As promised: something controversial

I shouldn't be saying this, however I'm very very tired and my ability to reason as to why it's a bad idea isn't working, so here goes.

So I was chatting to some folk on Sunday morning, and as a result of expalining what presbyterianism is I end up explaining why I believe in child baptism, which meant explaining covenant theology, which led to why I disagree with dispensationalism, involving my opinion of the rapture and tribulation and millenial rule as unbiblical, and then I ended up having to give a brief explanation of how the whole dispensational interpretation of Revalation works. I always find it fascinating how I can suddenly lose the fatigue that comes from only a couple hours sleep when I'm discussing theology that I'm really passionate about...


Aaaaanywho, someone made a ncie point to me as to why she disagreed with my summary, namely: "next time why not read revelation to explain it?"

My answer tot his was quite simple: Revelation is heavily symbolic. Trying to put a literal reading onto it, in my opinion based on a reasonable amount of study, is incorrect.

If I really wanted to attempt to summarise my views with labels, I guess I'd say historicist amillenialist, possibly tending towards idealist. But does that really explain much?

As I've said many times before, what concerns me is the present, not the future. Getting too bogged down in prophecy isn't going to make it any easier to fulfill the rgeat commision.

Incidently, if a pre-trib rapture does occur, I'm not going. The idea horrifies me. If there's going to be a tribulation, darnit I'm staying and I'm going to try and guide as many away from damnation as I can in the short space of time left. I mean, taking away everybody that can offer guidance and direction in the end times? That's sadism! SADISM I SAY!

Flame away.