think we come to a book like...let's say Daniel, shall we...and go..."I shall declare, that the latter portion of this book shall be read in allegory!" And lo and behold, the images appear, thus we determine to read them as such. Because even a walnut can see that imagery is used in Daniel.
You're basically saying we're throwing out all ideas of previously held literacy, established and recognized long throughout history.
I'll tell you what happens, it's pretty darn clear that there
are images in the book. Yeah? I know it well, because Dispensationalists LOVE Daniel...they're all over the images.
The cool thing about Daniel is that God tells us what the images are. Wasn't that nice of Him? So that way, us nasty covenantal folks can't make them say whatever we want, as we like to...apparently.
Things...it seems, get tricky when we get to a book like Revelation. The problem arises because if we don't read it "literally", then things aren't going to go like the Dispensational timetable has all laid out. But here's the thing....the same imagery is used in Revelation as it is in Daniel. And Ezekiel, and Isaiah, and Joel...and keep going. All throughout the OT. God, in his goodness and wisdom has given us what we need to interpret the images...again, so we can't make helicopter appear out the sky. Because that's the honest to goodness literal reading of it. Cross my heart.
Well I have been teaching Escatology for over 2 decades! I would like you to list three of what you think are fundamental flaws of dispensational escatology and give biblical support to your allegations!
HOT DOG! Do you mean it? You're on.
The first is the problem with the Millennium. I mean, where does it biblically fit? The bible continuously talks of 2 ages. Not 3, 2. We see this is these passages:
Blasphemy:
This Age: Blasphemy not forgiven,
Matt. 13:32
Age to Come: Blasphemy not forgiven,
Matt. 13:32
Eternal Life:
Age to Come: Receive Eternal Life, Mark 10:30;
Luke 18:30
Marriage:
This Age: Marry and Given in Marriage,
Luke 20:34
Age to Come: No marriage in age to come,
Luke 20:35
Power and Superiority of God:
This Age: Power and Superiority of God in this age,
Eph. 1:21
Age to Come: Power and Superiority of God in the age to come,
Eph. 1:21
Present age is evil:
This Age: Evil in present age,
Gal. 1:4
Receive 100 times:
This Age: In the present age (Greek "time"),
Mark 10:30 Rulers:
This Age: Rulers of this age,
1 Cor. 2:6
If there is only this age, and the age to come, and consistently we see this age is things temporal and sinful, and the one to come is things eternal and sinless, where does the Millennium fit? I'm not denying scripture speaks of one, but I am suggesting that from the clear teaching of the '2 ages', we must put it in one or the other. Which leads me to my next 'problem'. But I might put it in a new post, or this one will get too long.