Showing posts with label preterism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preterism. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
Thursday, July 31, 2014
From Protestant-Historicism to Jesuit-Dispensationalism/Futurism (Christianity Hijacked)
BeYeSeparate
Published on Mar 24, 2014
The Reformers, as well as most early (non-Catholic) Christians were Historicist. "Historicism" as defined by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic...)) "is a method of interpretation in Christian eschatology which associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events... This broad form of HISTORICISM HELD SWAY IN CHRISTIANITY FROM THE 4th CENTURY UNTIL [and throughout] THE REFORMATION. The Protestant Reformation was born in reaction to the Catholic doctrine of works-only salvation and identifying the papacy as the Antichrist. Protestant historicists saw prophecy fulfilled down through the centuries and into the modern era. Rather than expecting a single Antichrist to rule the earth during a future Tribulation period, Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Protestant Reformers saw the Antichrist as a present feature in the world of their time, fulfilled in the papacy. They were unanimous in this interpretation lending emphasis to their reformation. It led them to protest against Rome and it became their rally and battle cry. Isaac Newton was a strong proponent of the historicist approach especially in the work published in 1733 after his death: Observations upon the Prophesies of the Book of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John which has a similar stance toward the papacy of the reformers. Controversial features of the Reformation's Historicist interpretation is the identification of the Antichrist (1 and 2 John), the Beasts of Revelation 13, the Man of Sin (or Man of Lawlessness) in 2 Thessalonians 2, the "Little horn" of Daniel 7 and 8, and the Whore of Babylon (Revelation 17) with the Roman Catholic Church, the Papacy and Papal States, and each successive Pope himself. Out of the Reformation came the Counter Reformation... As such, the pro-Catholic positions took root when the Jesuit Doctor of Theology, Francisco Ribera proposed Futurism in 1590, as well as the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Alcazar who proposed Preterism." (Wikipedia, "Historicism (Christianity)) **** "First, note the fact that Rome's reply to the Reformation in the 16th century included an answer to the prophetic teachings of the Reformers. Through the Jesuits Ribera and Bellarmine, Rome put forth her futurist interpretation of prophecy. Ribera was a Jesuit priest of Salamanca. In 1585 he published a commentary on the Apocalypse, denying the application of the prophecies concerning antichrist to the existing Church of Rome. He was followed by Cardinal Bellarmine, a nephew of Pope Marcellus II...Bellarmine, like Ribera, advocated the futurist interpretation of prophecy. He taught that antichrist would be one particular man, that he would be a Jew, that he would be preceded by the reappearance of the literal Enoch and Elias, that he would rebuild the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, compel circumcision, abolish the Christian sacraments, abolish every other form of religion, would manifestly and avowedly deny Christ, would assume to be Christ, and would be received by the Jews as their Messiah, would pretend to be God, would make a literal image speak, would feign himself dead and rise again, and would conquer the whole world, Christian, Mohammedan, and heathen; and all this in the space of three and a half years. He insisted that the prophecies of Daniel, Paul and John, with reference to the antichrist, had no application whatever to the Papal power." (Romanism and the Reformation - H. Grattan Guinness) **** "Historicism, once the dominant view of Protestants from the Reformation until the middle of the last century, appears to exert little attraction as a system of prophetic interpretation to conservative Christians (outside of Seventh-day Adventist circles)... Within evangelicalism during the last one hundred fifty years, futurism has grown to dominate and overcome historicism." (T. Ice / K.L. Gentry Jr., The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? p. 6,) *** "Prior to 1826 this Roman Catholic view, first set forth by Francisco Ribera to counter the Reformation exposition, had found no acceptance among Protestants..." (L.E. Froom, Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol.3, p.533) **** "It would probably come as a shock to many modern futurists to be told that the first scholar in relatively modern times who returned to the patristic futuristic interpretation was a Spanish Jesuit named Ribera. In 1590 Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter-interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end time rather than to the history of the Church. Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem, abolish Christianity, deny Christ, persecute the Church and rule the world for three and a half years." (George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope [1972] p. 37) ___ [condensed to fit]
.
.
Friday, November 18, 2011
A History of the Foundation of Futurism and Preterism
The papacy suffered a major setback through the Reformation. The help of the monastic orders was sought, but they were so decadent that they had lost the respect of the people. The Dominicans and Franciscans, peddling relics and indulgences, had become the butt of ridicule and mockery.
At this crisis Loyola and his companions offered their services, to go wherever the pope should designate, as preachers, missionaries, teachers, counselors, and reformers. A new order was created, authorized in 1540, which infused a new spirit and spread rapidly in Europe. Like a wounded giant, Romanism arose in desperation to recover her lost prestige and shrunken territory.
Their ambitious goal was to become the universal and principal order of the Roman church. Though they took the name Society of Jesus (Jesuits), the Protestants termed them Jesuwider (against Jesus).
Their influence was immediately felt. They grew more powerful and comprehensive year by year, employing science, art, culture, politics, foreign missions, trades and industry. They began to preach, as Protestants were accustomed to do, in the streets and marts, coming to be among the most eloquent preachers of the age. The churches were too small to accommodate the multitudes that flocked to hear them. At Rome, they were scattered throughout the various churches. Then they began to spread throughout Italy, Portugal, Germany, and especially Austria and Bavaria. They hemmed in the Protestant movement on all sides. Some cities, such as Ingolstadt and Cologne, opened their doors; others opposed them.
In 1558 Lainez was elected second general of the order. At the Council of Trent he successfully exerted his power and skill in behalf of papal supremacy. The Jesuits became entrenched in universities throughout various countries. They were among the best teachers in the land. Even Protestants began to send their children to them because of the scholastic progress they could make.
The conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism was basic and irreconcilable. The Romanist believed in the authority of the church; the Protestant, in that of the Bible. The one yielded his conscience to the priest; the other to God alone. The Romanist believed in the pope as the visible representative of Christ on earth; the Protestant looked, instead, upon the pope as Antichrist. The one regarded the church—meaning the hierarchy—as the depository of all spiritual truth; the other looked upon the clergy as ministers of the church, not as the church itself. The Romanist, satisfied with the teaching of the church, was content to leave the Bible to the learned; the Protestant, on the other hand, held that it was to be diligently and reverently studied, by all, as the word of God. The one dreaded its spread as tending to heresy; the other multiplied translations as the assurance of soundness, and sought to introduce them to every household. Between the time of Luther’s appeal to a general council, in 1518, and the convening of the Council of Trent in 1545, Bibles in German, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, and English (Tyndale’s New Testament and Coverdale’s complete Bible) had been published, and the Reformation established in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and England.
The two systems stood forth in absolute and irreconcilable opposition at the Council of Trent, where the council expressly condemned what the Reformation taught.
The Council of Trent—beginning in 1545 under Paul III and ending in 1563 under Pius IV—crystallized its actions into decrees that became permanent law of the Catholic church. Reformation truths were there rejected and stigmatized as pestilential heresy. In one sense Trent became the culmination of the Counter-Reformation. It was Rome’s definitive answer to the Reformation.
The molding Jesuit influence was attested to by the fact that the two noted Jesuits, Salmeron and Lainez, who served as the pope’s theologians, and who had been enjoined by Loyola to resist all innovation in doctrine, were invited to preach during the council. They soon ingratiated themselves into the good will of the delegates. And by their unusual knowledge of the fathers, the conclusions of scholastic philosophy, and of Catholic doctrine, they came to wield a preponderant influence in the council.
Introduce Futurist Counterinterpretation
For some time following the launching of the Reformation, Roman Catholic leadership carefully avoided exposition of the prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse. They seemed unable to parry the force of the incriminating Protestant applications of the prophecies concerning Antichrist, which were undermining the very foundations of the Catholic position. Upon the first outbreak of Luther's antipapal protest two Catholic doctors, Prierias and Eck, in the true spirit of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517), had boldly reasserted the Lateran theory and declared the papal dominion to be Daniel's fifth monarchy, or reign of the saints, and identified the existing Roman church with the New Jerusalem.
But the reformers, with declarations by pen and voice, forcefully stated that the Papacy was the specified Antichrist of prophecy. The symbols of Daniel, Paul, and John were applied with tremendous effect. Hundreds of books and tracts impressed their contention upon the consciousness of Europe. Indeed it gained so great a hold upon the minds of men that Rome, in alarm, saw that she must successfully counteract this identification of Antichrist with the Papacy, or lose the battle. The Jesuits were summoned to aid in the extremity, and cleverly provided the very method needed both for defense and for attack.
From the ranks of the Jesuits two stalwarts arose, determined to lift the stigma from the Papacy by locating Antichrist at some point where he could not be applied to the Roman church. It was clearly a crisis of major proportions.
Two Conflicting Alternatives Brought Forth
Rome’s answer to the Protestant Reformation was twofold, though actually conflicting and contradictory. Through the Jesuits Ribera, of Salamanca, Spain, and Bellarmine, of Rome, the Papacy put forth her futurist interpretation. Almost simultaneously Alcazar, Spanish Jesuit of Seville, advanced the conflicting preterist interpretation. These were designed to meet and overwhelm the Historical interpretation of the Protestants. Though mutually exclusive, either Jesuit alternative suited the great objective equally well, as both thrust aside the application of the prophecies from the existing Church of Rome. The one (preterism) accomplished it by making prophecy stop altogether short of papal Rome's career. The other (futurism) achieved it by making it overleap the immense era of papal dominance, crowding Antichrist into a small fragment of time in the still distant future, just before the great consummation. It is consequently often called the gap theory.
According to the Protestants, the vision of Babylon and the supporting Beast is divinely interpreted in chapter 17 of the Apocalypse. It was on this that the Reformers commonly rested their case—the apostate woman, the Roman church; the city, seven-hilled Rome; the many waters, the many peoples; the Beast, the fourth, or Roman beast of Daniel; the sixth head, the Caesars; and the seventh, the popes.
Roman Catholics as well as Protestants agree as to the origin of these interpretations. The Roman Catholic writer G.S. Hitchcock says:
“The Futurist School, founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591, looks for Antichrist, Babylon, and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, at the end of the Christian dispensation.
“The Praeterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains the Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem, or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D.” (G.S. Hitchcock, The Beasts and the Little Horn, p. 7.)
Similarly, Dean Henry Alford (Protestant), in the "Prolegomena" to his Greek Testament, declares:
“The founder of this system [Futurist] in modern times…appears to have been the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580." (Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 2, part 2, p. 351 [bottom numbering].)
“The Praeterist view found no favour, and was hardly so much as thought of , in the times of primitive Christianity. … The View is said to have been first promulgated in anything like completeness by the Jesuit Alcasar … in 1614.” (Ibid, pp. 348, 349 [bottom numbering].)
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591).
About 1590 Ribera published a 500-page commentary on the Apocalypse, denying the Protestant application of Antichrist to the Church of Rome. Ribera’s death at fifty-four halted the preparation of further commentaries. Those that were printed passed through several revised editions—at Salamanca about 1590, Lyons and Antwerp in 1593, Douay in 1612, and Antwerp in 1603 and 1623.
Since its inception his basic thesis has been virtually unchanged. He assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John’s own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half year’s reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world—all in this brief space of three and one half years!
Places Antichrist’s coming at the close of the seals
Places trumpets under the seventh seal
Death of the witness is literal time
Antichrist's persecutions last three and one half years
Judgements upon Rome for ultimate apostasy—in Revelation 17 Ribera admits the woman to be not only pagan Rome but also Rome Christian after a future falling away from the pope. (Francisco Ribera, Sacram Beati Ioannis … Apocalypsin Commentarij, chap. 14, pp. 282, 283).
Repudiates Augustinian earthly millennium
Antichrist’s reign counted by literal days
Babylon is Rome past and future, not present
Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), focused his attack on the year-day principle.
Capitalized on Luther’s hesitation over Apocalypse
Main assault centered on year-day application
Assigns symbols to past and future, thereby eliminating application to the long papal ascendancy of the Middle Ages.
Exploits variations on time of the Antichrist
The heart of Bellarmine’s thesis was both clever and plausible, though deceptive. (1) Antichrist is an individual Jew, and not an apostate Christian system. (2) Therefore the length of his exploits must harmonize with the life period of one man—three and one half literal years, and not 1260 years.
Luis de Alcasar (1554-1613), Spanish Jesuit of Seville.
Made the seals the early expansion of apostolic Christianity
God’s longsuffering, warnings, and punishments were allotted to the Jews
The trumpets were judgments on fallen Judaism
The two witnesses—the doctrine and holy lives of the Christians
After the persecutions Christianity would arise with new glory and convert many Jews
Revelation was the apostolic church, bringing forth the Roman church
The first beast of Revelation 13 declared to be the persecuting arrogance of pagan Rome—the second beast, its carnal wisdom
Revelation 17, the mystical meaning of idolatrous ancient Rome
Revelation 18, its conversion to the Catholic faith
LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic faith of Our Fathers, The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, Vol. 2, Review and Herald, Washington, D.C., 1948, excerpted, pp. 464-532.
Since its inception his basic thesis has been virtually unchanged. He assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John’s own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half year’s reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world—all in this brief space of three and one half years!
Places Antichrist’s coming at the close of the seals
Places trumpets under the seventh seal
Death of the witness is literal time
Antichrist's persecutions last three and one half years
Judgements upon Rome for ultimate apostasy—in Revelation 17 Ribera admits the woman to be not only pagan Rome but also Rome Christian after a future falling away from the pope. (Francisco Ribera, Sacram Beati Ioannis … Apocalypsin Commentarij, chap. 14, pp. 282, 283).
Repudiates Augustinian earthly millennium
Antichrist’s reign counted by literal days
Babylon is Rome past and future, not present
Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), focused his attack on the year-day principle.
Capitalized on Luther’s hesitation over Apocalypse
Main assault centered on year-day application
Assigns symbols to past and future, thereby eliminating application to the long papal ascendancy of the Middle Ages.
Exploits variations on time of the Antichrist
The heart of Bellarmine’s thesis was both clever and plausible, though deceptive. (1) Antichrist is an individual Jew, and not an apostate Christian system. (2) Therefore the length of his exploits must harmonize with the life period of one man—three and one half literal years, and not 1260 years.
Luis de Alcasar (1554-1613), Spanish Jesuit of Seville.
Made the seals the early expansion of apostolic Christianity
God’s longsuffering, warnings, and punishments were allotted to the Jews
The trumpets were judgments on fallen Judaism
The two witnesses—the doctrine and holy lives of the Christians
After the persecutions Christianity would arise with new glory and convert many Jews
Revelation was the apostolic church, bringing forth the Roman church
The first beast of Revelation 13 declared to be the persecuting arrogance of pagan Rome—the second beast, its carnal wisdom
Revelation 17, the mystical meaning of idolatrous ancient Rome
Revelation 18, its conversion to the Catholic faith
LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic faith of Our Fathers, The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, Vol. 2, Review and Herald, Washington, D.C., 1948, excerpted, pp. 464-532.
The Error of Preterism
"Preterists" believe that all Bible prophecy is history; that most of it took place in 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. They suggest the Tribulation was the persecution of the saints and Nero was the antichrist. At the heart of the doctrine is that prophecy was declared and destined to be fulfilled within the generation of Messiah Yeshua's earthly ministry. All references in the Bible to the "last days" refer to the "last days" of Israel, which means that today Israel supposedly has no more relevance than the lost continent of Atlantis. The "New Jerusalem" is the Church now and forever, according to Preterists. |
Preterism consists of "full" and "partial" Preterists. Partial Preterists actually consider much of what "full" Preterists teach to be heretical. Full Preterists insist that "Jesus" returned "in spirit" in 70 AD and nothing is future. "We're in "the New Heavens and New Earth" right now and satan is bound! But to both full and partial Preterists, hardly anything is taken literally; most all is allegorical or symbolic, particularly the Book of Revelation. To all Preterists, the Olivet Discourse is not about the coming of Messiah, but about the destruction of Jerusalem. Revelation was not written in 95 AD but much earlier according to full and partial Preterists.... Partial Preterists do believe in a Second Coming and the resurrection of believers (but not in the Rapture), along with a "Judgment Seat of Christ." They do not believe in a literal Millennium, Battle of Armageddon, literal antichrist, or a role for national Israel. Prominent partial Preterists include Gary DeMar, R.C. Sproul, Ken Gentry, and "The Bible Answerman", Hank Hanegraaff. Preterism became prominent thanks to a Jesuit priest, Luis de Alcazar, who sought to defend the Catholic Church against attacks of the Reformers. He sought to defend the Roman Church from claims about Catholic apostasy. The Preterism taught today, however, only became popular in the late 20th Century. Some Preterist teachings include the following:
Since, according to Preterists, "Jesus" isn't coming back, one has to ask: What about scriptures such as Acts 1:11, "And they said to them, Galilean men, why are you standing and staring into heaven? This Y'shua who was taken up from you to heaven, likewise he will come just as you have seen him who ascended into heaven. This should be a challenge to the "full Preterists" who believe He came back "in spirit" in 70 AD and that's it for His return! Also, the Jews as a nation did not turn to Messiah in 70 AD as prophesied in Zechariah 12:10.... Also, if all these events took place in 70 AD, one must ask: When were the nations judged as described in Matthew 25:31-46? They weren't judged back then because this is future.... As for Nero - he couldn't have been the antichrist, as he died in 68 AD before the destruction of Jerusalem. He was a whimpy emperor though evil, indeed, but he doesn't come close to being the "King of fierce countenance" of Daniel 8:23 and he made no covenant with Israel, Daniel 9:26, 27. Dispensationalists believe he will be destroyed by the King of kings, but Nero committed suicide. Before that, he issued no "mark" and people could buy and sell. He sat in no Temple declaring himself God, demanding he be worshipped (2 Thess. 2:4). All Preterists deny there will be future Temples such as the Tribulation Temple and Millennial Temple.... The vials, bowls, seals, and trumpet judgments of Revelation are all symbolic to all Preterists. Thus the carnage (and victory) of Revelation is overlooked and written off. How can people with this theology accept that all of the prophecies of Yeshua's first coming were fulfilled literally but Second Coming verses must be symbolic? Are we permitted to pick and choose like this and remain with any hermeneutical credibility and accuracy? Folks, Revelation was written in about 95 AD and not before 70 AD. It's therefore obvious that Preterism is just another teaching that is filled with doctrinal error and should not be taken seriously. It takes our eyes off of our "blessed hope" - the glorious return of Yeshua who was YHWH in the Flesh who will take believers out of our world of pain and sorrow. Satan has definitely not been bound yet, but he will be and we can be sure that television cameras will be there to capture the moment - along with the moment when the King of kings will inaugurate the greatest Kingdom the world has even known! |
Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)