Futurist ideas can be found throughout the patristic literature, if you need an example, well okay then.
"And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do [now] worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: "Unless there shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sits in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God." The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped— that is, above every idol — for these are indeed so called by men, but are not [really] gods; and that he will endeavour in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God.
Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: "But when you shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that reads understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be."" - St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V, ch. 25.1-2
Irenaeus, along with a number of early fathers, were Chiliasts; that is Millennialists who believed in a literal thousand years and who read the Apocalypse and other apocalyptic texts in Scripture to be in reference to a future cataclysmic end with the appearing of a literal, individual Antichrist figure.
As I said, elements of what we call Futurism today can be found throughout the history of the Church.
That said, I'm not a Futurist. I'm not interested in defending Futurism as a hermeneutical approach to the Apocalypse; but I am interested in being truthful; and the truth is that Francisco Ribera didn't come up with Futurism. The Ribera narrative, I've found, is a classic Adventist tale used as part of its built-in dogmatic anti-Catholicism; since anti-Catholicism is a fundamental feature of the Adventist tradition it relies heavily on revisionist history, quote-mining, and outright lies in order to substantiate itself.
And, please, don't use the "Luther believed the Pope was the Antichrist" line. I'm perfectly aware of Luther's thoughts, and I am also well aware of what the Lutheran Confessions state: in condemning the papacy as Antichrist it is not the condemnation of an singular individual, but of the power of the papacy in the 16th century; and that the term "Antichrist" would rightly be ascribed to anything that stands in opposition to the preaching of the Gospel. And if you think what Luther had to say about the papacy was bad, you should see what he thought of the radicals. Even in regard to the rather moderate Reformed theologian Ulrich Zwingli Luther would say, "I'd rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics!"
-CryptoLutheran
