I understand. We apply a literal hermeneutic to all of Scripture EXCEPT the eschatalogical. There we apply allegory and whatnot. We say that apocalyptic writings are interpreted differently from, say, didactic Scriptures. Can somebody tell me why? And if you applied a consistently literal hermeneutic to ALL of Scripture, including eschatology, wouldn't you arrive at the pre-wrath position? Has anyone here ever investigated the pre-wrath position? I don't agree with VanKampen 100%, but I think he's onto something.
Looking for a body of believers to hook up with
"It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error. It is better to speak the truth that hurts and heals, than falsehood that comforts and then kills. Let me tell you something, friend, it is not love and it is not friendship if we fail to declare the whole counsel of God. It is better to be hated for telling the truth, than to be loved for telling a lie. It is impossible to find anyone in the Bible who was a power for God who did not have enemies and was not hated. It's better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude. It is better to ultimately succeed with the truth than to temporarily succeed with a lie. There is only one Gospel and Paul said, 'If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.'"
Pastor Adrian Rodgers, excerpts from talk, Nat'l Religious Broadcasters Convention, 1996