[Paleopsych] Old Design: Amillennials, Premillennials, Postmillennials, Historists, Praeterists, and Spiritualists

Premise Checker checker at panix.com
Tue Oct 4 22:08:27 UTC 2005

Amillennials, Premillennials, Postmillennials, Historists, Praeterists, and 

[This looks like a good rundown of the various major viewpoints.]

    There is a great debate that has constantly raged among theologians
    upon the subject of what they call eschatology, which is a term that
    they have developed to refer to the study of the "end times" or the
    last age of time of humanity upon the earth. Many, if not most Amills,
    Premills and Historists are to some degree futurists, as they see most
    or some degree of prophecy to be yet fulfilled, which fulfillment may
    also include the final dissolution of the natural or physical universe
    or cosmos.

    There are two main groups of Millennialists, The Pre and the Post,
    with the Premills being the largest; but with many variations of
    ideas, and many subdivisions exist among them .

    The Postmillennials believe that there will be a period of great
    tribulation for the saints AFTER the Milliennium, while the
    Premillennials believe that this period of tribulation will take place
    BEFORE the Milliennium (a literal 1000 year personal reign of Christ
    upon earth.)

    The Premillennials and the Amillennials:

    The Amillennialists

    The Amillennials generally hold that the Kingdom of Christ on earth is
    NOW, Amills believe that the kingdom is physical and spiritual in
    nature, (though they disagree greatly as to the extent of the
    spirituality and physicalness of the Kingdom;) That the kingdom is now
    spiritually present within those He deems to be His people, and this
    kingdom will literally, spiritually and chronologically continue until
    Christ bodily returns in a great cosmological event, when He will
    destroy the physical earth by fire, (and many believe that He will
    dissolve the entire universe or cosmos at this same time also, and
    that Time will cease to exist as a creation of God; but again, there
    are some variations of their views on this.)

    That He will reassemble the biological bodies of all the human race
    from the elements of the earth, and perhaps from beyond, into the
    original of their former earthly state, change their earthly physical
    bodies into "spiritual" bodies, then raise them into the atmosphere or
    some other place, where Christ will then hold a Great Tribunal, while
    seated upon a literal Great White Throne - That He will resurrect the
    righteous first, and then the remainder of those who are alive upon
    the earth; That He will separate the "sheep from the goats", judge all
    according to their past deeds, whether good or bad, and those who are
    judged wicked, to an everlasting or eternal punishment for their
    wickedness, cast these wicked into a literal burning lake of fire,
    where they will eternally suffer punishment for their sins against God
    and the light of nature. Some Amills believe that the wicked and
    righteous will all be literally resurrected from their physical graves
    at the same time, but the righteous will be judged not quilty, Some
    hold that the righteous only will be resurrected, while the wicked are
    directly consigned to everlasting punishment.

    Those, (after their bodies have been changed) will be judged righteous
    in Christ in God's sight, and will be exonerated from all punishment
    by the judgment of Christ, and then carried to the Eternal Heaven to
    live with God forever.

    -But again, there are many more variations of the above, and this is
    only a general representation of the ideas that Amills hold on

    Some Amills and other schools are regarded by most Millennialists as
    taking excessive liberty in allegorizing and "spiritualizing" the
    Scriptures, while Premills claim they hold a more "literal",
    chronological interpretation which is more consistent with the "time
    frames" of prophecy.

    (Whether this claim is really true or not, can be critically examined
    in the opinion of the present writer.)

    This is just a general sketch that represents the common view of
    Amills. Of course there are many variations of specific details within
    the Amillennial scenario.

    "The third generic view of the interpretation of the facts of
    Scripture relating to eschatology, is called Amillennialism. The name
    itself is unfortunate in that it would seem to indicate that its
    advocates do not believe in the thousand year period of Revelation 20.
    The name literally means `no millennium,' while as a matter of fact,
    its advocates believe that the Millennium is a spiritual or heavenly
    Millennium, rather than an earthly one of a literal reign of Christ on
    earth before the final judgment. From one point of view, it might be
    called a variety of Postmillennialism, since it believes that the
    spiritual or heavenly Millennium precedes the second coming of
    Christ." Floyd E. Hamilton

    The Premillennialists

    Futurists, of whom are the Milliannists, according to some writers,
    were very small or nearly non-existent during the last half of the
    nineteenth century, but there has been quite a resurgence of those who
    hold this view of eschatology during the 20th Century, though at the
    present time seems to be again losing some ground. (beginning of the
    21st Century)

    Premillennialists (or dispensationalists as they are usually called)
    generally hold that the present Kingdom of Christ, or the gospel
    dispensation exists, but it exists only as an interim period, and that
    it was instituted because the Jews rejected Jesus as The true Messiah.
    Many, if not most of them believe that His coming in the flesh to the
    Jews was based upon a conditional "offer" of salvation to the Jews, in
    order that He might establish a literal political kingdom among them;
    that this was God's "original intention for Christ's Kingdom on earth;
    but since they rejected this "offer", He then postponed the
    establishment of this same type of kingdom until a later period, which
    will then comprise their Millennium under consideration. Some Premills
    that are Arminian in sentiment hold that the actual and final
    fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant was conditional to the natural
    Jew under the Law, but wll be unconditional to the future
    establishment of the coming millenium (which will be headed up by
    natural Jews) and the present gospel (church) kingdom is a conditional
    covenant to believers in Christ!

    Millennialists generally hold that the prophecies and promises of the
    O.T. Scriptures applied to (or were exclusively for) the natural Jews
    only, and will finally be fullfilled to these as such in their coming
    millianium; That Christ made another covenant with those called under
    the Gospel Dispensation, and that this covenant is only to be
    temporary; but His main covenant is and has always been with the
    original Israelites as a nation, and He will finally restore them and
    give them life again when He reverts again to this covenant, and when
    they will again be recognized as the main body of His favor, and graft
    them again into their own Tree of original promises made to them.

    - But again there are quite a few variations within this general

    Many Milliannists claim that Amillennialism (kingdom is NOW present)
    is not founded upon the Scriptures, or the general doctrine of the
    "end-times" as generally believed by the early church fathers, and
    that according to the writings of the fathers and other secular
    historians of that age, the doctrines of Amillennialism were largely
    invented by Augustine, Origen and other church fathers, and that the
    political actions of that age, especially those of Constantine,
    greatly attributed to the process of establishing Amillennialism as
    the leading doctrine of the Catholic Church.

    To quote from some authors:

    "The Premillennial school of interpreters are electionists in
    doctrine, holding that God has foretold that not everyone, in this
    present age, will be saved, but rather that, through a world-wide
    preaching of the Gospel there will be gathered from the Jews and
    Gentiles a people for His name. Such interpreters further hold that
    when this promise has been fulfilled, the Lord will gather His people
    to Himself and then, personally, bodily, literally and visibly return
    to earth and that following this, He will set up a Kingdom upon earth
    with its center at Jerusalem which will be particularly related to the
    Jews but world-wide in its influence and beneficence. They also hold
    that this kingdom will endure for exactly one thousand years. That
    after this time, the new heavens and earth will be brought into view
    and then, that eternity, with its rewards for the saved and punishment
    for the lost, will follow." Henry W. Frost (The Second Coming of
    Christ, p.152)

    (The Basis of Millennial Faith, p.35) "In ecclesiology, the main
    doctrine of the Church, Premillenarianism has a firm basis. The main
    point in question is whether or not the Church is a distinct body in
    this present age. If the Church is not a subject of Old Testament
    prophecy, then the Church is not fulfilling Israel's promises but
    instead Israel herself must fulfill them and that in the future. In
    brief, Premillennialism with a dispensational view recognizes the
    Church as a distinct entity, distinct from Israel in her beginning, in
    her relation to this age and her promises. If the Church is not a
    distinct body, then the door is open wide for Amillennialism to enter
    with its ideas that the Church is some sort of full-bloomed
    development of Judaism and the fulfiller of Israel's promise of
    blessing (but not of judgment). Thus Premillenialism and ecclesiology
    are inseparably related." Charles C. Ryrie (The Basis of Premillennial
    faith, p.126)


    While the Praeterists hold that most, if not all Scripture prophecy
    was fulfilled in 70 A.D. and shortly following, the Historists believe
    that Divine prophecy is gradually being fulfilled throughout the
    succeeding ages of time, and especially that the Revelation to John
    described these unfolding events in prophecy. One argument that
    Historists use to support this and to mitigate the statements in
    Revelation concerning the things that must shortly be done is that
    they contend that Revelation was written in 96 A.D. (which is the
    traditional view held by most Futurists,) instead of BEFORE the
    destruction of ancient Jerusalem, or around 64-68 A.D, which date most
    Praeterists contend for - Historists attempt to leave much room in
    their eschatology for prophecy to yet be fulfilled. Many of them along
    with the Amills, (many of whom are of the Historist school) say that
    Daniels seventy weeks did not actually end in 70 AD, but rather in the
    middle of the last week of Daniels prophecy. (Dan 9) Many say that
    revelations to man from God did not end at the time of the appearance
    of Christ with His propitiation for sin, but will continue until the
    "end of time" or until the dissolution of all things. In contrast with
    the Praeterists, Most Historists believe that although Christ finished
    His redemptive work at the cross, yet God's revelation to man was not
    complete in Christ at that time, but must be gradually fulfilled
    throughout succeeding ages of time :

    We have demonstrated in our short discourse that for the "seventy
    weeks" to have ended at the fall of Jerusalem would have required
    another "break" in time, similar to how the Futurists view this
    prophecy. This was proved by applying the "Day for a Year" principle,
    which is firmly grounded in Scripture. The subject of the Day for a
    Year is so rich that it deserves a thorough study of its own. The
    "seventy weeks" concerned itself not with announcing the end of God's
    revelations to man but rather with the appearance of Jesus Christ, His
    ministry and the call of the Gentiles or Nations into Salvation.
    Again, why were the "seventy weeks" determined? To finish the
    transgression; to make an end of sins; to make reconciliation for
    iniquity; to bring in everlasting righteousness; to seal up the vision
    and prophecy; and to anoint the most Holy! Bill and Sandy Kalivas

    (But when Philip Mauro, Anstey and other "seventy week" writers apply
    the day for a year principle they get 70 AD as the fulfillment of the
    predicted 490 years of Daniel.)

    Historicism is a satisfying and godly view of Revelation. It allows
    for God's hand to be seen in our past, present and future. Events
    which have been considered political in nature are shown to be
    fulfillment of His recorded word. No other interpretation offers this.
    Praeterism, placing Revelation behind us and Futurism, placing
    Revelation before us, put these revealing prophecies out of our
    present lives. Bill and Sandy Kalivas

    The Preterists

    There are two general groups of Preterists, The Full Preterists, and
    the Partial Preterists. The Amills and Preterists are actually in more
    general agreement than are the Amills and Premills, though many
    Premills and Amills would deny this, largely because many Amills
    charge most Preterists, (especially Full Preterists) with denying a
    resurrection of the physical (bodies of) the saints, because most
    Amills, along with futurists in general, look upon the resurrection in
    a physical way or as a great event that will transpire with great
    literal glory and display that may be perceived by human physical

    A Full Preterist, or one who holds to what is commonly called
    "fullfilled eschatology" emphasizes along with some hybrid
    Preterist-Amills, that the prophecies and promises made by God through
    the Old Testament Prophets were fullfilled in their entirety by the
    Advent of Christ and during the succeeding Apostolic Age, sometimes
    including a resurrection of the O. T. saints along with that of the
    then present age saints and transpired at the end of the Apostolic
    Age) and that since many of them believe that Christ destroyed death
    itself in His Death and Resurrection, (including the power of physical
    death over their soul,) death has no more power over the saints to
    hold them captive in literal and biological graves (which Amills
    generally deny, for they believe that the resurrection of saints is
    yet in the future.) Amills and Premills alike often interject the
    resurrection issue into their controversy with Preterists for support
    of their own eschatology. Therefore, many Amills seem to think that
    all Preterists deny a bodily resurrection, but that all Preterists
    hold to mere spiritualism; (This does not seem to be the case in my
    researches so far. It seems that most Preterists view only the nature
    of the resurrection in a different way from the traditional or
    catholic view.)

    Praeterists especially emphasize that the predictions of judgment upon
    the Jews as contained in the words of Christ and found in such
    passages as Matt Chapters 23-25, and many other passages in the Old
    and New Testament, which many other interpreters choose to apply to
    various other scenarios and events in history - that have either
    already transpired, or are merely speculative in these interpreters
    imaginations. (see Farrar below) but to Preterists, these prophecies
    refer specifically to those horrific events that climaxed with the
    total destruction of the Jewish nation, and did not in any way refer
    to a far-off futuristic period. Many Amills agree with this history up
    to this point, but there they pretty much part company with the
    Praeterists,, because most Amills believe that the kingdom of Christ
    was fully established at or shortly after Christs Intercession.

    Praeterists believe the events referred to in His Olivet Discourse
    were the near-approching calamities (35-40 years distant) that would
    finally and literally consumate and terminate the Law Dispensation,
    and would be the attending sign that would hearld this.

    In some things the Amills, Historists and Praeterists can agree, but
    the average Preterist runs head-on with the Premills, because Premills
    put all of this prophetic history in the far future from Christ and
    the Apostles time.- Although some Amills would be of a different
    opinion, and say that the Amills and Premills really have more in
    common in their beliefs, because Preterists believe that the Old
    Economy was not ushered out at the actual time of the redemptive work
    of Christ, therefore some futurists are revolted at the notion that it
    took the actions of Titus in 70 AD to finally accomplish all that was
    written concerning Christ; and so they say that this idea demeans
    Christ and His work, and leaves the final accomplishment of
    establishing His Spiritual Kingdom in the hands of a Roman general.

    Here are some quotes from a Praeterist of the past: (Frederic W.
    Farrar - 1882)

    There have been three great schools of Apocalyptic interpretation :-
    1. The Præterists, who regard the book as having been mainly
    fulfilled. 2. The Futurists, who refer it to events which are still
    wholly future. 3. The Continuous-Historical Interpreters, who see in
    it an outline of Christian history from the days of St. John down to
    the End of all things. The second of these schools -- the Futurists --
    has always been numerically small, and at present may be said to be

    The school of Historical Interpreters was founded by the Abbot Joachim
    early in the 13th century, and was specially flourishing in the first
    fifty years of the present century. [There are two schools of the
    interpreters who make the Apocalypse a prophecy of all Christian
    history. The school of Bengel, Vitringo, Elliott, &c., make it mainly
    a history of the Church. Another school regards it more generally, and
    less specifically, as an outline of Epochs of the History of the world
    and the great forces which shape it into a Kingdom of God. To this
    latter school belong Hengstenberg, Ebrard, Auberlen, &c.]

    The views of the Præterists have been adopted, with various shades of
    modification, by Grotius, Hammond, Le Clerc, Bousset, Eichorn, Hug,
    Wetstein, Ewald, Herder, Zullig, Bleek, DeWette, Lucke, Moses Stuart,
    Davidson, Volkmar, Krenkel, Dusterdieck, Renan, and almost the whole
    school of modern German critics and interpreters. It has been usual to
    say that the Spanish Jesuit Alcasar, in his Vestigatio arcani sensus
    in Apocalpysi (1614), was the founder of the Præterist School, and it
    certainly seems as if to him must be assigned the credit of having
    first clearly enunciated the natural view that the Apocalypse, like
    all other known Apocalypses of the time, describes events nearly
    contemporaneous, and is meant to shadow forth the triumph of the
    Church in the struggle first with Judaism and then with Heathendom.
    But to me it seems that the founder of the Præterist School is none
    other than St. John himself. For he records the Christ as saying to
    him when he was in the Spirit, "Write the things which thou sawest,
    and THE THINGS WHICH ARE, and the things which are about to happen
    after these things." No language surely could more clearly define the
    bearing of the Apocalypse. It is meant to describe the contemporary
    state of things in the Church and the world, and the events which were
    to follow in immediate sequence. If the Historical School can strain
    the latter words into an indication that we are (contrary to all
    analogy) to have a symbolic and unintelligible sketch of many
    centuries, the Præterist School may at any rate apply these words,
    "THE THINGS WHICH ARE," to vindicate the application of a large part
    of the Apocalypse to events nearly contemporary, while they also give
    the natural meaning to the subsequent clause by understanding it of
    events which were then on the horizon. The Seer emphatically says that
    the future events which he has to foreshadow will occur speedily
    [Compare Tachu (Rev. 22. 5,16 ; iii.11; xi.14 ; xxii.20). It is
    curious to see with what extraordinary ease commentators explain the
    perfect simple and ambiguous expression "speedily" to mean any length
    of time which they may choose to demand. The word "immediately," in
    Matt. xxiv.29, has been subject to similar handling, in which indeed
    all Scripture exegesis abounds.

    The failure to see that the Fall of Jerusalem and the end of the
    Mosaic Dispensation was a "Second Advent" -- and THE Second Advent
    contemplated in many of the New Testament prophecies -- has led to a
    multitude of errors..] and the recurrent burden of his whole book is
    the nearness of the Advent. Language is simply meaningless if it is to
    be so manipulated by every successive commentator as to make the words
    "speedily" and "near" to imply any number of centuries of delay. The
    Præterist method of interpretation does not, however, interfere with
    that view of prophecy which was so well defined by Dr. Arnold. This is
    the view of those who have been called the "spiritual" interpreters.
    It admits of the analogical application of prophecy to conditions
    which, in the cycles of history, bear a close resemblance to each
    other. It applies to all times the principles originally laid down
    with reference to events which were being then enacted, and starts
    with the axiom of Bacon, that divine prophecies have steps and grades
    of fulfillment through divers ages. [De Augment. Scient. ii.11.] All
    that is really valuable in the works of the Historical Interpreters
    may thus be retained. No importance can be attached to their
    limitation of particular symbols, but the better part of their labours
    may be accepted as an illustration of the manner in which the
    Apocalyptic symbols convey moral lessons which are applicable to the
    conditions of later times.

    But, apart from St. John's own words, it cannot be conceded that the
    central conception of the Præterist exegesis is a mere novelty of the
    17th century. On the contrary, we can trace from very early days the
    application of various visions to the early emperors of Pagan Rome.
    Thus Justin Martyr believed that the Antichrist would be a person who
    was close at hand, who would reign three and a half years. [Dial. c.
    Tryph. p. 250] Irenaeus also thought that Antichrist, as foreshadowed
    by the Wild Beast, would be a man ; and that "the number of the Beast"
    represented Lateinos, "a Latin," [Iren. Haer. v. 25] Hippolytus
    compares the action of the False Prophet giving life to the Beast's
    image, to Augustus inspiring fresh force into the Roman Empire. [De
    Antichristo, p.6] Later on, I shall furnish abundant evidence that a
    tradition of the ancient Church identified Nero with the Antichrist,
    and expected his literal return, just as the Jews expected the literal
    return of the Prophet Elijah. St. Victorinus (about A.D.303) counts
    the five dead emperors from Galba, and supposes that, after Nerva, the
    Beast (whom he identifies with Nero) will be recalled to life.
    ["Bestia de septem est quoniam ante ipsos reges Nero regnavit."] St.
    Augustine mentions a similar opinion. [De Civ. Dei, xx.19] The
    Pseudo-Prochorus, writing on Rev. xvii. 10, says that the "one which
    is" is meant for Domition. Bishop Andreas, in the fifth century,
    applies Rev. vi.12 to the siege of Jerusalem, and considers that
    Antichrist will be "as a king of the Romans." Bishop Arethas, on Rev.
    vii., implies that the Apocalypse was written before the Jewish War.
    The fragments of ancient comment which we possess cannot be said to
    have much intrinsic value ; but such as they are they suffice to prove
    that the tendency of modern exegesis approaches quite as nearly to the
    earliest traditions as that of the Historical School. It is a
    specially important fact that St. Augustine, as well as many others,
    recognized the partially retrogressive and iterative character of the
    later visions, and thereby sanctioned one of the most important
    principles of modern interpretation. [Id. ib. 17.] The internal
    evidence that the book was written before the Fall of Jerusalem has
    satisfied not only many Christian commentators, who are invidiously
    stigmatised as "rationalistic," but even such writers as Wetstein,
    Lucke, Neander, Stier, Auberlen, Ewald, Bleek, Gebhardt, Immer,
    Davidson, Dusterdieck, Moses Stuart, F.D. Maurice, the author of "The
    Parousia," Dean Plumptree, the authors of the Protestanten-Bibel and
    multitudes of others no less entitled to the respect of all

    If, however, the reader still looks with prejudice and suspicion on
    the only school of Apocalyptic exegesis with unites the suffrages of
    the most learned recent commentators in Germany, France, and England,
    I hardly know where he is to turn. The reason why the early date and
    mainly contemporary explanation of the book is daily winning fresh
    adherents among unbiased thinkers of every Church and school, is
    partly because it rests on so simple and secure a basis, and partly
    because no other can compete with it. It is indeed the only system
    which is built on the plain and repeated statements and indications of
    the Seer himself, and the corresponding events are so closely
    accordant with the symbols as to make it certain that this scheme of
    interpretation is the only one that can survive.

    A few specimens may suffice to show how completely other systems float
    in the air. Let us suppose that the student has found out that in
    viii.13 the true reading is "a single eagle," not an angel ; but,
    whether eagle or angel, he wants to know what the symbol means. He
    turns to the commentators, and finds that it is explained to be the
    Holy Spirit (Victorinus); or Pope Gregory the Great (Elliott); or St.
    John himself (DeLyra); or St. Paul (Zeger); or Christ himself
    (Wordsworth). The Præterists mostly take it to be simply an eagle, as
    the Scriptural type of carnage--the figure being suggested not by the
    resemblance of the word "woe!" ("ouai") to the eagle's screams, but by
    the use of the same symbol for the same purpose by our Lord in His
    discourse about the things to come. [Matt. xxiv.28.]

    But this is nothing! The student wishes to learn what is meant by the
    star fallen from heaven, in ix.1. The Historical school will leave him
    to choose between an evil spirit (Alford); a Christian heretic
    (Wordsworth); the Emperor Valens (DeLyra); Mohammed (Elliott); and,
    among others, Napoleon (Hengstenberg) ! The confusion deepens as we
    advance. The locusts are "heretics" (Bede); or Goths (Vitringa); or
    Vandals (Aureolus); or Saracens (Mede); or the mendicant orders
    (Brightman); or the Jesuits (Scherzer); or Protestants (Bellarmine).
    The same endless and aimless diversity reigns throughout the entire
    works of the Historical interpreters ; none of them seems to satisfy
    any one but himself. The elaborate anti-papal interpretation of
    Elliott--of which (to show that I am far from prejudiced) I may
    mention, in passing, that I made a careful study and a full abstract
    when I was seventeen years old-- is all but forgotten. Mr. Faber
    admits that there is not the least agreement as to the first four
    trumpets among writers of his school, and he rightly says that "so
    curious a circumstance may well be deemed the opprobrium of
    Apocalyptic interpretation, and may naturally lead us to suspect that
    the true key to the distinct application of the first four trumpets
    has never yet been found."

    Not that this school leave us any better off when we come to the seven
    thunders. They are seven unknown oracles (Mede); or events (Ebrard);
    or the seven crusades (Vitringa); or the seven Protestant kingdoms
    (Dunbar); or the Papal Bull against Luther (Elliott). The two wings of
    the great eagle in xii.14 are the two Testaments (Wordsworth); or the
    eastern and western divisions of the empire (Mede, Auberlen); or the
    Emperor Theodosius (Elliott).

    The number of the Beast -- which may be now regarded as certainly
    intended to stand for Nero -- has been made to serve for Genseric,
    Benedict, Trajan, Paul V., Calvin, Luther, Mohammed, Napoleon -- not
    to mention a host of other interpretations which no one has ever
    accepted except their authors. [The majority of guesses which have the
    least seriousness in them point to Rome, the Roman Empire, or the
    Roman Emperor.] It is needless to multiply further instances. They
    might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but their multiplicity is not
    so decisive of the futility of the principles on which they are
    selected, as is the diversity of results which are wider than the
    poles asunder. What are we to say of methods which leave us to choose
    between the applicability of a symbol to the Holy Spirit or to Pope
    Gregory, to the Two Testaments or to the Emperor Theodosius? Anyone,
    on the other hand, who accepts the Præterist system finds a wide and
    increasing consensus among competent enquirers of all nations, and can
    see an explanation of the book which is simple, natural, and noble --
    one which closely follows its own indications, and accords with those
    to be found throughout the New Testament. He sees that events, mainly
    contemporary, provide an interpretation clear in its outlines, though
    necessarily uncertain in minor details. It he takes the view of the
    Spiritualists, he may at his pleasure make the symbols mean anything
    in general and nothing in particular. If he is of the Historical
    School he must let the currents of Gieseler or Gibbon sweep him hither
    and thither at the will of the particular commentator in whom he for
    the time may chance to confide. But if he follows the guidance of a
    more reasonable exegesis, he may advance with a sure step along a path
    which becomes clearer with every fresh discovery. Frederic W. Farrar,
    1831 - 1903 D.D. , F.R,S,

    The Spiritualists

    As commented above by Farrar, Spiritualists feel, when at their own
    discretion they may make the symbols mean anything in general and
    nothing in particular, and thus it would seem that the Spirtualist
    interpreters may lose some, if sometimes not most context of the
    Scriptures; and indeed, it seems that they who follow this practice,
    many times do; while at the same time they may present many things
    that are very valuable within their specific subject- if it be in
    accordance with the general analogy of faith.

    But the danger of the straight Spiritualist approach is that these may
    rely upon this method to the extent that they are not then led to
    study and compare the historical and literal aspects of the
    Scriptures, so they may then drift entirely into the habit of
    excessively allegorizing the word of truth, so to make the Scriptures
    mean anything that may strike their fancy.

    To close with a bit of humor concerning eschatology:

    When asked to one, "What is your method of eschatology? They replied,
    "Pan-Milliannian". "What do you mean by ' "Pan" Milliannial ?' they
    replied. "I believe all things will "pan" out according to the will of
    God." With this all believers should be able to agree.

    [1]A PAN-MILLENNIAL VIEW: By Stanley Phillips

    If any perceived errors are found here, I would appreciate any

    Please direct your comments to:

    Allen Bailey

    mountaintraveler at hotmail.com


    1. http://www.geocities.com/thepredestinarian/panmill.html

More information about the paleopsych mailing list