The Jesuit Origins of Futurism

[1689Dave]

“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

 

[church mouse guy]

Now, Dave, if Martin Luther called Pope Leo X by the name of The Anti-Christ, then Martin Luther believed the traditional doctrine of looking for the Blessed Hope long before the lying Jesuits made up their story in order to take the heat off the corrupt Roman Catholicism because the Eastern Orthodox divided with Roman Catholicism in 1054 AD and strike two (to use an American expression) was the Reformation of 1517, the greatest event in European history. So do the math: Luther is at the start of the 16th century and is looking for the Blessed Hope to deliver him from the Anti-Christ and the Jesuits, according to you yourself, were at the end of the 16th century.

And by the way, Martin Luther is reported to have said that several priests came to him when he was in Rome and said that they were not sodomites like most of the priests in Rome but that they had mistresses.

 

[1689Dave]

Now, Dave, if Martin Luther called Pope Leo X by the name of The Anti-Christ, then Martin Luther believed the traditional doctrine of looking for the Blessed Hope long before the lying Jesuits made up their story in order to take the heat off the corrupt Roman Catholicism because the Eastern Orthodox divided with Roman Catholicism in 1054 AD and strike two (to use an American expression) was the Reformation of 1517, the greatest event in European history. So do the math: Luther is at the start of the 16th century and is looking for the Blessed Hope to deliver him from the Anti-Christ and the Jesuits, according to you yourself, were at the end of the 16th century.

And by the way, Martin Luther is reported to have said that several priests came to him when he was in Rome and said that they were not sodomites like most of the priests in Rome but that they had mistresses.

What Larkin is saying is that the Reformers identified the Papacy as the Antichrist. (Others did so too long before them). So the Jesuits created another Antichrist of the future nullifying the Reformer's claims that the Antichrist had already arrived thus clearing the Papacy of the charge.

 

[church mouse guy]

What Larkin is saying is that the Reformers identified the Papacy as the Antichrist. (Others did so too long before them). So the Jesuits created another Antichrist of the future nullifying the Reformer's claims that the Antichrist had already arrived thus clearing the Papacy of the charge.

The Jesuits said that the Anti-Christ had already been here, thereby aiding the preterists and the 70 AD theory, which you support. Martin Luther said that the Anti-Christ was the Pope.

The British Pentecostals are the authors of the pre-trib rapture.

 

[1689Dave]

The Jesuits said that the Anti-Christ had already been here, thereby aiding the preterists and the 70 AD theory, which you support. Martin Luther said that the Anti-Christ was the Pope.

The British Pentecostals are the authors of the pre-trib rapture.

The Jesuits did not think the Papacy was the Antichrist. They created a different Antichrist of the future to take the heat off. Although as early as the 10th century many believed the Papacy was the Antichrist, Arnulf, later Joachim of Fiore in the 12th century. This led to the martyrdoms of many Albigenses, Anabaptists and others who in part embraced his views.

 

[church mouse guy]

Alcazar invented Preterism. Francisco Ribera was little more than a papal apologist and made up misleading statements that the book of Revelation could not be considered as being in the present, which is nonsense on stilts. I don't even think that Roman Catholics remember Ribera very much because he was off in a corner in Spain. If he represents futurism, then you cannot say that dispensationalism has anything to do with futurism because it does not use Ribera's scheme. Dispensationalism has to do with Darbyism and a study of the various covenants that God used in history. Your author has missed the boat on Scofield and Darby and the Dallas Theological Seminary.

As for what Roman Catholics believe, I can tell you that New Advent has very little on Ribera and does not have an entry of futurism.

 

[1689Dave]

Alcazar invented Preterism. Francisco Ribera was little more than a papal apologist and made up misleading statements that the book of Revelation could not be considered as being in the present, which is nonsense on stilts. I don't even think that Roman Catholics remember Ribera very much because he was off in a corner in Spain. If he represents futurism, then you cannot say that dispensationalism has anything to do with futurism because it does not use Ribera's scheme. Dispensationalism has to do with Darbyism and a study of the various covenants that God used in history. Your author has missed the boat on Scofield and Darby and the Dallas Theological Seminary.

As for what Roman Catholics believe, I can tell you that New Advent has very little on Ribera and does not have an entry of futurism.

Can you provide references?

 

[Yeshua1]

“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

many of the ECF were premils, were they all Jesuits than? And the official teaching of RCC would be A Mil, correct?

 

[1689Dave]

many of the ECF were premils, were they all Jesuits than? And the official teaching of RCC would be A Mil, correct?

If we take Larkin at his word, (his charts still popular at DTS, btw), what most futurists believe today comes from Jesuit deceptions aimed at overthrowing the Reformation.

 

[church mouse guy]

If we take Larkin at his word, (his charts still popular at DTS, btw), what most futurists believe today comes from Jesuit deceptions aimed at overthrowing the Reformation.

Nonsense. The futurist that you are talking about is the obscure Spaniard. Check Alcazar in Wikipedia or use a search engine--he was a preterist and he was lying to cover up for the evil Pope Leo X. It is Ribera who came up with the crazy time scheme--probably some more Jesuit propaganda. It is perfectly correct to wonder if the Mayor of London or the head of the Labour Party is not the Anti-Christ and no one needs a Jesuit timetable to make that assertion as everyone is always speculating who the Anti-Christ would be if he was alive right now.

So all of this Jesuit stuff has nothing to do with dispensationalism, which came from Darby, a Pentecostal, and Scofield, a Baptist I think. I doubt if either one of them paid any attention to Jesuit propaganda. Neither Alcazar nor Ribera are respectable theologians.

 

[Yeshua1]

Nonsense. The futurist that you are talking about is the obscure Spaniard. Check Alcazar in Wikipedia or use a search engine--he was a preterist and he was lying to cover up for the evil Pope Leo X. It is Ribera who came up with the crazy time scheme--probably some more Jesuit propaganda. It is perfectly correct to wonder if the Mayor of London or the head of the Labour Party is not the Anti-Christ and no one needs a Jesuit timetable to make that assertion as everyone is always speculating who the Anti-Christ would be if he was alive right now.

So all of this Jesuit stuff has nothing to do with dispensationalism, which came from Darby, a Pentecostal, and Scofield, a Baptist I think. I doubt if either one of them paid any attention to Jesuit propaganda. Neither Alcazar nor Ribera are respectable theologians.

Scofield was a Congregationalist, but most of his teachings would indeed fit in many Baptist churches!
I do not think either him nor Darby even read the guy you mentioned, and I know those ECF that were premil did not!

 

[Yeshua1]

If we take Larkin at his word, (his charts still popular at DTS, btw), what most futurists believe today comes from Jesuit deceptions aimed at overthrowing the Reformation.

Where did those ECF get their views from though?

 

[church mouse guy]

Scofield was a Congregationalist, but most of his teachings would indeed fit in many Baptist churches!
I do not think either him nor Darby even read the guy you mentioned, and I know those ECF that were premil did not!

Thanks! I never knew much about Scofield. I don't disagree with Dispensationalism except for the Darby stuff that the Brits stuffed into the doctrine.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks! I never knew much about Scofield. I don't disagree with Dispensationalism except for the Darby stuff that the Brits stuffed into the doctrine.

Which would be?

 

[church mouse guy]

Which would be?

Some teenage girl said that the rapture would occur before the tribulation when she had a word of knowledge or something like that at a Pentecostal service where Darby was--not sure how Darby relates to the teenage girl.

 

[Yeshua1]

Some teenage girl said that the rapture would occur before the tribulation when she had a word of knowledge or something like that at a Pentecostal service where Darby was--not sure how Darby relates to the teenage girl.

Was Darby into Charasmatic chaos?

 

[1689Dave]

Where did those ECF get their views from though?

If you hold the views Larkin describes, wouldn't it be wise to research them for yourself?

 

[1689Dave]

Nonsense. The futurist that you are talking about is the obscure Spaniard. Check Alcazar in Wikipedia or use a search engine--he was a preterist and he was lying to cover up for the evil Pope Leo X. It is Ribera who came up with the crazy time scheme--probably some more Jesuit propaganda. It is perfectly correct to wonder if the Mayor of London or the head of the Labour Party is not the Anti-Christ and no one needs a Jesuit timetable to make that assertion as everyone is always speculating who the Anti-Christ would be if he was alive right now.

So all of this Jesuit stuff has nothing to do with dispensationalism, which came from Darby, a Pentecostal, and Scofield, a Baptist I think. I doubt if either one of them paid any attention to Jesuit propaganda. Neither Alcazar nor Ribera are respectable theologians.

We have Larkin, a widely accepted authority on the matter, telling us where these views came from. And he's the man when it comes to Dispensationalism.

 

[1689Dave]

many of the ECF were premils, were they all Jesuits than? And the official teaching of RCC would be A Mil, correct?

We should try to disprove Larkin if we disagree. I'm only telling you what he said.

 

[1689Dave]

"The book Dispensational Truth: God’s Plan and Purpose for the Ages (1918), containing over 115 charts and other illustrations, is considered a classic and continues to be reprinted today. Larkin wrote a number of other books including commentaries on Daniel and Revelation, which also contain intricate charts and drawings."

"During the last few years of Larkin’s life, his works became so popular that he left the pastorate to devote all his time to writing."

Who was Clarence Larkin?