Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The false doctrines of the Futurist and Preterist interpretation.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ECT: The false doctrines of the Futurist and Preterist interpretation.

    Here is from Wikipedia where I am a author and it is straightforward:

    'One of the most influential aspects of the early Protestant historicist paradigm was the assertion that scriptural identifiers of the Antichrist where matched only by the institution of the Papacy. Particular significance and concern were the Papal claims of authority over both the Church, through Apostolic succession, and the State, through the Divine right of Kings. When the Papacy aspires to exercise authority beyond its religious realm into civil affairs, on account of the Papal claim to be the Vicar of Christ, then the institution was fulfilling the more perilous biblical indicators of the Antichrist. Martin Luther wrote this view, which was not novel, into the Smalcald Articles of 1537. It was then widely popularized in the 16th century, via sermons, drama, books, and broadside publication. The alternate methods of prophetic interpretation, Futurism and Preterism were derived from Jesuit writings, whose counter reformation efforts were aimed at opposing this interpretation that the Antichrist was the Papacy or the power of the Roman Catholic Church

    Protestant Reformers, including John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Thomas, John Knox, Roger Williams, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley, as well as most Protestants of the 16th–18th centuries, felt that the Early Church had been led into the Great Apostasy by the Papacy and identified the Pope with the Antichrist. The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume Magdeburg Centuries to discredit the Catholic Church and lead other Christians to recognize the Pope as the Antichrist. So, 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. '

    Now in order to counter this view that the papacy was the Antichrist power it the church turned to the Jesuits who were summoned to counter the reformers' teachings, and here two Jesuit scholars stand out in particular. They are Ribera and Alcasar, and they developed the Futurist and Preterist systems of prophetic interpretation.

    Spanish Jesuit Francisco Ribera published a commentary on the book of Revelation which proposed that the bulk of the prophecies would be fulfilled in a brief three-and-one-half-year period at the end of the Christian era. In that short space antichrist (a single individual, according to Ribera) would rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, deny Christ, abolish Christianity, be received by the Jews, pretend to be god, and conquer the world. Thus the Protestant contention that the apocalyptic symbols of antichrist denoted an apostate religious system was countered, and the focus of the prophecies was diverted from the present to the far distant future.

    Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar also published a scholarly work on Revelation, to refute the Protestant Reformation on the Antichrist power. Alcazar's thesis, the opposite of Ribera's, was that all the prophecies of Revelation had been fulfilled in the past, that is, by the fifth and sixth centuries A.D., the early centuries of Christianity. He asserted that this prophetic book simply described a two-fold war by the church-its victory over the Jewish synagogue on the one hand (chaps. 1-11) and Roman paganism on the other (chaps. 12-19). Chapters 21, 22 Alcazar applied to the Roman Catholic Church as the New Jerusalem, glorious and triumphant. His writings were developed into a system of interpretation known as preterism.

    Over time these specific systems of counter interpretations of the Antichrist spread and began to penetrate Protestant thought. Preterism was the first; it began to enter Protestantism in the late eighteenth century. Preterist interpretations of the prophecies have today become the standard view of liberal Protestantism.

    The ideas of futurism, although refuted at first, eventually spread into Protestantism during the nineteenth century. Futurism, is currently followed in some form by most conservative Protestant bodies. Thus both spectrum of the Protestant denominations has picked up this counter reformation view set about to change the views of the papacy as the Antichrist power that was from the Reformers.

    The false doctrine as you can see, basically are to put aside the Reformers view of the Antichrist. Preterist interpretation puts all prophecy pertaining to the Antichrist into the past so it is long gone, and the Futurist interpretation puts them into the future so the papacy could claim it was not this power.

  • #2
    Antichrists have been here since NT times and still are.

    "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Hobie View Post
      Preterist interpretation puts all prophecy pertaining to the Antichrist into the past so it is long gone, and the Futurist interpretation puts them into the future so the papacy could claim it was not this power.
      Just curious, but do you think that the following prophecy has already been fulfilled?:

      "Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thess.2:3-4).

      Thanks!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
        Just curious, but do you think that the following prophecy has already been fulfilled?:

        "Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thess.2:3-4).

        Thanks!
        Well, see for yourself...

        A ancient Catholic document, Extravagantes Johannes, refers to the Pope as "Our Lord God the Pope...

        In 1512 Christopher Marcellus said this to Pope Julius II:

        "Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth.iii"

        Just recently, in 2004, Bishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland said this:

        "It seems that Pope John Paul II now presides over the universal Church from his place upon Christ's cross.iv"

        The Gloss of Extravagantes of Pope John XXII says this:

        But to believe that our Lord God the Pope the establisher of said decretal, and of this, could not decree, as he did decree, should be accounted heretical.v

        Words from the Popes themselves:

        In 1302 Pope Boniface said this in a letter to the Catholic Church:

        "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.vi"

        Pope Leo XIII said these things about the role of the Papacy and the Roman Church:

        'Our thoughts went out towards the immense multitude of those who are strangers to the gladness that filled all Catholic hearts: some because they lie in absolute ignorance of the Gospel; others because they dissent from the Catholic belief, though they bear the name of Christians.

        This thought has been, and is, a source of deep concern to Us; for it is impossible to think of such a large portion of mankind deviating, as it were, from the right path, as they move away from Us, and not experience a sentiment of innermost grief. But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty...viii'

        'But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.ix'

        And more recently, Pope John Paul II wrote that names like "Holy Father" are applicable to the Pope, even though calling him that is counter to the Gospel:

        'Have no fear when people call me the "Vicar of Christ," when they say to me "Holy Father," or "Your Holiness," or use titles similar to these, which seem even inimical to the Gospel.x'

        In 1996 he also gave his ascent to calling the Pope "Lord" and "Christ on earth":

        'we readily understand the devotion of Saint Francis of Assisi for "the Lord Pope", the daughterly outspokenness of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called "sweet Christ on earth", the apostolic obedience and the sentire *** Ecclesia of Saint Ignatius Loyola, and the joyful profession of faith made by Saint Teresa of Avila: "I am a daughter of the Church"

        If you check numerous Vatican Documents show the Papacy's belief in Papal Infallibility, that's a given.

        Comment


        • #5
          I see nothing there where anyone claimed to be God:
          "Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God" (2 Thess.2:3-4).

          Can you quote any Pope proclaiming himself to be God?

          Comment


          • #6
            So when you refer to the antichrist do you mean the "Beast" in Revelations. Why do people call the "Beast" the antichrist?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bradley D View Post
              Antichrists have been here since NT times and still are.

              "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18).
              Yes, but prophecy tells of the Antichrist power which comes from within in a great apostasy and turns into Harlot church and goes all the way to the end. So its much more than just a few teachers going against the true gospel.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Hobie View Post
                'One of the most influential aspects of the early Protestant historicist paradigm was the assertion that scriptural identifiers of the Antichrist where matched only by the institution of the Papacy. Particular significance and concern were the Papal claims of authority over both the Church, through Apostolic succession, and the State, through the Divine right of Kings. When the Papacy aspires to exercise authority beyond its religious realm into civil affairs, on account of the Papal claim to be the Vicar of Christ, then the institution was fulfilling the more perilous biblical indicators of the Antichrist. Martin Luther wrote this view, which was not novel, into the Smalcald Articles of 1537. It was then widely popularized in the 16th century, via sermons, drama, books, and broadside publication. The alternate methods of prophetic interpretation, Futurism and Preterism were derived from Jesuit writings, whose counter reformation efforts were aimed at opposing this interpretation that the Antichrist was the Papacy or the power of the Roman Catholic Church

                Protestant Reformers, including John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Thomas, John Knox, Roger Williams, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley, as well as most Protestants of the 16th–18th centuries, felt that the Early Church had been led into the Great Apostasy by the Papacy and identified the Pope with the Antichrist. The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume Magdeburg Centuries to discredit the Catholic Church and lead other Christians to recognize the Pope as the Antichrist. So, 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. '
                The original Protestant historicist interpretations of prophecy has some major flaws, not least of which is the identification of the Pope as the antichrist.
                The biggest flaws of the Protestant historicist interpretations are the misapplication of the “year-day” principle and the mistake of assuming that the Christian church was a focus of the prophecies.

                Originally posted by Hobie View Post
                Preterist interpretation puts all prophecy pertaining to the Antichrist into the past so it is long gone, and the Futurist interpretation puts them into the future so the papacy could claim it was not this power.
                Preterist and Futurist interpretations of prophecy also have major flaws.

                Preterism rightly puts the prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem on 70 CE where Futurism wrongly denies that fulfillment.
                Preterism wrongly puts the return of Christ as 73 CE where Futurism rightly puts it somewhere in the future.

                Futurism wrongly puts the great tribulation in the future and Preterism wrongly puts the great tribulation in the distant past.

                The best way to approach the interpretation of prophecy is to take it as literally as possible, apply as much of the prophecies as possible to the children of Israel and not to the Christian church, and to attempt to keep from messing up the timing of the fulfillment of prophecy the way that Historicists, Preterists, and Futurists tend to do.

                One example is the prophecy of the great tribulation prophecy found in the Olivet discourse.
                If the great tribulation prophecy is taken as literally as possible, then the prophecy is about a great tribulation on the children of Israel and the land of Israel, not on the whole world.
                The literal fulfillment of some of the prophecy took place in 70 CE with the destruction of the Temple, but the end of the prophecy is the return of Jesus after the times of the Gentiles.
                At the end of the tribulation, the elect, the children of Israel who are God's chosen people, are to be gathered from the four corners of the earth before the return of Jesus.

                Historicism, Preterism, and Futurism get this wrong.
                Learn to read what is written.

                _____
                The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                Comment

                Working...
                X