Futurism and preterism

canada · Jan 1, 2013

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 498"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="width: 99%"] A History
of the Foundation of
Futurism and Preterism
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 99%"] 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.
Jesuits 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.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 99%"]
[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

David777 · Jan 2, 2013

canada said:
 [TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 498"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="width: 99%"] A History
of the Foundation of
Futurism and Preterism[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 99%"] 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.
Jesuits 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.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 99%"][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Hello canada.

If futurism was the view held by the early church
then it matters not whether a catholic monk wrote
on the subject.

Post tribulationists believe that Christians will be gathered in the clouds
with Christ and join him when He returns. (Even pretribulationist Tim Lahay
admits a post-tribulation rapture is the closest of the three views to that held
by the early church.)

canada · Jan 2, 2013

David777 ... you said in part:

"If futurism was the view held by the early church then it matters not whether a catholic monk wrote on the subject."

Yes ... "If"

I am sure you are well aware that the EFC had divergent opinions.

From my posts, you know generally where I am coming from, but I don’t think I have ever found out who you claim is the false church, the religious false prophet of Revelation, the first beast of Revelation, the meaning of the image and mark of the beast.

I know little if anything, about your position on the above things.
Also, might you be a full preterist, a partial preterist, an historicist, a futurist, or an idealist?

This may be helpful for me to follow your reasoning, and why you "appear" to be opposed to the historicist view.

David777 · Jan 2, 2013

Hello Canada.

Who needs to have an opinion on any scripture?

There a million people out there who will most
eagerly force their often erroneous opinion upon
you. My time at TJ has mostly been spent in the
correction of faulty theology.

Eschatology is a very difficult subject to deal
with, hence I tread very softly. Nearly all views
on eschatology have strong and weak points.

If I was forced to offer an opinion, it would
be futurist and more than likely post trib.
I must place emphasis on treading softly as
I have read far too many errors in print
regarding eschatology to be too hasty in
the pursuit of an eschatology position.

As I was never really taught eschatology I had
to plumb the depths myself. I have had some
assistance from certain folk on this site which
I am grateful for.

The false church sits on seven hills, RCC, she
is the mother of thousands of flawed churches.

Very little data is available on the false prophet in the
scriptures.

Also, this lack of data on the beast does not allow
a sufficient sketch to be made. No doubt the Holy
Spirit will notify or reveal more as the time approaches.

Now canada, the mark of the beast is where I have
a particular issue with the sda view. I follow a very
simple, literal, reading of the scriptures. I do strongly
object to the spiritual reading of the text in reference to
the mark. Sunday observance is not the mark, the mark
is applied to the forearm or forehead!

canada · Jan 3, 2013

David you said: "Who needs to have an opinion on any Scripture?"
I thought that was a strange remark in that it seems to be the norm when discussing eschatology ... otherwise why do you bother to ask me questions on these issues?

You refer to the sda and their mark of the beast.
Are you stirring the pot again and associating me with the sda ... because unless you have forgotten, you apologized to me because you "thought" I was sda.

"If" you are going to associate me with anyone, please do it with the Reformation saints and martyrs or prophecy writers such as:
Sir Isaac Newton, Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes Commentary, John bunyan, Charles Spurgeon, the Geneva Bible Translators, Adam Clkark Commentary, Jamison, Brown and Fausett Commentary,John Foxe of Foxes Book of Martyrs, John Knox of Scotland, Gratton Guinness, EB Elliott, John Wesley, Uriah Smith, Philip Mauro.

DO NOT associate me with SDA , Mormons, Jews or any other fringe group that happens to believe that Roman Catholicism and the papacy is a harlot church.

You have noted that eschatology is not your forte but rather theology. No problem with that as theology is not my forte.
In the last 30 plus years, you are only the second person I have come in contact with to state that the mark of the beast is applied to "the forearm or forehead."

Did Hal Lindsay and his futurist Late Great Planet Earth have an influence on you, as he said the same thing.
I don't know if he was trying to avoid implicating the RCC or trying to imply the Jews with their phylacteries and amulets ... but scripture is quite clear that it is the right hand.

Is there a reason why you omitted that, as the first ten or so Bibles I checked out clearly state that the identifying mark is in or on the right hand?

I definitely do agree with you that the SDA is in serious error regarding the mark as being Sunday worship.
So again, please do not implicate me with them.

You also stated ... No doubt the Holy Spirit will notify or reveal more as the time approaches.

And this David, marks the huge difference in the systems of interpretation between historicists and futurists.
With many of the expectations being yet future for the futurist, for historicists much of those things have been revealed.
I have no intent to go into those specific things, but that is the story in a nutshell.
You said you have been helped in your eschatology by some here at TJ.
If nothing else I have ever said here was helpful, I hope that point is.

Eric E Stahl · Jan 3, 2013

David777 · Jan 4, 2013

Sorry canada, have been distracted by other events
over the last few days. Promise not to associate you
again with the sda cult. Just moved house and immersed in
chaos at the present time.

Right hand, correct canada, not sure where I picked up that
annoying idea from. Definitely not Hal Lindsay, probably
some post on another site.

Need your opinion if you do not mind canada.

I was reading on a site that compared preterism with
futurism. This site stated that futurism was the more
literal in approach to the scriptures than preterism.
What sayeth ye to this?

canada · Jan 4, 2013

Yes David ... futurism is definitely more "literal" to their approach than partial preterism.
However, "some" seem to go to the extreme and almost become "hyper literal".

Futurism points out that they are more "literal" than preterism, but preterism replies that where they (preterism) are extremely literal about Rev 1 being "soon" ..."shortly come to pass" or "at hand", the futurists suddenly become less literal, and point out a huge gap in time for certain events.

The old "tit for tat".

I too am a little busy at the moment, but shortly, I will provide you with a very good example of a hyper "literal" interpretation of a particular prophetic passage by a "learned" futurist seminary professor and a "less literal" but more logical interpretation of the same passage.

canada · Jan 4, 2013

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Hello David,

The following is just an “example” of the literalism often employed by futurist writers, and the “less literal” of an historicist writer.

The literal interpretation is that of a leading professor of the Dallas School of Theology … Hal Lindsey being one of its prized students.
THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

And he had power to give LIFE unto the IMAGE of the beast, that the image of the beast should both SPEAK, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. Rev 13:13-15. KJV

If you are a 100% literalist, then read no further, but if there is a more logical yet biblical explanation should that not be considered?

It boggles my mind to think that an otherwise intelligent person could conceive of such a carnal, sensationalistic interpretation as follows:

Professor Pentecost of the Dallas School of interpretation had this to say about the False Prophet creating an image that could speak and had life:

“Now I don’t profess to be able to explain to you how this false prophet can make this image of the beast speak, whether he does it electronically, or by ventriloquism or by some Satanic marvel, but I know that here is something so awesome that when the world sees this dead and lifeless image begin to give commands, they fall down before it as though it had come from Almighty God Himself.”

Is Professor Pentecost wrong in his interpretation? If he is, can he be proved wrong? Well, so long as that school of interpretation continues to place their predictions into the future … so long as those things do not come to pass, they can not be proven wrong can they?

So what alternative explanation might be reasonable and biblical for an “image that dies by a mortal wound and yet can speak and has “life”?

If we believe that the location of the beast and great ***** is found on the seven hills of Rome as indicated in scripture, and if we believe the suffering saints and martyrs of the Roman Catholic “Inquisition”, and Reformation Protestants such as John Knox, John Wesley, Thomas Cranmer, John Wycliffe, Sir Isaac Newton, Gratton Guinness, Charles Spurgeon etc., then we should look no further than Romanism and the papacy as being the second beast or False Prophetof the Book of Revelation.

John Wycliffe taught that the “little horn’ found fulfillment in the Papacy. His book ‘The Mirror Of Antichrist’ has many references to the Pope as Antichrist.
Isaac Newton states: “If the apostasy be rightly charged upon the Church of Rome, it follows that the man of sin is the pope, not meaning this or that pope in particular, but the pope in general as the chief head and supporter of this apostasy.” Newton’s “Dissertations On The Prophecies”.

John Knox said the pope should be recognized as “the very antichrist”.

Does “Peter” represent the Church of Rome? According to them, yes.

Is the Roman Catholic Church referred to as the Church of Peter?
Does there exist in the Vatican, a bigger than life size bronze image of Peter that people bow down to and kiss its foot? Yes.

If the “real” Peter and the “real” Mary knew how that apostate church now portrays them … it would blow their mind.

Other than Satan himself, there is no other person in scripture that Jesus ever called “Satan” except Peter … that is, the “Peter” that represents the Church of Rome. Matt 16:23.

The book of John has been called the “Book of Signs”. The main character in John 21 is not John, nor Jesus, but Peter. Peter was “naked”.

This is that same chapter in which Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him … the third time was almost like asking … “do you even love me”?

We are told to “count or calculate” the number of the beast. The word that Jesus “added” to Simon was “peter” small stone. In biblical times, small stones were used to count, and even though Jesus did not indicate anyone in particular, it is Peter that is associated with the counting of the 153 fish. John 21:11.

SIMON AND PETER = 153 (A=1 … Z=26)
John 21 also contains an unusual conversation between Jesus and Peter.
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not. I believe this “other” to be Satan.

This spake he (Jesus) signifying by what death Peter should glorify God.
John 21:18-19.

Some believe this refers to the (myth) about Peter being crucified upside down. However, there have been some respected theologians within the Church of Rome that believe that scripture indicates that their own church is “Babylon” and would become apostate in the last days.

Revelation 17 and 18 describe the complete and total destruction of that great city Mystery Babylon, which I believe to be Vatican City.

When Vatican City and “The Church Of Peter” is finally destroyed then, I believe … God will be glorified.

*** What has all this to do with the False Prophet making an image that *** can speak and has “life”?

The Church of Rome declares every Pope to be The IMAGE of Peter.
When Pope Paul VI addressed the United Nations, he said:
“Do you know who I am? My name is Peter.”

The “False Prophet” isthe Vatican hierarchy… vatic meaning prophet.
When one of it’s “HEADS” dies (a current pope) the Vatican through it’s College of Cardinals “creates another image” of the previous “Peter” … and this image can speak and has life. Rev 13:3.

By the required 2/3 vote (66.6%) of the 111 cardinals present in the case of Pope John Paul The Second, he became their new “image of Peter” and this is how John of Patmos describes the not so mysterious image that has life and can speak.

Folks, this does not require rocket science knowledge … nor is it sensationalism as some prophecy teachers would have us believe.
I believe it is historically factual, logical and it is biblical.

Let no man deceive you by any means; for (that day shall not come) except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.

Who is associated with the “counting” of the 153 fish? … Peter.

THE FALLING AWAY = 153
THE GREAT ***** = 153
THE IMAGE OF PETER = 153
Why did God place 153 fish in the net, and why was it Peter that did the counting? John 21:11.

TO REVEAL SATAN = 153
COUNT THE BEAST = 153
The above numeric examples use simple English gematria, wherein:
A=1 … Z=26 Here is wisdom. Let he who hath understanding count …

TO GOD BE THE GLORY FOR GREAT THINGS HE HATH DONE.

ccc

Eric E Stahl · Jan 5, 2013

jari · Jan 5, 2013

hi canada

canada said:
THE FALLING AWAY = 153
THE GREAT ***** = 153
THE IMAGE OF PETER = 153
Why did God place 153 fish in the net, and why was it Peter that did the counting? John 21:11.

TO REVEAL SATAN = 153
COUNT THE BEAST = 153
The above numeric examples use simple English gematria, wherein:
A=1 … Z=26 Here is wisdom. Let he who hath understanding count …

what are we counting here?

edit: I used gematria calculator for all those phases and they were correct except for one. "THE FALLING AWAY" is actually 144.

Eric E Stahl · Jan 5, 2013

Thanks Jari I remembered wrong.

jari · Jan 5, 2013

Eric E Stahl said:
153 Parables in the bible.

Eric where did you get that? some have counted about 30 parables in the bible.

Eric E Stahl · Jan 5, 2013

Thanks jari. I remembered wrong.

jari · Jan 5, 2013

Eric E Stahl said:
Thanks jari. I remembered wrong.

no proplem . I was just wondering where is this all leading, do you believe the true identity of beast can be counted?

what I was thinking about the beast's number is that since 6 is number of man then 666 is some kind of great archievement of a man. (which is inspired by satan . Revelation 13 "The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.")

Eric E Stahl · Jan 5, 2013

jari said:
no proplem . I was just wondering where is this all leading, do you believe the true identity of beast can be counted?

what I was thinking about the beast's number is that since 6 is number of man then 666 is some kind of great archievement of a man. (which is inspired by satan . Revelation 13 "The dragon gave him his power, his throne, and great authority.")

canada · Jan 5, 2013

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Yari … thank you for the numerical correction … 144 rather than 153.

As you know, 144 is an important prophetic number in Revelation.
The 144 thousand. Note that they IMMEDIATELY follow the “counting” of the 666 beast … that in itself could be a significant sign.

It is the number of the “wall” around God’s mystical city in Rev 21:17.
144 cubits … if meant to be understood literally, not a very high wall for a city that is 1500 miles high is it?

But note that its “measurement” is that of a man, that is of the messenger (angel). I believe it reflects the measuring or counting of the 666 man and also reflects the counting of the 153 fish by … “peter”.
As noted earlier, “Peter” represents the Church of Peter, and not only that, but each and every pope is called by the name of “Peter”.

You may recall that the only person Jesus called “Satan” in the Bible was “Peter”. Is this a coincidence, or a sign? You decide.

Abraham Sarah and Paul’s names were changed, but you will recall that Jesus added the name “Peter” to Simon.

The word“peter” means small stone, and small stones were used in biblical times for counting.

After awhile,“coincidences” start to add up and they just may be starting to reveal something about counting” and the wisdom that God offers to those so inclined to “count the number of the beast”. Rev 13:18.

You will recall that the 144 thousands “sing a new song” that others do not understand, and the victors over the image, mark and number also sing a song. Rev 15:3.

Is the number144 significant? I believe so.

Psalm 144 is loaded with reference to the false church and the mark in the right hand … ie the RC “sign of the cross” and always displayed with the right hand and placed upon the forehead of the infant followers of the beast at baptism and upon the forehead of the adult followers of the beast on Ash Wednesdays.

If you examine David’s Psalm 144, you will see that he also sings a new song, and note that David makes reference to fighting with “hands and fingers”. “Hands fingers and palms” were biblical units of measure used to “count”.

What I find most significant in Psalm 144 is the fact that David makes reference to the “hand of strange children” whose right hand is a right hand of falsehood.

Usually when the Bible “repeats” something it is significant.
In Psalm 144, this reference to the right hand of falsehood is
repeated by David three verses later. Psalm 144: 8-11.

In that the first mention of the 144 thousands IMMEDIATELY follows the counting of the 666 man, this too may be more than a coincidence.

BEAST IMAGE AND MARK = 144
MARK OF THE BEAST = 144
THE BRAND OF ROME = 144
PETER THE BEAST = 144
PETER’S CHURCH = 144
SIGN OF CROSS = 144

To God be the glory for great things He hath done.
ccc

jari · Jan 6, 2013

Eric E Stahl said:
When God calls the Christians up in the air to go to heaven (during the rapture), He will also remove the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit.

I don't believe this is true Eric for one good reason. Paul was telling the church (christians) that they should not expect day of the Lord until son of perdition comes. Day of Christ (or Lord) = rapture when Jesus comes with the angels.

2Th 2:1-2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, (2) That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

gathering to Him is rapture of christians here. Paul would not write this to Christians using terms like this unless he was indeed talking of the very gathering to Jesus in sense of rapture.

Mat 24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

in mat 24 Jesus talks about this gathering at His coming.

God bless you

Eric E Stahl · Jan 6, 2013

jari said:
I don't believe this is true Eric for one good reason. Paul was telling the church (christians) that they should not expect day of the Lord until son of perdition comes. Day of Christ (or Lord) = rapture when Jesus comes with the angels.

2Th 2:1-2 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, (2) That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

gathering to Him is rapture of christians here. Paul would not write this to Christians using terms like this unless he was indeed talking of the very gathering to Jesus in sense of rapture.

Mat 24:29-31 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (30) And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (31) And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

in mat 24 Jesus talks about this gathering at His coming.

God bless you

Jari,

I will show you two or three passages that are describing the same time as Matthew 24:29-31. This is not the common understanding but I believe it is correct.

<style>  </style> Mid Tribulation

Zechariah 14:1–5a KJV
1 Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided
in the midst of thee.
2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.
4 And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.
5 And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal.

Zechariah saw a vision of Jewish women being rescued. In the middle of the tribulation, the Antichrist will come against Israel because they will not worship him or his image. As the armies of the world close in on the remnant of Israel, everything looks lost and hopeless.
However, at that time, the Lord Jesus will help Israel by making a way of escape. Jesus will split the Mount of Olives from east to west so that it forms a great valley when the two halves of the Mount of Olives move north and south. Israel will flee down that valley to the east while the armies of the world are stranded on the top of the Mount of Olives and all around Jerusalem.

Revelation 12:15–17 KJV
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

THE GREAT TRIBULATION 125

Satan will send a great army of soldiers to pursue the fleeing Jews. Do you remember what happened to the king of Egypt’s armies when they chased Israel through the divided Red Sea in the book of Exodus? (See Exodus 14:21–31.) Something similar is going to happen again. When the army of the Antichrist follows Israel down the valley, the Mount of Olives will swallow them, infuriating Satan.

Isaiah 16:1–5 KJV
1 Send ye the lamb to the ruler of the land from Sela to the wilderness, unto the mount of the daughter of Zion.
2 For it shall be, that, as a wandering bird cast out of the nest, so the daughters of Moab shall be at the fords of Arnon.
3 Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the midst of the noonday; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that wandereth.
4 Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert to them from the face of the spoiler: for the extortioner is at an end, the spoiler ceaseth, the oppressors are consumed out of the land.
5 And in mercy shall the throne be established: and he shall sit upon it in truth in the tabernacle of David, judging, and seeking judgment, and hasting righteousness.

Jesus, the Lamb of God, is going to sit on the throne of Israel. Jesus comes to Israel to split the Mount of Olives so that Israel can flee from the dragon and the Antichrist’s army. Israel will go east, down the Lord’s valley, cross the Jordan River, turn right, and travel about one-third of the way down the other side of the Dead Sea to the river ford or the river crossing on the Arnon River in the country of Jordan and stay with the survivors of Moab.
Keep in mind that Daniel 11:41 tells us that Edom, Moab, and Ammon (Jordan) will escape out of the control of the Antichrist.
God spares Jordan from occupation by the Antichrist because the people of Israel who were not taken to America will be going there to live for three-and-a-half years with the survivors of Moab at the river ford on the Arnon River. Notice that Isaiah 16:3 says that the Lamb will make the noonday as night with a shadow! Remember this verse, because it is a clue to the location of the kingdom of the Antichrist. Later we will

126 AMERICA’S LAST WARNING

see that the shadow is from a permanent solar eclipse over Israel. While
that sounds impossible, nothing is impossible with God.

Notice the darkness of the shadow when the Lamb and the Lord come at the middle of the tribulation. There will be a gathering of the two witnesses Revelation 11, the 144000 revelation 14:1-4, and the dead saints from the first half of the tribulation Revelation 15:1-4.

David777 · Jan 6, 2013

Eric E Stahl said:
<style>  </style> Jari,

We won’t know who the antichrist is because we will be raptured before God chooses him!

The Christians who have the Holy Spirit in them are the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13–16). This means that we, with the influence of the Holy Spirit in us, are presently preventing worldwide corruption the same way that the proper amount of salt preserves country ham. John 16:7-8 explains that the comforter would reprove sin in the world after he came into the believers hearts. When God calls the Christians up in the air to go to heaven (during the rapture), He will also remove the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit..

Eric there are problems with this eschatology, Jari has pointed
out one of the issues.

"This means that we, with the influence of the Holy Spirit in us, are presently preventing worldwide corruption"

Corruption is immense and world wide, we Christians have had virtually
no effect on this corruption. Hence Eric, the restrainer may not be the
Holy Spirit as you seem to think. Remember that your eschatology of
a mid tribulation rapture is only one of numerous theoretical constructions.

I still do not believe that you think Christians prevent corruption?

Welcome!

Futurism and preterism

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Members Online

Trending content

Newest members

Stay Connected