Thread: Questions about the Rapture

Evolution of Futurism and Preterism

Quite simply, the two alternative methods of prophetic interpretation were developed during the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation to oppose the historicist's interpretation that the Antichrist was the Roman Catholic church.

I am more convinced than ever after studying the persecutions listed in FBM that the Catholic church is The 4th beast in Daniel 7:23-24. I think this is also the beast of Revelation 13 that rises up out of the sea. Revelation 13:7 is very telling after reading the history in FBM.

These are currently my thoughts due to the study I have been doing the past few days. I am seeking to learn the fullness of the truth of the matter in Revelation. That is why these discussion are good. Someone else may have a point of view and scripture that differs, and I have to absorb and study it all out.

That is why I like having these discussions. Iron sharpens iron. It is good for us to challenge each other on these theories of eschatology.

Futurism

Futurism, developed by Francisco Riberia (1537-1591), owes its existence to the Counter Reformation. During the Protestant Reformation, the reformers, using Historicism, concluded that the system, as best represented by the Pope, of the Roman Catholic Church was the Beast of Revelation 13. Shea states:

The futurist interpretation of apocalyptic [prophecies] poses a ... problem. It also leaves most of the history of the Christian era unaddressed by God except in general spiritual terms. After this lengthy historical and prophetic vacuum, futurists then see the prophetic voice again taking up a concern for the last seven years of earth's history. (Shea 57.)

Synopsis of Futurism

Since the Antichrist is in the future, it could not be the Papacy.
Summary of the Fallacies of Futurism

Futurism is designed to relieve pressure on Rome.
Futurism violates the principle of consistent prophetic symbolism.
Futurism makes prophetic time meaningless.
Futurism removes application from historical verification.
Futurism creates an arbitrary gap which is an unjustifiable device.
Futurism ignores the view of the early church.
Futurism cannot be correct if Preterism is correct. (Froom2:803-805.)



Historicism, Futurism, Preterism

Preterism

Preterists are committed to the view that the majority of the prophecies of the book of Daniel have already been fulfilled and therefore no significance for the present day. (Shea 25.)

The Preterist view of prophetic interpretation was developed by Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613), also as part of the Counter Reformation. It was developed to take the heat off the Pope, who was feeling some discomfort from the Reformers' talk that the Papacy was the Antichrist.

The preterist view of apocalyptic prophecies and their time elements essentially leaves the whole Christian era, with the exception of a very small initial fraction, without any direct historical or prophetic evaluation by God upon the course of that history. (Shea 56.)

Preterism claims that the apocalyptic prophecies, especially those dealing with the Antichrist, were fulfilled before the Papacy ever ruled Rome. Since they were already fulfilled, the prophecies could not apply to the Papacy. The Preterist view ignores the fact that within the Old Testament itself is the foundation of prophetic interpretation and this foundation produces a broader view of God's interaction with human history.
Synopsis of Preterism

Since the Antichrist had been fulfilled in the past, it could not be the Papacy.
Summary of the Fallacies of Preterism

Preterism is an expedient designed to shield Rome.
Preterism violates the principle of consistent symbolism.
Preterism glorifies the Papacy by ignoring the actualities.
Preterism denies the elemental principle of Bible prophecy.
Preterism, like futurism, leaves an explained gap.
Preterism offers no adequate fulfillments.
Preterism cannot be correct if Futurism is correct. (Froom2:803-805.)




Historicism, Futurism, Preterism

Here is some very interesting stuff from that website for any who want to check it out:

Protestant History

Looks like this is going into the very roots of Catholicism maybe starting with Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8.

Interesting so far!

Thanks Nikos for this link!



Simon's Later Activities

To read all the material that the writers of the second to the fourth centuries wrote about this man and his followers, would literally take days. He has been called by many of them "the father of HERESY," and, apart from the Bible, the amount of literature devoted to him and his activities, shows he lived up to that title. Some of the following authorities to be brought forth were eyewitnesses of many of the things mentioned, and they were writing to others who were likewise eyewitnesses. Much of the testimony to be mentioned is conclusive and cannot be set aside.


Wycliffe seems to back this history up in one of his tracts:

In one of his tracts he said, speaking of the pope and his collectors: "They draw out of our land poor men's livelihood, and many thousand marks, by the year, of the king's money, for sacraments and spiritual things, that is cursed heresy of simony, and maketh all Christendom assent and maintain this heresy.



The Great Controversy - Chapter 5 - John Wycliffe

Some of the info on the birth and growth of the RCC:

In this age it became customary to regulate the consideration and rank of the bishops by that of the city in which they resided. Rome was the capital and mistress of the world, therefore influence and dignity began to accrue

PAGE 7

to the bishops of Rome. As the free states that formerly existed in the world had rendered their wealth, independence and deities to form one colossal empire, why, asked the bishops of Rome, should not the various churches throughout the world surrender their individuality and their powers of self government to the metropolitan see, in order to form one mighty Catholic Church? Why should not the Christian Rome be the foundation of law and faith to the world, as Pagan Rome had been? If the occupant of the temporal throne had been a king of kings, why should not the occupant of the spiritual chair be a bishop of bishops? That the bishops of Rome reasoned in this way was a historical fact.

The Papacy In History And Prophecy

This is good reading:

The Great Controversy - Chapter 5 - John Wycliffe

Why do people want to suffer when He has suffered for us!

I don't think anyone "wants" to suffer, brother Nikos. I am sure that none of the millions killed by the Romans, the Catholics, or the Muslims wanted to suffer. And yet they did.

I certainly don't want to suffer.
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa--------------Not screaming like the passengers riding with him in his car!

(That was a joke, of course)

And we are not appointed to suffer God's wrath.
But that has nothing to do with the great tribulation, which by the words of Jesus started long ago and history shows it to be absolutely true.

Many of the visions of Daniel and John the Revelator can be reconciled to documented history.
Once these are all reconciled, we are left with the actual end times and the appearance of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If you study the articles from the link that YOU posted, you will see that both Preterism and Futurism (dispensationalism) were started by Catholics who were defending themselves from the revelation that the RCC is the beast.

Continuing on with our history lesson:

Huss and Jerome

THE gospel had been planted in Bohemia as early as the ninth century. The Bible was translated, and public worship was conducted, in the language of the people. But as the power of the pope increased, so the word of God was obscured. Gregory VII, who had taken it upon himself to humble the pride of kings, was no less intent upon enslaving the people, and accordingly a bull was issued forbidding public worship to be conducted in the Bohemian tongue. The pope declared that "it was pleasing to the Omnipotent that His worship should be celebrated in an unknown language, and that may evils and heresies had arisen from not observing this rule."--Wylie, b. 3, ch. 1.