Post Number: 110
|Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 6:47 am: || |
Good morning all!! It has been a while since I have been here, and much has happened!! (Details another time!!) However, tonight, I will be studying with a group of SDA's and other denominations the book of Revelation. At first, I wasn't going to go, seeing as SDA's have a slant on all books...but I really felt compelled to go just this morning. I was just wondering if anyone had any pointers on that book that would help me keep the study from SLANTING? These women, (women's group) are so very open and I just want to make sure that I give proper BIBLICAL input and not the ellen slanted versions. Any input from you all is a blessing. Thank you!!!!
Post Number: 1110
|Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 8:53 am: || |
Taybie, If you don't have the book "Revelation: Four Views" Edited by Steven Gregg I would highly recommend it. Your view on any given passage in Revelation will be radically different depending on the approach you take to the book.
There are four basic approaches: partial preterist, historicist, futurist, and Idealist (sometimes called Spiritualist). Currently, the futurist view is probably most popular among North American evangelical Christians, but this is not the case if we look at the history of the Church or even the current Church worldwide.
I personally lean towards a partial or moderate preterist position, a view taken by R.C. Sproul, Hank Hannegraff, and other notable conservatives. I can only say "lean" as I find the material to be extremely challenging and see some merits in the other views as well.
P.S. Just so there is no misundertanding, I completely reject full or radical preterism and believe that full preterism is outside the pale orthodoxy. There is a HUGE theological gulf between partial preterism and full preterism even though the names may sound similar.
Post Number: 277
|Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 9:31 am: || |
If you know ahead of time what portions of Revelation were going to be discussed, I would try to anticipate their SDA slants (esp. when you you get to that verse about the Spirit of Prophecy) so you can point out whenever they are veering extra-Biblical. It will be interesting to see how this turns out, since the SDAs may be surprised how many people have logical beliefs about the endtimes that disagree with theirs. I would assume the point of the Bible study is to get more information about the wide range of beliefs out their rather than to have the whole group come to some sort of concensus. If the SDAs start "sheep stealin'" that will become very obvious too.
Post Number: 318
|Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 4:01 pm: || |
Please remember that if you have SDAs in your group, they will be the ones most likely to have the answers. Those answers will be based on the teachings/visions of Ellen White. Since you are aware of this, you might want to point it out. But if you can't distinguish the teachings yet of what comes from Ellen White and what doesn't, it may confuse you. The book Chris mentions sounds like a good place to start. I've been studying some of Revelation lately and enjoy the refreshingly different view, away, far, far away from the Adventists.
I wonder if they would bring up the SDA teachings like about the beast and who that is, etc. And why they think Revelation 12:17 means they belong to a Remnant church. It might be a good opportunity to point out some NT scripture stating that the OT is just a shadow of the NT. Maybe share some scripture that most SDAs aren't aware of, like Hebrews 4. It might also be good to point out if it mentioned about the beast being the RCC, that it is possible, but there is nothing in the bible showing proof this is definate.
Post Number: 2356
|Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 4:45 pm: || |
Good to hear from you. I have wondered how everything is with you and your journey with God. I have been doing a study on Revelation on my own. I am only as far as the church Philedelphia. It is very interesting.
Post Number: 419
|Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 4:31 am: || |
Chris I have that same book and have found it very usefull in opening my eyes to various ways of looking at texts from my "past".
Post Number: 170
|Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 6:55 pm: || |
My pastor gave an entire series that covered the book of Revelation on the point of view that agrees with Hanagraff... when read with that interpretation, the book becomes a beautiful and an overarching picture of the REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF and all He's done and is doing in our lives. My pastor's name is Roland Classen and his email is Office@MVCCweb.org. One of the FAF members has gotten the tapes and has learned from them. I will pray for you.
Post Number: 111
|Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 7:38 am: || |
Good morning everyone!! Thank you so very much for your insight, advice and thoughts. I appreciate them all. As it turned out, the Lord had his hand upon the meeting and we wound up only discussing the book we are all reading together, "Every Woman's Battle" by Shannon Ethridge. The Lord used this book to help me overcome some things in my life and now I am able to share with other women and we are all growing together.
I don't know why the Lord did things that way, except that He is amazing and He wanted each of us to see where we were in Him...on common ground. Perhaps that is how He will continue to work with us until He knows the time has come for each of them to be presented with Jesus Christ as the Lord of the sabbath.
Well, that may have been a bit of a ramble, but in all, I desire to see these women walk into the full knowledge of Jesus Christ...they are bound in a lot of their thinking, and the Lord has shown me how to love them without being hard on them about the error in their beliefs. It truly is refreshing and a blessing. The balance of it all is artful and beautiful.
How EXCELLENT is the Lord's name in ALL the earth!! I rejoice in His love today!
Post Number: 430
|Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 8:12 am: || |
Thanks for checking back and letting us know how it went.
Praying as you continue to listen to and follow our Lord!
Post Number: 3500
|Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 1:03 pm: || |
Taybie, thanks for letting us know how it went. Praise God for the peace and insight He gave you.
Post Number: 1392
|Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 7:26 pm: || |
I also think the view taken by Hanegraaf (the partial preterist position) makes a lot of sense, and keeps us from speculating about a lot of stuff that really isn't stated in scripture. R.C. Sproul has a similar book called "The last days of Jesus" which I haven't read, but Chris gave me a heads up on it at the FAF weekend.
it's good to hear from you again.
Post Number: 52
|Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 7:55 pm: || |
I believe that the book you are referencing is 'The Last Days According to Jesus' by RC Sproul. I bought it a couple of years ago and finally read it about 3 or 4 months ago. It is interesting to me given that I know only the SDA slant on Revelation.
That book gave me much to think about and has changed the way I view the book of Revelation.
One more thing to add to my list...
Post Number: 1395
|Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 8:31 pm: || |
Thanks for the correction. It is a big difference!
Post Number: 53
|Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 8:56 pm: || |
One of the interesting things (to me, anyway) that RC brings up in the book is the idea that Revelation could have been written prior to 70AD (perhaps as early as 64-65AD) rather than 95AD.
This gives a whole different slant to how one looks at the book - it would have been written and relavent to Christians THEN as a warning regarding the fall of Jerusalem.
Now that I think about it, I may have to pick it up and read it again...it gives one a lot to consider.
Post Number: 1396
|Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 9:25 pm: || |
That is precisely Hanegraaf's point. Revelation was written to be understood by the early Christian church. In fact, the more I think about this, the more concerned I get about many well meaning teachers adding to the words of the book. What does it mean to add to the words as Rev 22:18 puts it? If this were obeyed, I don't think we would have all the wild speculation Hal Lindsey has done. BTW, Lindsey has been proven wrong so many times. But that is what happens--you end up looking foolish when you predict things the book of Revelation never speaks to.
Post Number: 1113
|Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 8:21 am: || |
Yes! Revelation is first and foremost an epistle to the early Church and should be read as such. To be sure, it's an epistle that used the then-popular apocalyptic literary style, but it's an epistle all the same.
Consider this, if all components of the popular dispensational view of Revelation are correct (Futuristic interpretation of the book, premillenial view of ch. 20, AND a pre-trib rapture), then Revelation had little or no relevance to the churches it was written to. In fact, under this view Revelation has little relevance to the Church of any age because the Church will be taken out of this world prior to any of these events taking place. Why on earth would John write a book to the early Church that not only didn't concern them, but doesn't particularly concern us either?
Post Number: 3505
|Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 1:43 pm: || |
No matter what eschatological viewpoint I study, none of them seems crystal-clear to me using Biblical references alone. The thing that makes the least sense to me (and my views are not prescriptive for others, nor do I disrespect those who do see this view) is the pre-tribulation raptureóparticularly a surprise or secret one. I just don't see a clear text for that belief, although I understand how proponents of this belief use 1 Thess. 4 and 2 Thess. 2 to support it.
Further, I can see Revelation being a book much like Jesus' eschatological prophecies: addressing multiple events, all (or both) of which are partial fulfillments of the original words. I believe Revelation was a book for the early church, but clearly the end of the age didn't come with the destruction of Jerusalem, so Revelation still has prophetic meaning for the church as it moves through time.
Further, there is disagreement over when Revelation was written: before or after AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. I'm of the mind that the obscure date was God's intent; He intended this book to be internalized as a revelation of Jesus by the entire church for as long as time lasts.
I could almost be persuaded to believe the "amillennial" view of thingsói.e. we are currently living in the "millenium", and the church is reigning with Christ among the nationsóif Revelation 20 weren't so CLEAR that this reign of Christ is AFTER the first resurrectionóthe resurrection of the righteousóand BEFORE the second resurrectionóthat of the wickedópreceding the final judgment. Further, Satan is thrown into the abyss and can no longer deceive the nations.
Yes, Satan was disarmed and humiliated at the cross. I understand that proponents of this view see that disarming as the same event as Satan being bound in the abyss. Yet I'm not convinced that Satan is no longer free to deceive. Clearly demonic activityówhether it comes from Satan himself or not, I don't knowóis still at work, and many people are under demonic influence.
Hence, Revelation 20 seems to cast a great doubt in my mind over the idea of our currently being in an amillennial kingdom.
I do not see the possibility of a millennial kingdom necessitating the whole dispensational "theory". I don't have a problem with the idea that there might be a physical kingdom in which Jesus reigns on earth with the church reigning with him during a time in which Satan is boundóand that this kingdom might not be preceded by a preliminary rapture but might be the culmination of Jesus' coming. Further, just as no one foresaw the mystery of the churchóGod is us, Jew and Gentile alike and brought to spiritual, eternal life by the Holy Spiritóliving side-by-side with people who are spiritually dead, I don't have a particular problem with the idea that a millennial kingdom couldóif God desiredóhave people in reusrrected bodies living side-by-side with those who don't. I really can't draw conclusions about details from Revelation 20, but it does suggest that this kingdom happens between the 1st and 2nd resurrections. It's still a mystery to us...
I further don't see that the tribulation is necessarily the place or time in which the Jews will be awakened. It seems God can accomplish that even before the tribulation if that's what He wants to do.
Actually, I'm quite open about how everything will play out. I really don't see clear, air-tight evidence for any single existing framwork for understanding eschatology. I'm thinking God purposely didn't give us enough detail to know exactly how it will work. He wants us to trust Him as Abraham didówho never saw the city he was longing foróand as all did who looked for his first coming.
Just as Jesus' first coming was shrouded in mystery and surprise, even though we can look back at the prophecies and see clearly how they all fit together, still it took people's submission to God and openness to the Holy Spirit's revelation for people to recognize the human Jesus. I suspect that His second coming will be the same; our scenarios do not adequately explain it, and unless we are submitted to God and His promises and to His revelation of truth, we may not recognize events for what they are as they happen.
In short, I don't see the church escaping the tribulationóit seems that historically God has not removed His people from troubleóbut as for how and when all events happen, I'm open to learning. Neither do I scorn those who do look for a pre-tribulation rapture.
Post Number: 1114
|Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 5:16 pm: || |
Colleen, I think we're pretty much on the same page from an eschatological perspective (not that it should ever be a point of division even if we weren't). I tend to think that Revelation had direct relevance to its original recipients, but I do not think that in any way rules out both a near and a far fulfillment (quite common in Biblical prophecies). I also lean towards a historic/classic premillenial position (not dispensational) for some of the same reasons you mentioned. Further more, I'm not dogmatic on any of this because I tend to think that if God wanted us to know all the details of eschatology with absolute crystal clearity, then He would have made the details a whole lot more plain. Ultimately, if we're merely seeing Revelation as a revelation of the future rather than the revelation of a Person, then we're missing the entire point. It is after all "The Revelation of Jesus Christ". - Revelation 1:1
Post Number: 3508
|Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 9:57 pm: || |
Well said, Chris. I agree with you.
Post Number: 67
|Posted on Thursday, March 09, 2006 - 3:23 am: || |
Lisa,I eamiled your pastor a month ago when you posted his email about the study of Rev. He has sent me the study guide and I am just begining it so far so good,he was very prompt in sending it. I have also been reading the book called the Rest of God. It's cover talks about restoring the Sabbath,and I thought at first I have read all the books on how to keep the Sabbath how much more do I need to know. But this book so far is nothing like that Im only a third thru it,but the writer makes it clear that God is our rest.That thru our trials and troubles we take Sabbath in Him that when Paul and Silas were in prison they took Sabbath(rest)and worshiped Him with song and prayer. If this book continues to go in this direction I can think of a handful of SDA because of the title would read this book and cause them to Rest in God cause them to think outside the box.Dawn
Post Number: 78
|Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2006 - 10:38 pm: || |
Wow. This is an old thread, but I have to say thanks to Colleen for your honest thoughts about Revelation! I have seldom seen a better breakdown of things than that.
Revelation is such a wonderful book, but it needs to be interpreted by the Gospel. What is not clear (apocalyptic symbolism) needs to be interpreted by what is clearly revealed (Christ, the gospel in the Epistles). I think a lot of confusion has happened because it's been interpreted when people haven't understood the New Covenant, or when they try to interpret Daniel and Revelation and make a framework from those books, missing the fact that Revelation--from beginning to end--is about Jesus Christ.