Theology Club: MAD and the Book of Revelation

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
I may be ignorant and wrong, but that does not make me a liar/deceiver (knowing something is wrong, but peddling it as true; I fully believe what I say).

I don't think you're a liar or a deceiver, and I don't think it's right to call you that.

People differ on what the Bible means. Obviously. You line up a hundred Bible believers and ask the same question; you may get a hundred different answers.

In any event, what we're talking about here is the prophecy of the Book of Revelation. All of the things written in the book were said by the writer to happen soon. They didn't.

So, either the Book of Revelation is false and should have never been included in the Canon of Scripture; or it has been suspended.

Both views have problems. If the Revelation shouldn't have been included in the canon...which other works should also be dismissed?

If the prophecy was suspended; then why bother reading it? Who knows if it hasn't been totally cancelled out?

These are the two major problems that I see; and these are the things that no one besides myself seems to be addressing.

A pointed question GR. Should Revelation be dismissed as valid prophecy since the time frame in which is was supposed to happen has long passed?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
You are making a wrong assumption about the time frame that is not necessary, so you have a false dichotomy (reject the book or see it as suspended).

The evidence is that we should not reject the canonical, inspired book, so we are left with an interpretative issue. There are other possibilities besides your one idea.

If you are assuming a closed, narrow, predictive prophecy that does not allow God to decide when to pull the plug, then you are limited to your options, perhaps. If you recognize that Rev. 1-3 is historically fulfilled in the first century and that Rev. 4-22 is yet future without an explicit statement that it must end in the first century (preterism) or historically, then there is a delay (2 Peter 3:9) that fits with His sovereignty and responsiveness depending on contingencies. Soon for God is also not the same as soon for mortals who live a wisp of time.

God's intention could have been to set up the kingdom sooner than later. When Israel rejected Christ, the gap of the indeterminate church age (which was not explicitly prophesied, but would be a gap between Daniel's 69/70th week) can take place between Rev. 3 and 4 without having to reject the book. Whether Rev. 4-22 would have been fulfilled in 150 A.D., or whether it is fulfilled in 2050 A.D., it will be fulfilled.

You are making much of the word soon/quickly, while dismissing a reasonable explanation (futurist) for most of the book. There is no historical precedent for Rev. 4-22 fulfillment, so it is yet future. To read some history into it requires fanciful, subjective, nonsensical allegory (like cults do with it reading their own modern history into verses?!) vs normative, literal approach.

So, check some commentaries are your stumbling block verse (soon/quickly), consider Open Theism and the dynamic nature of the future and God changing His mind, and you should be able to accept the book at face value. As well, consider that much of it is panoramic, cyclical vs linear, symbolic, etc., vague enough to not have to been exhaustive definite foreknowledge on God's part (He can orchestrate things and the details are not such that they have to be seen far in advance).

Other prophecies were conditional or did not have a wooden literalism fulfillment. A prediction, though, would come to pass if God says it would. So, the prophecy is more flexible than an explicit prediction like I will come back to Jerusalem and set up the millennial kingdom in 70 A.D., 1000 A.D., 2014 A.D., etc.

God can delay His coming without negating Revelation. I don't believe God fixed the date in eternity past nor in the first century for the Second Coming. He may or may not have done so at this point. Perhaps Today, but not necessarily.

We do know that He will come, judgments will happen, Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, etc. because God has the ability to do this (Is. 46 and 48 ability, not prescience).

Prophecy is an objection to Open Theism, but there are a few kinds of prophecy and the understanding of it goes beyond simple traditional views. I have not done it justice, but prominent Open Theists have.

Again, some MAD here are Open Theist. I am not MAD, but Open Theist. I object to their view that makes all of Revelation future. I can live with their plan A/plan B 'The Plot' stuff on eschatology.

I would not base my whole view on soon/quickly (tree) vs God's flexible, unfolding plan (forest).
 

Doormat

New member
It says that Jesus will come quickly and judge everyone according to their works. Yet, other scriptures point out that salvation is provided from God by grace through faith, and not because of works of righteousness that we have done.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

Did Jesus and the Father come to you and make their abode with you? Are you not a temple of God?

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

If you are born of God in Christ, then you were already judged (old man executed) and eternal life is the reward for the work you have done in a sense.

John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent.

So, here's a reiteration of the issues I have here.

1. The Book of Revelation claims repeatedly that the things written here must come to pass in the very near future.

Two thousand years ago is not the near future.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.


2. God says that if someone prophecies in his name and it doesn't come to pass, it's not from him.

It's coming to pass in front of you. I don't see any example you have given as being a false or suspended prophecy.

3. The writer of Revelation seems to be claiming that salvation is accomplished by obeying commandments rather than by God's grace and mercy.

Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15

I don't read that as "salvation is accomplished by obeying commandments" and don't understand why you read it that way. If you don't read John 14:15 that way, then you should have no beef with what is written in Revelation about keeping commandments.

The idea of keeping commandments is throughout the New Testament writings, not just in the writings of John, but also Paul's writings. It is a mistake to assume that keeping commandments equates to trying to keep them for salvation because one can keep a commandment by nature (I'm reminded of your comments on coveting).

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

So, my questions are....

1. Is Revelation a false prophecy that should be rejected as the Eastern Church did, and not included in the canon of scripture?

I would not counsel anyone to reject the Revelation of Jesus Christ as written by John, but I would caution people to interpret it carefully and not teach an interpretation contrary to the authors intent.

Revelation 22:7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

2. Is the Book of Revelation a prophecy ordained by God but was suspended with other prophecy and we just don't know about it?

The prophecies in question have not been suspended in any sense.

3. Is there some other explanation for why the things written here did not come to pass?

Everything has and will continue to come to pass.

4. Do you believe it righteous or unrighteous to ask these questions?

Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
GR and Doormat...I thankyou for your positive contributions to this thread topic.

Doormat...on your post above.....you bring in the 1000 like a day thing.

OK...so....let's assume that one thousand years is like a day to God. That's not hard to understand since he is eternal in nature....makes sense. But what doesn't make sense is trying to apply one of God's thousand years days to people.

People don't recon time like that at all. Two thousand years is a really, really long time in people years. So, saying that something is going to happen soon and then really meaning many thousands of years doesn't make any sense at all. The Bible was not written for God, it was written for people. The things written in Revelation were written for people. I really can't see how the thousand year day scripture would be appropriately applied here.

I do appreciate your post however...and there is some good in it.
 

Doormat

New member
Two thousand years is a really, really long time in people years. So, saying that something is going to happen soon and then really meaning many thousands of years doesn't make any sense at all. The Bible was not written for God, it was written for people. The things written in Revelation were written for people. I really can't see how the thousand year day scripture would be appropriately applied here.

The scriptures are not written for the understanding of natural man (1Co 2:14). They must be spiritually discerned.

In context, 2 Peter 3:8 is about man's perception of time as it relates to the expectation of the Day of Lord. It seems to be a passage that should be applied here.

Another thing to consider, in the sense that anyone could drop dead at any minute and our lives are very short relative to a thousand years, how long does a person actually have to wait to experience the Day of the Lord? :think:
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
The scriptures are not written for the understanding of natural man (1Co 2:14). They must be spiritually discerned.

Yes. And this is a mild aside from the topic. But not one that I'm afraid of...or have any problem discussing.

In context, 2 Peter 3:8 is about man's perception of time as it relates to the expectation of the Day of Lord. It seems to be a passage that should be applied here.

More related to the specific point.

Another thing to consider, in the sense that anyone could drop dead at any minute and our lives are very short relative to a thousand years, how long does a person actually have to wait to experience the Day of the Lord? :think:

Not really what we're talking about....so I'm going to skip this part. When we die our troubles are over....one way or another...unless you're not in him...like the rich man in Luke 16...in which case that's a bad thing. But if you are in him then 2 Corinthians 5:1 applies.

OK....back to the first point....the word of God is not for the natural man, it is spiritually discerned. True. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God...but we're really not talking about unbelievers here. No one posting in this thread is an unbeliever. We all believe. So, our approach to the Word is not natural; it is spiritual.

The Word of God is living and powerful in this instance; producing faith in the heart of the believer. Hebrews 4:12

Of course we must study it. 2 Timothy 2:15

And let's talk about the natural mind for a second. The spirit doesn't read the Word or study it....the mind does. Our spirits, housed in our bodies....are so closely linked that there's almost no separating it. Yet, we are to have these minds renewed...to change the way we're thinking about things. Romans 12:2

All of these things, I hope we agree upon; still not what we're talking about here.

Words mean things. So, when we read the word....study it...believe it.. renew our minds with it....we are reading what has been written. Some of it is written in a spiritual sense...like Revelation 12:1 but much of it is written in a very literal sense...like John 11:35.

TBC
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
So, the Revelation contains a prophecy. And yes this prophecy covers a span of time...much time...a thousand years just with Christ's reign and the bottomless pit reference.

At the same time...we read in the begining and at the end of this work that the things written here will happen soon. Now, Christ's return is said to quickly...right? Like lightning flashing from east to west. That's one aspect of how he comes suddenly...without warning and puts an end to all things. That's still not what we're talking about.

Revelation 1:1

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place."

Not things that will happen in a short amount of time when they finally do occur.....things that must happen shortly.

Not the same thing. No other way to interpret it...that I can see anyway.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter will die soon.

Hebrews 13:23 - Timothy will join you soon.

1 Timothy 3:14 - Paul hopes to see you soon.

Philippians 2:24 - Paul hopes to come to you soon.

Philippians 2:19 - Paul will send Timothy to you soon.

All of these verses use the word shortly as used in Revelation chapter 1 and they refer to the time within the lifetime of the writer; not thousands of years later.
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
[*]Define "soon."

Within a few years or decades.

[*]Jonah's prophecy regarding Nineveh didn't come to pass. Of course based on God's own words prior that one certainly gets a pass.

Nope it didn't. And there's a reason of which I'm sure you're familiar.. repentance. The people of Nineveh believed the word, harkened unto it.

[*]I have no reason to believe these things will not come to pass, however I do not believe they will happen exactly as recorded since it was mostly symbolic visions.

Why not? You believe that prophecy can be suspended; what's to keep it from being dissolved?
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
You are making a wrong assumption about the time frame that is not necessary, so you have a false dichotomy (reject the book or see it as suspended).

How so? Why is it wrong to accept words as they are written? Because they don't align with the facts?

The evidence is that we should not reject the canonical, inspired book, so we are left with an interpretative issue. There are other possibilities besides your one idea.

What evidence? What other possibilities?

If you are assuming a closed, narrow, predictive prophecy that does not allow God to decide when to pull the plug, then you are limited to your options, perhaps. If you recognize that Rev. 1-3 is historically fulfilled in the first century and that Rev. 4-22 is yet future without an explicit statement that it must end in the first century (preterism) or historically, then there is a delay (2 Peter 3:9) that fits with His sovereignty and responsiveness depending on contingencies. Soon for God is also not the same as soon for mortals who live a wisp of time.

I'm assuming a prophecy based on the words of the prophecy... nothing more; nothing less. The prophecy says "soon." Why would anyone want to interpret it any other way? Wouldn't that be adding to the prophecy?

Regarding Revelation 1-3 fulfilled in the first century...well that's a stretch. Jesus is speaking to the churches mentioned here. How would what he says come to pass and be fulfilled in the first centuries? The persecutions of the Romans? There's no Bible way to know this. The only way to know if Revelations 1-3 was fulfilled in the first centuries is to study history...in depth...and accept the writings of the church fathers and the Catholic Church as authoritative. Which may in fact be the only way to know these things anyway.

God's intention could have been to set up the kingdom sooner than later. When Israel rejected Christ, the gap of the indeterminate church age (which was not explicitly prophesied, but would be a gap between Daniel's 69/70th week) can take place between Rev. 3 and 4 without having to reject the book. Whether Rev. 4-22 would have been fulfilled in 150 A.D., or whether it is fulfilled in 2050 A.D., it will be fulfilled.

Maybe that's true. It would sure support MAD doctrine if so. The point is that it's fine to interpret this book in this light if not for the fact that a time frame was placed upon the words. It obviously was, and the time frame obviously passed. So now what?

You are making much of the word soon/quickly, while dismissing a reasonable explanation (futurist) for most of the book. There is no historical precedent for Rev. 4-22 fulfillment, so it is yet future. To read some history into it requires fanciful, subjective, nonsensical allegory (like cults do with it reading their own modern history into verses?!) vs normative, literal approach.

First of all, a literal approach would accept the words in the way they were written. A literal approach would interpret the scriptures here to have been fulfilled by the end of the second century....at the latest.

Making too much of the word soon/quickly is to accept the words for what they are; as they are. I don't see why you would criticize this. Normally, I have respect for what you say....I consider it. I think you are one who has studied much and usually knows what you're talking about. In this case, it seems you want to bend literal word to accomodate your own preconceived notions.

So, check some commentaries are your stumbling block verse (soon/quickly), consider Open Theism and the dynamic nature of the future and God changing His mind, and you should be able to accept the book at face value. As well, consider that much of it is panoramic, cyclical vs linear, symbolic, etc., vague enough to not have to been exhaustive definite foreknowledge on God's part (He can orchestrate things and the details are not such that they have to be seen far in advance).

Sometimes commentaries are helpful - sometimes they are worth jack-diddley...because the people writing them obviously don't have a clue; or they ignore the issue all together.

Other prophecies were conditional or did not have a wooden literalism fulfillment. A prediction, though, would come to pass if God says it would. So, the prophecy is more flexible than an explicit prediction like I will come back to Jerusalem and set up the millennial kingdom in 70 A.D., 1000 A.D., 2014 A.D., etc.

Other Bible prophecies aren't like the Revelation.

God can delay His coming without negating Revelation. I don't believe God fixed the date in eternity past nor in the first century for the Second Coming. He may or may not have done so at this point. Perhaps Today, but not necessarily.

We do know that He will come, judgments will happen, Satan will be cast into the lake of fire, etc. because God has the ability to do this (Is. 46 and 48 ability, not prescience).

God can do whatever he wants - that's the nice thing about being God.

But God has also layed out some clear parameters for how he operates, and saying things that are false isn't one of them.

I would not base my whole view on soon/quickly (tree) vs God's flexible, unfolding plan (forest).

Then you can't be one who claims to believe the Bible literally unless there is a clear reason not to.....without hypocrisy.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
So you are admitting they did call people liars. Paul withstood Peter to his face because he was to be blamed. Just like you...

We do not dispute the harsh words of Jesus and Paul to Pharisees/unbelievers/hypocrites.

I do dispute when idiots like you claim the support of Jesus/Paul to call fellow Christians demonized, etc.
 

Paulos

New member
If Revelation didn't have any time frame associated with it...I wouldn't say anything about it. But it does. It says soon. These things will happen soon.

2 Peter 3:8-9
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.​
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Within a few years or decades.
So you believe it was initially supposed to happen that soon?

Nope it didn't. And there's a reason of which I'm sure you're familiar.. repentance. The people of Nineveh believed the word, harkened unto it.
Yeah, I addressed that when I mentioned God's previous words.

Why not? You believe that prophecy can be suspended; what's to keep it from being dissolved?
With all the record of reference to it I see it as something God isn't going to change. The timeline changed, but it's still going to happen; when the fulness of the Gentiles comes in.
 
Top