I once had someone tell me that I should leave the interpretation of prophecy
to the "experts."

 I replied with the question, "whose 'experts' would that be?

The proponents of Immanence (or, as I call it, Immediacy) who say that Jesus can still come back at any time, without warning? Or would that be the Classical Historicism advocated by the Latin (Western) writers? These would be hard to reconcile, since one advocated millennialism while the other advocated amillennialism.

 Of course, another argument that arose was between the Latin (Catholic) writers and the Greek (Orthodox) writers. While the Catholic theologians advocated an interpretive approach to prophecy, The Orthodox writers advocated a non-interpretive Realized Eschatology that said prophecy couldn't be interpreted
in the first place, and would only be understood after the fact. This (and many other things) would lead to the Great East-West Schism of 1050 AD. Obviously, there seems to be a difference between these two groups of "experts."

Would these "experts" be from Protestant Historicism? It was just like the Classical Historical approach advocated by the Catholics, except that they identified the Catholics as the "Whore of Babylon," and the Pope as the "beast. Of course, the Catholic "experts" immediately fire back. Certain Jesuits even forwarded the eschatologies of Futurism or Preterism. Seems like an awful lot of "experts" were saying completely different things.

The 17th Century saw an explosion of new "experts,' all teaching their own interpretations of prophecy, and arriving at even more bizarre eschatologies and theologies. Of course, there is the biggie that arose when Darby, Scofield, Anderson, McDonald, and the Dispensationalists of the Plymouth Brethren introduced us to the concept of the "rapture" (though no one else had ever heard of such a thing)? And they even came up with three different flavors-- pre-, mid-, and post-tribulationalism.Then again, there was Joseph Smith and the Mormons with their "True Church," which was--of course--supported by their own interpretations of prophecy. There were also the "experts" Swedenborg, Fairbairn, and the allegorical-only Idealists who advocated their own "true interpretation" of prophecy. There was also the "experts" Smith and White who began the Adventists cult movement by fusing elements of Protestant Historicism, Dispensationalism, and Idealism, all of which revealed that they were the "True Church.".  Of course, there was Russel and the Jehovah's Witnesses, there to tell us via prophecy that they were the only "true Church." There sure were a lot of "experts" telling us that theirs was the "True Church" according to their interpretations.

Since then, we've had a whole slew of new "experts" arise to tell how prophecy works, including Armstrong and his "British Israelism," various "gurus" mingling Christian teachings with Eastern Mysticism, the Reconstructionists who tell us that religion is "evolutionary" and continuously created, C.H. Cobb and
his own brand of "Realized Eschatology" in which Jesus was not the fulfillment of prophecy, but deliberately fulfilled prophecy by reading the Old Testament as it were a play book for the New Orleans Saints. Which of these "experts" should we read and heed?

If there is one thing that is totally messed up, it's that 1/3rd of the Bible known as prophecy, and they way all of the different "experts" have been handling it.

Forunately, I've found the methodology that cuts through all of the distortions and noise, and it comes straight from the mouth of Jesus and His prophets--Triunism.

Triunism takes into account all historical facts and figures, and it doesn't require one to skip over a single segment of history or leave out a single bibical personality to work (as is typicaly of all the other schools of
prophetic interpretation). Triunism takes into account all biblical statements, in every timeframe, and in every mode of interpretation.

Seem like a bold statement?

Maybe. But if you take a gander at my hypothesis, you may quickly find yourself realizing that it's the only thing that makes sense of everything in scripture and history, and why there were so many different kinds of "experts" throughout the history of the churches.

And guess what?

I'm not interested in starting my own "True Church;" I'm just trying to inform and straighten out the ones we already have!



Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Leave a Reply.