A-, Pre-, or Post mil?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If Rev 20 is symbolic of non-existent things (like the millenium) then there is no return of Jesus depicted in the book... which is rather strange, imo.

Also, the idea that no new information can come from the REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST WHICH GOD GAVE TO HIM is without any scriptural warrant. There is no verse that says "the contents of this book are not suitable for DOCTRINE" or "this book shall not bring anything new to your understanding". Such a rule of interpretation is ENTIRELY and COMPLETELY ARBITRARY, and is designed ONLY to avoid certain obvious truths clearly and UNMISTAKABLY taught by the Apocalypse. The millenium is only one such concept.

It is suitable for doctrine. But how do you distinguish what is doctrine in the book that is not presented elsewhere in the entire bible, and conclude that God would place doctrine outside of plain teaching? I truly believe that if doctrine of salvation was handled this way by people, not many here would ever pay attention to it.

Imagine Acts 2:38 not being plainly taught by Peter, but instead found in the midst of visions where the overall series of visions do not include what parts are symbolic or not. We'd throw a guy out on his ear if he came presenting salvation to us like that.

Again, this is why I believe Revelation can only reflect what IS plainly taught as doctrine elsewhere. And IN THAT SENSE is profitable for doctrine!