Afterthoughts From the First Resurrection Debate
Regarding Revelation 20

I do not intend for this post be added to the debate since I do not wish to unnecessarily prolong it.

However, I do wish to clear a few things up regarding what I perceive to be misconceptions you have concerning how i understand doctrine.

It is definitely true that you and I interpret the Revelation from different principles of interpretation. The difference of course is the difference between the historicist approach and the preterist approach.

However, I do believe you are mistaken in your analysis of my approach to the Millenium, especially as relates to the time frames. I do not find a reference in scripture to "a day" and then willy-nilly say "this teaches us the Millenium will be a thousand years" or such. The idea that the Millennium is the seventh Millenium is an idea which I obtain from the apostles explicit statement that the current heavens and earth are reserved unto fire by "the same word" that brought destruction upon the old world of Noah's day. I know you do not agree with that understanding, and that is fine. However, it is not "gnostic" by any stretch and I wonder why you persist in thinking that it is. History shows us that the ones who first opposed Millennialism were in fact the gnostics and the allegorists like Clement of Alexandria and Origen.

I believe that we should accept as doctrine that which is explicitly stated in Scripture. 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.

You seem to think that the Millennial understanding is based exclusively on the Revelation. It is not. The thousand year duration of this Millennium may be based on Revelation's clear statement, but the Millennial kingdom itself is not based exclusively on the Revelation.

Perhaps in a "short while" I may post an essay on the Millennium, for the purpose of simply informing you and other partial preterists here as to what Millennialism actually is, because I notice a lot of misconceptions among preterists, and even among futurists, conerning this subject. I am not of course offering another debate, just an essay followed with discussions.

I think it would be greatly beneficial for both of us, indeed for all who come here, if we could perhaps have a discussion relating to the hermeneutics we should follow - not just in regard to prophecy, but to doctrine in general. This is something I have never seen apostolics tackle head on - a clear presentation of how to read the Bible and understand what is being taught. I believe that somehow, somewhere, we should be able to determine the apostles' own hermeneutic, from Scripture itself. I have seen many books and articles on hermeneutics, but they all depend primarily on rational a priori presuppostions that, although may be true, do not answer the question, "What does the bible itself tell us about how to interpret the bible?"

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.

Once a proper apostolic hermeneutic has been established, we can then apply it to any area of the scripture, any doctrine, and see what the Bible teaches. I think this would go a long way toward freeing us from borrowed theologies and eschatologies and soteriologies et al. For too long we have simply "adapted" various "ologies" to our understanding, instead of starting from scratch and seeing what the bible itself teaches us. I realise such a task cannot be completed here on an internet forum, but surely we can lay a groundwork for further investigation and prayerful study in that direction?

Anyway, I did enjoy the debate (even if you still don't see the truth of my position lol). And i was wondering, on a side note, would you be willing to participate in a thread styled something like "questions for partial preterism" where we could ask questions about your understanding of prophecy? I do not mean debate, nor do i mean "trying to convince you of error". I mean simply asking questions relative to how preterism understands the Revelation and the Olivet discourse, Daniel, Thessalonians, etc. Or perhaps that would have to be a private discussion to avoid having any debating interjected into the discussion. I realise sometimes it is easier to teach when you don't have to go down various rabbit trails and refute rebuttals, etc etc.

peace-