During the recent post on Lazarus and the rich man, it became apparent that there are some commenters who believe that the entire Book of Revelation is, in fact, to be understood allegorically.
This means every part of the Book has to be interpreted, and that, if none of it is literal, we have no way of determining the thrust of the Book without the input of people who can interpret figurative writing and prophecy. Is there a Daniel in the house?
My take is that it contains all elements of scripture, including allegory, but also literal information, past, present and future, as well as prophetic, poetic writing and types. I fact, I believe that without a solid foundation of literal fact, it is hard to decipher allegory.
If it is a complete work of allegory, how should we proceed with an interpretation of Revelation? Is there a danger, that if we over-allegorise the Book, or any Book of the Bible, we can be led off track, as many of the cults are, by approaching seemingly literal scripture as figurative?
Could some cults claim literal pieces as allegory as a matter of convenience to suit their aims? Could we erroneously claim any doctrinal stance by claiming allegory as proof?