Revelation from an Idealist, Amil Approach

Not open for further replies.
The biggest problem I see with the Idealist interpretation (which I mainly ascribe to Hendriksen) is that it forces an exegete to change hermeneutics once opening up the book of Revelation. Should we interpret the rest of the New Testament epistles in an "idealist" way. Shoule we go back to the hper-spiritual allegorical interpretations of the early church fathers?

The book of Revelation is a New Testamant epistle, a letter written to the churches of that day, just like Romans is a letter written from Paul to the church in Rome in his day.
Revelation should be interpreted, exegeted, in the same way, using the same hermeneutic, that we do the rest of the epistles.
Historical-grammatical method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The aim of the historical-grammatical method is to discover the meaning of the passage as the original author would have intended and what the original hearers would have understood.​

Note: Not to sound like a jerk.
But I just took an exhaustive class on hermeneutics...and wiki don't got nothin on me...:cool:
(come on, I'm kiddin)

I agree with the grammitcol-historic method...That is why I don't accept the spiritual idealist interpretation of Revelation.
Understood. I'm interested in the Ideatist view but am premil myself.
Not open for further replies.