HISTORICISM

End Times
canada
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:17 pm

HISTORICISM

Post by canada » Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:38 pm

Historicism is strictly a Protestant understanding.

It attempts to align specific historical events with certain details in Revelation. One non-negotiable feature of classical historicism is the assertion that the papacy is “antichrist”.

It is my understanding that when the Reformers say “anti” Christ they are not saying “opposed to” Christ, but rather the Greek meaning of “anti” found in Strongs Concordance # 473:

Meaning “in place of” Christ, “instead of” Christ, a substitute.
As in “vicar” of Christ, or claiming to be “as God on earth”.

They claim that preterism and futurism are promotions of the Jesuits
(Alcazar, Lacunza, Ribera) designed to neutralize the bad publicity given to the papacy by the Reformers.

One example of aligning an historical event with Revelation is the following:

Around 1690, it is reported, historicist interpreter Robert Fleming was invited before the English court of William of Orange, King William III, to lecture on Bible prophecy. The king asked the man of God when the temporal power of the papacy in Europe would fall. Fleming’s reply was published in his 1701 book entitled Apocalyptic Key.

Concerning the fall of the papacy as the ruling power in Europe, the prophecy scholar wrote: “I say this judgment will begin about A.D. 1794 and expire about 1848.”

This prediction was made approximately one hundred years prior to the projected dates. Historicist apologists point out that in 1794 the French Revolution’s “Reign of Terror” occurred, which, they say, marked the beginning of the end of the pope’s temporal power in Europe. In the 1848, the pope was temporarily driven from Rome.

Regarding the different views of interpretation, I highly recommend the book by Steve Gregg … Revelation Four Views. One of the most unbiased books on this subject I have ever read.

ccc

canada
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: HISTORICISM

Post by canada » Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:59 pm

AND THE CHURCH OF ROME NEVER CHANGES?

The true Christianity of Jesus was formulated and complete during the years shortly after His death and resurrection. 33-70-90 AD.

The religion called “Roman Catholicism” is a mixture of Christian beliefs and pagan practices. It was Constantine’s way of pleasing all the people of Rome when he made Roman Catholicism the state religion.

The Church of Rome’s additions to true Christianity.

Making the “sign of the cross” …………………………… 300 AD
Veneration of angels, dead saints and use of images …… 375
Beginning of the exaltation of Mary ……………………………… 431
The doctrine of “purgatory” ………………………………………… 593
Latin used in prayer and worship ………………………………… 600
Kissing the pope’s foot …………………………………………………. 709
“Holy Water” ……………………………………………………………….. 850
Fasting on Fridays and during Lent ……………………………… 998
Celibacy of the priesthood decreed ……………………………. 1079
The “Rosary” invented by “Peter the Hermit” …………… 1090
The INQUISITION instituted by the Council of Verona … 1184
The sale of “indulgences” …………………………………………….. 1190
“Transubstantiation” proclaimed by pope Innocent III … 1215

Auricular confession to a priest instead of to God instated ….1215
*Adoration of the wafer decreed ……………………………………...... 1220

*Bible forbidden to laymen and placed on “Forbidden books” 1229

The cup forbidden to laymen (though instituted by Jesus) …… 1414
Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma …………………………………....... 1439
TRADITION declared as equal authority with the Bible ……….. 1545

Eleven Apocryphal books added to the 66 books of the Bible .. 1546
Immaculate Conception of Mary proclaimed …………………….. 1854
(Jesus’ conception was immaculate not Mary’s)

INFALLIBILITY of popes proclaimed by Vatican Council ……… 1870
The “Assumption” of Mary proclaimed ……………………………... 1950

Mary proclaimed “Mother of the Church” ………………………….. 1965

These doctrines and practices became part of the system of Rome’s “Christianity”, and not one of them existed until centuries after Jesus.

And where is the "sign of the cross" located? ... on right hand and forehead.

ccc

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: HISTORICISM

Post by steve7150 » Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:34 am

Yes i think some form of historicism makes sense. I don't quite know the details but i suspect there may have been three different beasts or Anti-Christs , Nero, the Papacy and Islam.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: HISTORICISM

Post by Paidion » Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:33 pm

I think historic premillenialism makes sense. It was the position of the second-century Christians (and I believe the first century ones also).
I agree with Canada that historicism was the Protestant position. I am not a Protestant (nor a Roman Catholic nor an Eastern Orthodox).
I go with the early Christians, not only in the area of eschatology, but in the area of Theology, Christology, ecclesiology, soteriology, and any other Christian "ology".
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: HISTORICISM

Post by robbyyoung » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:01 pm

Biblical historicism would need Prophets in order to apply past events to the future. The last set of Prophets, in the Apostolic era, applied what was typological to the final last days. Which they emphatically applied to their generation.

Therefore, for historicism to remain valid for, so-called, greater prophetic realities, the world would need another set of inspired prophets to apply and add to the Word of God inspired revelations.

So where does scripture teach of these inspired ones with the authority to apply typological prophetic events beyond The Apostolic Era?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Robby Young
U.S. Army Retired

canada
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:17 pm

Re: HISTORICISM

Post by canada » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:21 pm

Sir Isaac Newton, scientist and Bible student (and historicist) had this to say: "If God was so angry with the Jews for not searching more diligently into the prophecies which He had given them to know Christ by, why should we think He will excuse us for not searching into the prophecies which He hath given us to know Antichrist by?"

Newton had no doubt as to the identity of Antichrist and the Whore of Babylon ... that is, the Church of Rome and its pope.

In Newton's mind, the task of the scholar was to show that biblical prophecies had been fulfilled in historical events. One could know, however, only after the event and it was not for the student of prophecy to become a prophet ... until the event occurred, the prophecies pertaining to it could well remain obscure. This was an important point for Newton ...all would become clear in due course.

With this mindset, Sir Isaac would definitely not be a futurist.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: HISTORICISM

Post by steve7150 » Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:32 am

the world would need another set of inspired prophets to apply and add to the Word of God inspired revelations.

So where does scripture teach of these inspired ones with the authority to apply typological prophetic events beyond The Apostolic Era?











In your opinion Robbie. My opinion is different which is that Revelation is not just about repeating the Olivet Discourse in obscure language and that Jesus talked about the suddeness of his second coming in Matt 24.36-44 on and in the second half of Luke 17.22-37 which is clearly not 70AD, IMHO.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: HISTORICISM

Post by steve7150 » Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:42 am

the world would need another set of inspired prophets to apply and add to the Word of God inspired revelations.

So where does scripture teach of these inspired ones with the authority to apply typological prophetic events beyond The Apostolic Era?











In your opinion Robbie. My opinion is different which is that Revelation is not just about repeating the Olivet Discourse in obscure language and that Jesus talked about the suddeness of his second coming in Matt 24.36-44 on and in the second half of Luke 17.22-37 which is clearly not 70AD, IMHO.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: HISTORICISM

Post by steve7150 » Thu Oct 30, 2014 7:43 am

Sorry about posting twice

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

HISTORICISM

Post by robbyyoung » Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:48 pm

Hi steve7150,

Like I said before, somewhere, prove this opinion of yours with Apostolic teachings concerning anything Yeshua taught, and they expounded on concerning another time, place and audience. Find it and build a case, otherwise, start paying attention to what was said and taught to the 1st Century Believers.

The First Century is the base to build from and if the evidence doesn't lead you beyond there, so be it.

God Bless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Robby Young
U.S. Army Retired

Post Reply

Return to “Eschatology”