tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post7567533370965644061..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: What was and is and is to comeRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-30614453616473809812010-10-22T22:45:51.199-04:002010-10-22T22:45:51.199-04:00(continued)
Steve said "What are you even ref...(continued)<br />Steve said <b><i>"What are you even referring to?"</i></b><br /><br />Fundamentally I was referring to the relationship between prophecy and overall history (beginning to end).<br /><br />It stands to reason that if we make flawed assumptions about what we believed happened in history, we will likewise make flawed assumptions about whether or not prophecy has been fulfilled. Likewise we will also make flawed assumptions about which historical events prophecy specifically narrates, assuming events in the past are the only ones we can currently appreciate WRT fulfilment.<br /><br />Similarly (and for the sake of argument), if our overall orthodoxy between testaments lacks cohesion, our sense of prophetic language will also lack cohesion and will make understanding prophetic narrative very difficult.<br /><br />(Incidentally, I'm not overstating this last point;<br /><br />Of the Bible's 31124 or so verses, approximately 23210 of those verses are OT. Of the 74.57% of the Bible which is OT, approximately 6641 of those OT verses are prophetic or predictive in nature.<br /><br />Of the remaining 7914 NT verses, about 1711 of those verses are considered predictive or prophetic.<br /><br />This means approximately 8352 verses in total are predictive or prophetic which is roughly just under 27% of the entire Bible.)<br /><br />If we consider that God has a specific plan for His elect, beginning to end, than it stands to reason that prophecy is either that Historical sub-plot exactly, or related to it.<br /><br />Steve said: <i><b>"No, the question is to identify the historical outlook of a given prophet. There's no rule of thumb."</b></i><br /><br />If the primary author of prophecy is God, and man is only the secondary author, and God sees the entire narrative beginning to end, I'm not sure this needs to be true.<br /><br />In fact, specifically pegging the historical outlook of a given prophet, especially if our understanding of history is wrong, could be the source of obfuscation in the first place, as our frame of reference is the trees rather than the forest.<br /><br />This was a good post, Steve.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69087034937626525172010-10-22T22:45:13.168-04:002010-10-22T22:45:13.168-04:00Steve said "As Fee rightly points out, we nee...Steve said <b><i>"As Fee rightly points out, we need to distinguish between the biblical concept of prophecy and the English meaning of the term. They're not interchangeable."</i></b><br /><br />Yes. I completely agree, this <b>is</b> the goal, which is why I was pondering the nature of prophecy. The challenge is to truly understand the intended biblical concept of prophecy. I suppose I was hinting that one of the impediments to succeeding at this is the continued tendency to interpret prophecy with an eschatological prejudice.<br /><br />Steve said <b><i>"Moreover, it's arguable that Revelation isn't reducible to just one literary genre."</i></b><br /><br />I think you're correct about this, but even if we broaden our understanding of the prophetic/apocalyptic genre by flushing out its parts, theologians still tend to impose certain expectations on the reading of the text (Ill amplify this comment shortly). <br /><br />Steve said <b><i>"I didn't venture any claims about the scope of prophecy in general:"</i></b><br /><br />I know.<br /><br />The first part of my comment was not specifically critiquing what you had said. Rather, it was to develop a hypothetical line of thought to question whether our presuppositions about the intended scope of prophecy limited our ability to get at the proper Biblical concept of prophecy.ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75387806851575128962010-10-22T18:58:57.753-04:002010-10-22T18:58:57.753-04:00ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:
"Doesn't eschatology, as ...ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ SAID:<br /><br />"Doesn't eschatology, as a matter of course, only concern itself with the 'end of all things'? (therefore the presupposition is that the scope of prophecy only illuminates eschatological events)"<br /><br />As Fee rightly points out, we need to distinguish between the biblical concept of prophecy and the English meaning of the term. They're not interchangeable.<br /><br />"So an Eschatological understandings of prophecy will also confine its scope only to those interpretations that specifically illuminate narrow end-time questions, which means people will constantly be seeking confirmation about prophecy in specific events."<br /><br />You're operating with prefabricated categories rather than dealing with the specific scope of Revelation. <br /><br />Moreover, it's arguable that Revelation isn't reducible to just one literary genre. <br /><br />"But, if the intended scope of prophecy is to illuminate all of history (where prophecy is history pre-written), and the restoration of creation is a foregone eschatological conclusion, than won't there be tension between the prophetic vision itself and various interpretations?"<br /><br />I didn't venture any claims about the scope of prophecy in general: my post was confined to the specific outlook of Revelation.<br /><br />"Even if the scope of prophecy isn't to illuminate all of history but merely a non-eschatological part of history, won't this be true?"<br /><br />That's a false dichotomy. But in any event, whatever Revelation illuminates it will do so truthfully.<br /><br />"If its true that it is too simplistic to reduce John's vision to a monolithic event, then is it also too simplistic to reduce it to an entire historical sub-plot?"<br /><br />What are you even referring to?<br /><br />"So isn't the question is prophecy fundamentally eschatological in nature or isn't it?"<br /><br />No, the question is to identify the historical outlook of a given prophet. There's no rule of thumb. You have to see what he actually talks about. You can't begin with a preconceived classification scheme which you superimpose on his oracles.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-61360093609226825592010-10-22T16:18:07.341-04:002010-10-22T16:18:07.341-04:00Here in time and space we witness invisible forces...Here in time and space we witness invisible forces, invisible forces that become visible and visible forces that become invisible.<br /><br />It all happens in time and space.<br /><br />There is a verse I like to reference when thinking along the lines of this thread.<br /><br />It places us in a collision route with destiny.<br /><br />Here it is. Note the similarity with your point, well taken, above:<br /><br /><b><i>Act 26:16 But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you,</i></b><br /><br />Of course, now, after all these years, one can realize that Paul isn't so much concerned with "...<i>those in which I will appear to you,</i> ...".<br /><br />Though it is almost easy to say that it is 100% certain that Paul has left this world and entered into the Joy of the Lord after he passed out of this world and out of his flesh container, it is 100% certain that the just shall life by Faith and the Faith lived by is the Faith once delivered to the Saints, delivered through the Blood of His Cross by the sanctification work of the Holy Spirit!<br /><br />There are only two ways of approaching it:<br /><br /><b>Hab 2:3 For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end--it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay. <br />Hab 2:4 "Behold, his soul is puffed up; it is not upright within him, but the righteous shall live by his faith. <br />Hab 2:5 "Moreover, wine is a traitor, an arrogant man who is never at rest. His greed is as wide as Sheol; like death he has never enough. He gathers for himself all nations and collects as his own all peoples."</b><br /><br />So, I guess the only one who knows for sure when enough will be enough will be the Lord and those present when He is Present again as it is foretold, here:<br /><br /><b><i>Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, <br />Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.</i></b><br /><br />John did write this foreboding Word as a future Word as well:<br /><br /><b><i><a rel="nofollow">Rev 1:7 Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. <br />Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."</a></i></b><br /><br />I conclude, this is about as good a time to pray in communion with the Lord as yesterday's! :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76852941898853576652010-10-22T15:41:49.528-04:002010-10-22T15:41:49.528-04:00Steve wrote: "On that account it would be sim...Steve wrote: <b><i>"On that account it would be simplistic to reduce John’s futuristic vision to a monolithic event.</i></b><br /><br />Doesn't eschatology, as a matter of course, only concern itself with the <i>'end of all things'</i>? (therefore the presupposition is that the scope of prophecy only illuminates eschatological events)<br /><br />So an Eschatological understandings of prophecy will also confine its scope only to those interpretations that specifically illuminate narrow end-time questions, which means people will constantly be seeking confirmation about prophecy in specific events.<br /><br />But, if the intended scope of prophecy is to illuminate all of history (where prophecy is history pre-written), and the restoration of creation is a foregone eschatological conclusion, than won't there be tension between the prophetic vision itself and various interpretations?<br /><br />Even if the scope of prophecy isn't to illuminate all of history but merely a non-eschatological part of history, won't this be true?<br /><br />If its true that it is too simplistic to reduce John's vision to a monolithic event, then <b>is it also too simplistic to reduce it to an entire historical sub-plot</b>?<br /><br />So isn't the question <i>is prophecy fundamentally eschatological in nature or isn't it</i>?ἐκκλησίαhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01011648681141436328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34727200327169121862010-10-22T14:22:24.513-04:002010-10-22T14:22:24.513-04:00"History has a destination, but it doesn’t ta..."History has a destination, but it doesn’t take the shortest route."<br /><br />Ain't that the truth.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com