Satan did inspire the othe views. The Jesuits taught Preterism and Futurism sole.y to challenge the view that the Pope is Antichrist. As I have said many times, Futurism was not taught in any Protestant church till 1825, by Edward Irving and his Catholic Apostolic Church. This teaching was soon picked up by J N Darby, and his Plymouth Brethren, and was mainly confined to these two groups till near the end of the 19th century, when it was widely considered to be a heresy. Then it spread to the USA. Reaching NY in about 1908 according to Philip Mauro. He claimed to be one of the early displays, writing books on it but soon saw the error of it.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Revelation
- Thread starter JasonF
- Start date
- Status
Satan did inspire the othe views. The Jesuits taught Preterism and Futurism sole.y to challenge the view that the Pope is Antichrist. As I have said many times, Futurism was not taught in any Protestant church till 1825, by Edward Irving and his Catholic Apostolic Church. This teaching was soon picked up by J N Darby, and his Plymouth Brethren, and was mainly confined to these two groups till near the end of the 19th century, when it was widely considered to be a heresy. Then it spread to the USA. Reaching NY in about 1908 according to Philip Mauro. He claimed to be one of the early displays, writing books on it but soon saw the error of it.
I don't have such a bigoted opinion (you Anglos seem to share that quality). Though mostly Preteristic, I'm also a conglomeration of all four views, there's some merit to be found in all of them.
Amazon UK. History unveiling prophecy or time as an interpreter by Henry Grattan Guiness. Reprint of a book originally published in about 1902. £26 They charged me £32 for mine. Also available as a PDF from Historicism.com and other sites
Also by the same author Romanism and the Reformation, and also Key to the Apocalypse and also The Fallacies of Futurism, all a available as PDF from Lutheran Library.
I
Also by the same author Romanism and the Reformation, and also Key to the Apocalypse and also The Fallacies of Futurism, all a available as PDF from Lutheran Library.
I
n
Not bigoted, but following history .
FUTURISM
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:
- Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
- Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
- Abolish the Christian religion.
- Deny Jesus Christ.
- Be received by the Jews.
- Pretend to be God.
- Kill the two witnesses of God.
- Conquer the world.
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time, in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of antichrist into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years.
Recently reprinted: A treatise of Antichrist. Conteyning the defence of Cardinall Bellarmines arguments, which inuincibly demonstrate, that the pope is not Antichrist. Against George Downam by Michael Christopherson priest ..., Volume 1 of 2 by Michael Walpole (1570-1624?), a 1974 reprint of a 1613 edition, by Scolar Press Limited, Ilkley, England, ISBN 0859672042.
Manuel De Lacunza (1731–1801), a Jesuit from Chile, wrote a manuscript in Spanish titled La Venida del Mesías en Gloria y Magestad ("The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty"), under the pen name of Juan Josafa [Rabbi] Ben-Ezra about 1791. Lacunza wrote under an assumed Jewish name to obscure the fact that he was a Catholic, in order to give his book better acceptance in Protestantism, his intended audience. Also an advocate of Futurism, Lacunza was deliberately attempting to take the pressure off the papacy by proposing that the Antichrist was still off in the future. His manuscript was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris between 1811 and 1826.
Edward Irving (1792-1834), a Scottish Presbyterian and forerunner of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, translated Lacunza's work from Spanish into English in a book titled The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty with a Preliminary Discourse, published in London in 1827 by L.B. Seeley & Sons, which included Irving's own lengthy preface. Here are excerpts from Irving's translation:
Lacunza asserts that Antichrist would appear near the end of time:
PRETERISM
Another counter-interpretation to the Historicism held by Protestantism was proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who also wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that it all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. According to Alcazar (or Alcasar):
- Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
- Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the great harlot) and the conversion of the empire to the church.
- Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Cæsar Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
- Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church.
Again, Alcazar found no application of prophecy to the middle ages or to the papacy. That his interpretation differed so greatly from that put forth by Francisco Ribera or Cardinal Bellarmine, mattered little. Catholicism, the supposedly divine and infallible interpreter of scripture, was presenting two vastly different and quite incompatible interpretations of prophecy in a desperate effort to counter the claims of the reformers.
THE GREAT CATHOLIC DIVERSION REVEALED
The intent of both Futurism and Preterism was to be diversionary, to counter or offset the Protestant Historical interpretation, and present alternatives, no matter how implausible they might be. The result is evident from the following chart, which illustrates the three schools of interpretation regarding antichrist:
THE REIGN OF ANTICHRIST
ANTICHRIST IS MOVED EITHER FORWARD OR BACKWARD IN TIME
Ribera's Futurism Puts the Antichrist Into A Future Three and One-half Literal Years.
Alcazar's Preterism Identifies the Antichrist as Nero.
Both of Them Put Antichrist Outside the Middle Ages and the Reformation Period,
Identified by Protestant Historicists as Antichrist's Reign of 1260 Prophetic Years.
Now the truly amazing part of all this is that the Futurist theory dominates Protestant teaching today. About all you hear or read about today is the yet-to-appear antichrist, who will be unveiled in the last 3 1/2 years of Daniel's 70th week, when he declares himself to be God in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. That scenario, as you can now see, is directly traceable back to the pen of the Jesuit Francisco Ribera. Note what one Protestant writer had to say over one hundred years ago:
Next we come to consider the time of the rise of the Futurist system as we now have it, and the occasion which led to it.
So great a hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men, that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.
Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men's minds from perceiving the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system. The Jesuit Alcasar devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method of interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus endeavoured to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled in Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy. On the other hand the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the Papal Power by bringing out the Futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and to continue in power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the Founder of the Futurist system in modern times.
It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that "Futurism tends to obliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon Popery." More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the Papal Antichrist seems to be making an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men's minds. Now once again, as at the Reformation, it is especially necessary that his true character should be recognized, by all who would be faithful to "the testimony of Jesus."
FYI, calling views other than your own 'satanic in origin' is EXTREME bigotry. Everything I hold to originated with scripture, not history, not man, and absolutely not Satan. It's bigotry such as what you've exhibited here that makes it very difficult to have civil, productive, discussions on the topic.
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
Nonsense.
Where exactly is "the Antichrist" found in the book of Revelation?
For that matter, where exactly is "the Antichrist" found in the Bible?
And please, spare me a long c & p of other men's opinions. Cite some scripture pertaining to "the Antichrist".
I don't believe it is found Revelation but I do have a scripture for it... Brother Glen
I John 4: 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
I don't believe it is found Revelation but I do have a scripture for it... Brother Glen
I John 4: 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
3 and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already. 1 Jn 4
2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; Eph 2
This is the same 'spirit' that was working within that 'generation of serpents, offspring of vipers', that crucified Christ. This was 'The Serpent bruising Christ'. This was as 'antichrist' as you can get, nailing Him to the cross.
7 For many deceivers are gone forth into the world, even they that confess not that Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 Jn 1
18 Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour.
22 Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son. 1 Jn 2
For those of you waiting for the appearance of some individual called Antichrist to signal 'the last hour', well, it's come and gone, and it wasn't just one antichrist, it was many.
Last edited:
Hendricksen's book was for me a step in the right direction. A giant leap, in fact. But he didn't connect the dots that were evident in his own book.
Dad passed June 27, I was with him at the hospital at nights for 13 days, so it's been that long since I was examining the book. I did highlight some when I was perusing it, some things I agree with (apostle John was the writer), other things I don't (late date). I was interested mostly to understand his idea of parallelism.
Been tending to Dad for years, have time on my hands now, been bouncing around browsing Riddlebarger, McKenzie, Russel, and Mauro, not sure what I want, yet.
[add]
The Idealist view of Revelation is fairly popular among the Primitive Baptists in this area.
Last edited:
I like a lot of what Philip Mauro wrote especially on the 70 weeks.
There are a lot of his books on the preterist site including from when he was a dispensationalist. But I don't consider him to be a preterist as he still believes in a future antichrist as far as I could make out.
@David Kent:
"Sorry to hear about your dad, bro
My daughter got me to choose my funeral hymns.
At a previous church I went to, there was a little old lady who always gave a new pastor her funeral hymn. It was "Sweeping through the gates of the New Jerusalem." And we could just imagine her.
The hymn starts "Who, Who are these beside the chilly wave."ĺ..."
Thanks David. The wife and Sister-in-law chose Dad's. He was 98, fought in the Pacific, WW2, It was a good Christian, military funeral, the sailor playing taps made me cry, again. More of a celebration than a sad affair. I'm not the only one that's going to seriously miss him.
"Sorry to hear about your dad, bro
My daughter got me to choose my funeral hymns.
At a previous church I went to, there was a little old lady who always gave a new pastor her funeral hymn. It was "Sweeping through the gates of the New Jerusalem." And we could just imagine her.
The hymn starts "Who, Who are these beside the chilly wave."ĺ..."
Thanks David. The wife and Sister-in-law chose Dad's. He was 98, fought in the Pacific, WW2, It was a good Christian, military funeral, the sailor playing taps made me cry, again. More of a celebration than a sad affair. I'm not the only one that's going to seriously miss him.
I've thought he may conform more to Postmillennialism, which has a lot of agreement with Preterist interpretation.
Sorry, to hear about your Dad's passing, Ky. It was good that you took care of him. I helped care for my Dad in between my two China stints, but I was away in Yunnan when he passed. I felt bad that I wasn't there but, at the time, we needed the employment.
I don't have Riddlebarger's book with me so I can't refresh my memory, but I did appreciate his helpful insights on the recapitulations in that book. It unclogged a lot a lot of the futurist flotsam from my eschatology.
37818
Well-Known Member
@kyredneck,
Who dispensationalists identity as being the "antichrist."
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, ". . . Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. . . ." The temple was still standing when Paul wrote this. So dispensationalists believe a Jewish temple must be built first.
So dispensationalists identity him to be called the beast in Revelation.
Revelation 13:18, ". . . Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. . . ."
. . . χξς. The middle letter equals 60 and resembles a snake.
Who dispensationalists identity as being the "antichrist."
2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, ". . . Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. . . ." The temple was still standing when Paul wrote this. So dispensationalists believe a Jewish temple must be built first.
So dispensationalists identity him to be called the beast in Revelation.
Revelation 13:18, ". . . Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six. . . ."
. . . χξς. The middle letter equals 60 and resembles a snake.
Last edited:
KenH
Well-Known Member
An excellent sermon by Bill Parker, preached on July 2, on the first few verses of the book of Revelation.
A Glorious Revelation
A Glorious Revelation
Like all the efforts to claim scripture can be understood to tell us precisely when Christ will return (or has returned), careful study reveals they are build on a foundation of sand.
Majority people who were not Catholics.
- Status