And pre-tribulationism was invented by one man 1800 years after revelation was penned, and is a myth.
And I supposed it was invented by John Darby in 1830. Once you agree that that is your premise, then we'll work backward from Morgan Edwards (1744) and others who taught it long before John Darby, Larkin, or Scofield made it popular.
90% of the futurists I know of and whose commentaries I've read believe that "Babylon" is really the city in modern day Iraq named Babylon. That the 7 hills do mean Rome but it is only a reference to a brief period of religious unity centered on Rome, but that is eventually destroyed or assimilated by the so called anti-christ ruling from Babylon. The reformers clearly and unanimously said that the beast is the Romish Pope. Ribera and Co did everything they could to portray Rome in a good light and dispesational futurism has pretty much fallen for it. While they may claim that Roman Catholicism is the Whore they contend that her reign is short lived and usurped by the one man super bad guy beast, the 'anti-christ'. So ultimately Ribera succeeds since the focus is off the Pope being the beast and the Whore is an apostasized (from their view) church.
How has the focus been shifted if the churches still consider Rome the WHORE? That makes absolutely no sense. The Anabaptists didn't believe it and neither did the Reformers. Independent Baptists have continuously produced literature that labels Rome and the Pope as the beast and harlot. Inf fact, I have seen a list of the RCC's "Forbidden and Accursed Literature" that contains the names of several Baptists, one of them being Peter Ruckman and John R. Rice. Also on the list are writings of Avro Manhattan and Alexander Hislop (The Two Babylons).
So please show me some kind of proof that Ribera's commentary changed the view of the fundamentalists on Rome! You are off your rocker with that accusation. The negative view of the RCC has been a consistently held view by the Baptists since the inception of the church. And apparently, the fact that I, as a fundamental Baptist, am even telling you that I believe the RCC is the beast doesn't seem to sink in.
There is absolutely no historical support whatsoever that anything Ribera wrote had any impact on any of the churches. He isn't quoted by Darby, Larkin, Scofield, Morgan. Nobody ever heard of the guy until this century.
Futurism yes, but pre-trib dispy? No there weren't. It was another invention from the age of the cults (JW, mormonism, 7DA...)
Another anachronism that shows your ignorance. Ribera wrote his commentary in the late 1500s. The JWs, Mormons, and 7DA did not arrive until the 1800s. Your accusation is about 300 years off.
Ever hear of misdirection? That would be what Ribera did. The Romish church never had to agree with it, they just had to use it to change the conversation. And a couple hundred years down the road it looks like they succeded. To claim that the pope is the beast is almost offensive to evangelicals, baptists and even reformed churches.
Also Catholic is not a bad term. It simply means 'universal' though I'm sure you knew that, so whether Augustine 'coined' the term is irrelevant. The problem comes with Roman Catholicism. And while Catholics may deny futurism, so have most Christians throughout history. Just because it is the current fad in end-times theology doesn't mean it is correct.
And you do understand the difference between generic futrism and pre-trib, pre-mill correct?
Apparently, Ribera wasn't very good at his "misdirection" because as stated above, there's no evidence that anybody was influenced by what he wrote, and his commentary isn't quoted by anyone who published any major volumes on Revelation or prophecy in the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, or 20th century.
There is nil an ounce of futurism in Ribera's commentary. The closest Ribera gets is his view on an earthly kingdom which the RCC already believed it was the fulfillment of. Ribera merely reaffirmed what Augustine had already written about the Catholic church. That's why you never see anyone quoting from it because it was a rumor started by Dave MacPherson. Funny thing about this accusation is that the 7th Day Adventists also believe that Ribera founded futurism, so I guess you agree with the 7DA's.
It is downright hilarious how critics of the rapture make the leap between a commentary that Ribera wrote on Revelation, to him inventing a doctrine called futurism. The fact that Augustine once believed in "chiliasm" which is part of a FUTURIST view of prophecy, and then he rejected it for amillenialism shows that not only did Augustine learn it from other sources, but proves that Futurism existed long before Ribera wrote his commentary in the 1500s. Regardless of what other views early church had about "chiliasm" the argument you and others erroneously assert is that futurism was an invention of a Jesuit Priest which is patently false.
Other early church leaders that held to futurist interpretations of the Bible:
Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished, as the Scripture also bears witness, saying, 'Speedily will He come, and will not tarry;' and, 'The Lord shall suddenly come to His temple, even the Holy One, for whom ye look.'" - Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, ch.23
. If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive also the future world, according as He has promised to us that He will raise us again from the dead, and that if we live worthily of Him, 'we shall also reign together with Him,' provided only we believe. Polycarp, Epistle to the Philippians, ch. 5
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, (as) the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.' Justin Martyr.
I could list several more of first century church leaders, but I want to get all this in one comment without crashing the servers. The accusation that futurism and pre-trib/pre-mill is/was invented in the late 1500s and beyond is about as true as a Rabbi eating pork at the Pope's wedding.
