Afterthoughts of Debate Regarding Revelation 20

Hi brother,

You wish me to address your approach upon determining doctrine once again. You claim my analysis of your approach to the millennium is incorrect. I disagree. Even after reading your clarification, I continue to maintain my position. You are basing your approach, according to this latest note, upon your concept of what the phrase "by the same word" means in Peter's writings. Although you accept the fact that I disagree with your thoughts on this, you claim I incorrectly assess your methods as gnostic. I disagree. I still insist your methods are gnostic. This latest note only confirms that to me.

You are claiming the statement "by the same word" is not generally speaking about God's Word in these sense that the same general authority we come to know and love about God's Word is involved in this prophecy. You claim it is speaking about a certain statement God made, and that statement referring to "seven days" in both creation and Noah's experience.

You then continue your guilt by association at this point by implying those opposing chiliasm were in fact the gnostics. As if that had anything to do with our conversation.

The point is that Peter did not say "by the same word" is directly referring to a specific statement by God concerning "seven days". That is pure assumption at best. But the gnostic part that scares me is your insistence that this is what Peter referred to, and therefore you demand something other than explicit statements to the fact in order to realize that you are indeed correct. In other words, special knowledge again, that is not plainly found in scripture. There is the gnostic element.

You assume far too much into Peter's words. You have no right, neither do I, to assume a certain phrase that God spoke is what is referred to in Peter's words, in order to establish a millennium doctrine that is nowhere found in explicit teachings in the Bible, when Peter did not state what such a phrase might be. In fact, there is no specific phrase Peter is alluding to at all! It's just the veracity of God's word that is well known to be true in creation and the flood is to be recognized in the words concerning the dissolving of the earth. God proved Himself true in creation and the flood. That is the "same word" we can trust regarding the dissolving. It's the same God speaking. It's thereby the same "word."  And if Peter WAS alluding to a certain phrase, neither of us have the authority to pinpoint which one it was.


I agree with you when you state, "I believe that we should accept as doctrine that which is explicitly stated in Scripture." But you imply Revelation is a source for doctrines that are not found written anywhere else in the Bible, when you write, "The apostle Paul gave us this principle, when he said ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, etc. This tells me that our doctrine is to come from Scripture, and from Scripture alone. I believe the Revelation is scripture, therefore it is profitable for doctrine. I do not believe - as you do - that the Revelation can contain no new information." And here is another reason for the impossibility for our discussion to profit any further, because you do not recognize what is and what is not a source for doctrine. I stated many, many times, and you continue to reject my words, that Revelation is too apocalyptic. And whether you agree or not, you give anybody the right to come on up and claim Jesus is a lamb with seven actual horns, because you have taken something from the same book that is just as much left without interpretation or disclaimer as to it's symbolic purpose or not, and made a doctrine out of it. I repeat, that is extreme and dangerous determination of doctrine. I reject it wholeheartedly. Nothing in Revelation is FOUNDATION for doctrine, although it is PROFITABLE for doctrine. Something profitable can merely support doctrines that are contained in scripture, but that does not mean every verse is a source for doctrine. Believing what you claim you believe would demand you agree that the Song of Solomon has doctrinal teaching in it that is not found in explicit teaching form anywhere else in scripture. You are very, very wrong, brother, in your assessment of how to divide scripture for doctrinal purposes. I cannot warn you of this error enough.

You claim Millennial teaching is not solely based upon scripture in Revelation. I deny that. The thought of one thousand years is part and parcel with the doctrine, despite your claims that the idea of a future Kingdom is noted elsewhere in Scripture. The entire label of the millennial teaching is based upon that number. And I refute every reference you might make to a millennial kingdom based upon my accusation that you are naturalizing prophecies that regard the church age and the church age only.

Should you not demand a physical 1000 years, and concentrate upon a kingdom in the future after the church age, on the earth, then that is somewhat of another story. However, that would still be error in naturalizing what the prophets intended us to understand about the church.

You correctly stated, "I think that is greatly needed among our people today, a clear understanding of how to approach scripture, based on what scripture itself tells us in that regard." However, I fear you, yourself, do not correctly approach scripture. To say that Peter's words "by the same word" directly refers to God's words about a "seven day period", and then to spiritualize the seven days into seven thousand years, without Peter saying anything of the sort in anything he wrote, is simply far below the level of acceptance in how to determine doctrine for the apostolic church. That kind of hermeneutic is wide open for flights of fancy concerning types and leaves it to anyone to guess what general references of certain words of God directly refer to or not. What statement of God could someone else claim Peter referred to, based upon your manner of assuming any number of actual statements? Again, the sky is the limit! And God would never leave us with such varying and divergent manners of thought that take us to an untold number of divergent conclusions.

In closing I again thank you for your participation in this discussion, and direct you to a forum I started this past week where we can have questions proposed, that is strictly monitored to avoid straying from topic. Please feel free to join and get involved at:

http://p219.ezboard.com/bthatimayknowhimforum