You’d better pray (and pray hard!) that it doesn’t. Because if it does - it is just as likely the U.S. could be the great whore of Revelation 17 or Babylon from chapter 18 as anything else. But I think we need not lose sleep over such an exacting “interpretive scare” as all that - so long as we are losing sleep over the lessons to be drawn from it all.
The most frequent mandate in the Bible is “Don’t be afraid” or one of its several variations – “Be anxious for nothing”, “Fret not”, etc. Sleep well.
Very good. And was it the rich man who was ‘fretting not’ while poor Lazarus was lying in need on his doorstep? So long we don’t persist in killing such conscience as we have left, such an admonition remains timely, perhaps.
Not fretting does not mean being lackadaisical nor ‘care less’, but trusting that you have a good Father.
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear…
It’s not our perfect love! It is our Father’s, and he only does what is good for both him and us. So whenever I catch myself being anxious about anything, I can go crawl up on Father’s lap even when court is in session in the throne room, so to speak, and his strong arms will comfort me and shield me.
1 Like
There is no ‘perhaps’ about it, but being obedient to the laws of love is not optional.
Amen to all of that! And when the Father has comforted, encouraged, and strengthened us - and calls us to go out and do courageous and needed things (like speaking truth to power) so that others can experience that comforting care also, may we have the courage of His continued presence to obey.
Thanks for your words, Dale.
2 Likes
Yes, I gave the example of Ezekiel 23 but there are many examples in the Bible of prophecy interpreting the past. Nevertheless, they don’t reveal new historical events–unlike Gnosticism, Islam, Mormonism, and a thousand other religions and cults that use the Bible (but don’t teach the Bible).
And yes, Revelation was very much for both the 2nd-century churches to whom it was addressed and to the universal church. I’ve only had time to skim y’all’s discussion about prophecy and certainly agree that many US churches have at times had a very myopic interpretation–such as reading in the 7 stages of church history–but I can’t really debate the various schools of thought on it (I don’t even remember what the term preterest means 
!)
1 Like
In a nutshell preterism is the idea that a large majority or all of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by 70 AD. There are partial preterist like I who see a large majority of prophecy having been fulfilled by 70 AD except for the return of Jesus Christ and the final judgement. full preterist see ALL Bible prophecy having been fulfilled by 70 AD including the return of Jesus and the final judgement.
2 Likes
Speaking of dual fulfillments to prophecy, this would be cool to see:
Betelgeuse is acting strange, and astronomers are buzzing
(It would fit nicely with Luke 21:25, as mentioned before.)
I have no trouble with preterism and the imagery it presumes, as long as it allows for the possibility of dual fulfillments to some prophecy and dual noncontradictory meanings to some other scripture, from Genesis 1 through Revelation, not unlike the classic optical illusion of two women – both are true and nonconflicting:
I suggest that the Bible is bigger than we know, penned (metaphorically speaking 
) by the ultimate Wordsmith and the Artist of artists.
1 Like
Well, there are many instances of the NT taking OT descriptions as prefigurations and “predictions.” However, how do we make sure these are true exegetically? The saying “Out of Egypt have I called my son” doesn’t refer to a prediction at all clearly in the original text–it’s not even in that configuration–it’s changed in the NT. While I don’t doubt how the NT describes Christ, really, it doesn’t help me accept Christ based on a prediction.
Also, many Muslims use the prediction of “paraclete” as referring to Muhammad. I don’t think it fits with him; it’s certainly with the Holy Spirit. However, if we use prefigurations to take any description, how do we keep to some sort of orthodoxy?
Thanks. Blessing.
How many women are in the drawing? Two, and only two. It does not support ‘any description’. Do they conflict with each other? No. That is how we maintain orthodoxy – by testing scripture against scripture and reality against reality.
For instance, I still like the ‘Rossian’ cosmological sequence in Genesis 1 – it does not conflict with an ANE/literary framework interpretation. (I also very much like Michael LeFebvre’s take.)
I never read that part by Joel Duff on Michael Lefebvre till now–I like it. Thanks." My thesis is that the Pentateuch uses dates for liturgical instruction, not to provide a journalistic chronology. Event sequencing, not dates, is the Pentateuch’s method to indicate chronology. ” Page 60"
that is very unfamiliar to my eyes, though. I should read more of Dr Walton.
Forgive my bad memory, but which story of 2 women were we talking about? I scanned back, but am missing it. Thanks.
1 Like
The optical illusion drawing, as emblematic of two true and noncontradictory readings of the same thing.
1 Like
Oh, I got it. Thanks.
1 Like
Just read this in Richard Rohr’s “Universal Christ” and thought it applicable to the OP of this thread:
An eagerness and readiness to love is the ultimate freedom and future. When you’ve been included in the spaciousness of divine love, there is just no room for human punishment, vengeance, rash judgment, or calls for retribution. We certainly see none of this small-mindedness in the Risen Christ after his own rejection, betrayal, and cruel death; we don’t see it even from his inner circle, or in the whole New Testament. I really cannot imagine a larger and more spacious way to live. Jesus’s death and resurrection event was a game changer for history, and it is no surprise that we date our calendar from his lifetime. The Crucified and Risen Christ uses the mistakes of the past to create a positive future, a future of redemption instead of retribution. He does not eliminate or punish the mistakes. He uses them for transformative purposes. People formed by such love are indestructible. Forgiveness might just be the very best description of what God’s goodness engenders in humanity.
Rohr, Richard. The Universal Christ (p. 72). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
1 Like
I can only concur with one sentence:
(And not even that, fully – I would have only used an apostrophe and not apostrophe s to make the possessive case. )
I cannot be a universalist, not the least reason being the unforgivable sin, and it is for eternity.
An article that I do concur with is Why I Don’t Flow with Richard Rohr.
I can agree with that, also – provisionally and out of context. It does not apply to all.
Yeah, I know. You and a lot of others. Rohr (and many others like him) aren’t for everybody … yet … (though, I guess we could observe that if they are right, then such a love will be for everyone, on that day when every knee bows and every tongue confesses!) The older I get, and the more I read my bible, the more I find Rohr and his ilk on the higher ground, and the more I find his critics wanting, both scripturally and spiritually. But that’s just me. And yet, all too often, I am among their critics as well, so you certainly aren’t alone.
3 Likes
I’m relatively old and have read through the Bible a bunch of times, but am no doubt ossified in my ways, so don’t hold your breath. 
Don’t be swayed by noble sounding saccharine, though, thinking it higher ground.
I am curious what you think of Lewis’ proposed idea of inclusivism. In a way, I suppose, it could be called universalism, but it would not the stereotypical one, if so. He which he shares it with George Macdonald, and expresses in “Mere Christianity.” I can post another thread on it and wrestling many have had with it. Thanks.
A Bing search of “CS Lewis universalism” shows conflicting titles–C S Lewis was a dangerous universalist; he wasn’t a universalist; etc. 
He appears to be an inclusivist, but there are unique characteristics, I think.
I found this post interesting: https://thinkingthroughchristianity.com/2012/06/c-s-lewis-is-not-a-universalist-heretic.html
1 Like