Historicism - The Reformers eschatology

Biblewriter said:

The errors of this concept, and in particular of the book “Horae Apocalypticae,” were clearly and completely refuted in a book titled "Lectures on the Revelation," published in 1861 by William Kelly, and available online at http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/kelly/2Newtest/REV_index.html

Click to expand...

Thanks for the chuckle du jour.

From Wikipedia:

Horae Apocalypticae (Hours with the Apocalypse) is doubtless the most elaborate work ever produced on the Apocalypse. Without an equal in exhaustive research in its field, it was occasioned by the futurist attack on the Historical School of interpretation. Begun in 1837, its 2,500 pages are buttressed by some 10,000 invaluable references to ancient and modern works. Horae Apocalypticae consists of 4 volumes. It ran through five editions (1844, 1846, 1847, 1851 and 1862)."[1] In 1868 he published a Postscript to comment on the events, or perceived lack of events, marking the prophetically significant years, 1865/7.

Charles Spurgeon wrote in 1876, the year after Elliott died, that Horae was "the standard work on the subject."


The speculative reveries of Darbyite futurist William Kelly cannot begin to remotely compare to the monumentality of Horae Apocalypticae.

LittleLambofJesus said:

What, you haven't heard of false prophecies?
So then, the Jews are just gonna let a pope waltz right into their Sanctuary and have a seat in it? [that's IF the Jews ever build one for him to sit in]

2 Thessalonians 2:4 [Daniel 11:36]
He opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship,
so that he, in the Sanctuary of God, as God to be seated<2523>, shewing himself off that he is God

Click to expand...

"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 that he is God." II Thess 2:4 (The Greek text here doesn't demand that he actually claim to 'be' God, but rather that he is showing off by taking the honors 'due' God.)

The temple was a physical building for the Jews pre-Christ. But what is the temple of God now? The church. (I Cor 3:16-17, Heb 8:4-5, Heb 9:24, Acts 7:28, I Pet 2:5, etc.)

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'" II Cor 6:16

So we are not necessarily looking for someone to somehow sit in a Jewish re-built temple and declare himself God or higher than God. That would actually seem less sensible for the Christians who would read Revelation - interpreting prophecy through the limited lens man had pre-Christ or artificially conflating this prophecy with others given to the Jews long ago. We could also be looking for is someone who sets himself up within the church above every god or object of worship, wishing to be the center of the church and treated as 'God.' We could even be looking for someone outside the church who seeks to usurp God in the minds and hearts of believers.

Elicott's commentary sums up how broad this prophecy could be like this:

"Though the image is drawn from the Jewish temple, we may say with some confidence that St. Paul did not expect the Antichrist as a prose fact to take his seat in that edifice. Neither is the metaphor to be pressed into a mere synonym of “the Church” (1 Corinthians 3:17). The words, so far need not necessarily mean that the Man of Sin will make special claims upon the Christian community as such. Rather, the whole phrase, “taking his seat in the temple of God,” is a poetical or prophetical description of usurping divine prerogatives generally: not the prerogatives of the true God alone, but whatever prerogatives have been offered to anything “called God.” Though the prophecy might be fulfilled without any symbolical act (e.g., of assuming any material throne), yet the spontaneousness (“himself ) and the openness (“showing himself”) seem so essentially parts of the prophecy as of necessity to imply that the Man of Sin will make formal claim to occupy that central seat in men’s minds and aspirations which is acknowledged to be due to God alone."
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_thessalonians/2-4.htm


So the Papacy is neither a guaranteed nor impossible candidate here. The Papacy sets itself up as the center of the Universal church, with the Pope as the highest member - even called 'Holy Father.' The Pope sits on a throne and others often bow to him, prostrate before him, bow and kiss, etc.

"The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son, who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity....Catholics believe this and therefore call him "Holy Father" or "Your Holiness." (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994)." goo.gl/MJcwDa

Bull of Pope Boniface VIII:
"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter,... Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/unamsanctum.htm

"Christ entrusted his office to the chief Pontiff; (Mat 16:18, Mat 24:45) but all power in heaven and in earth had been given to Christ; (Mat. 28:18) therefore the chief Pontiff, who is his vicar, will have this power."
(Extravagantes, Decretal. Greg. IX. de Transl. lib. i. tit. 7. c. 3.'Quanto personam,' Pope Innocent III)
goo.gl/kz2feu


While various Bible scholars and commentators have come to different views and theories on 'who is the Antichrist' - the Papacy is a common theory (very common during the Reformation) and certainly not implausible. It is not without history and scripture to support the view, though there are other possibilities as well.

RACarvalho said:

Not by what you feel...
3 simple rules:
1 - Bible interprets the Bible - For each symbol given in Revelation and in the New Testament, the meaning of it was already interpreted in the Bible, mostly in the Old Testament.
2 - Rule of the first mention - Unless the meaning is clearly identified otherwise, when the meaning of a symbol is first defined in the Bible, that meaning remains the same throughout the end. The Bible has only one Author: When God got Moses to write Genesis, He already knew what John would write in Revelation....
So I have nothing of mine on this, and nobody does, except God.
That is the reason Peter says that " it's of no private interpretation..."

Click to expand...

The Bible can’t interpret itself, the Church does. The Bible has many authors and perspectives, so it can only be interpret through the Church. The Jews used oral law to interpret the Torah and Old Testament aswell and still do.

RACarvalho said:

Not by what you feel...
3 simple rules:
1 - Bible interprets the Bible - For each symbol given in Revelation and in the New Testament, the meaning of it was already interpreted in the Bible, mostly in the Old Testament.
2 - Rule of the first mention - Unless the meaning is clearly identified otherwise, when the meaning of a symbol is first defined in the Bible, that meaning remains the same throughout the end. The Bible has only one Author: When God got Moses to write Genesis, He already knew what John would write in Revelation....
So I have nothing of mine on this, and nobody does, except God.
That is the reason Peter says that " it's of no private interpretation..."

Click to expand...

Actually, consistency of symbols varies in scripture, most notably by literary type. For example, in parables the same symbols are often used in different ways - as what made the symbol was where it fit into the narrative analogy. (This is also reflected in Jewish parables and writings. For example, leaven could be used as a symbol of evil/sin but also was used in sometimes in Jewish writings as a symbol for growth.) In poetry, symbols could differ as well. Grass might stand for provision or it could stand for something fleeting, for example.

But symbols in literary prophecy or Apocalypse are more consistent - although even there not always identical. For example, a Tree could stand for a powerful person or a ruler - similar, but not identical. Eagles often stood for armies, but not necessarily the same army. More generically, the Eagle stands for 'judgement.' So in the case of apocalypse or prophecy, symbols do generally keep a similar and consistent meaning until the end. This does help immensely when coming to Revelation, as we have aid from Isaiah and other books to narrow down the intent and imagery of the symbols.

Jennifer Rothnie said:

"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 that he is God." II Thess 2:4 (The Greek text here doesn't demand that he actually claim to 'be' God, but rather that he is showing off by taking the honors 'due' God.)

The temple was a physical building for the Jews pre-Christ. But what is the temple of God now? The church. (I Cor 3:16-17, Heb 8:4-5, Heb 9:24, Acts 7:28, I Pet 2:5, etc.)

"And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.'" II Cor 6:16

So we are not necessarily looking for someone to somehow sit in a Jewish re-built temple and declare himself God or higher than God. That would actually seem less sensible for the Christians who would read Revelation - interpreting prophecy through the limited lens man had pre-Christ or artificially conflating this prophecy with others given to the Jews long ago. We could also be looking for is someone who sets himself up within the church above every god or object of worship, wishing to be the center of the church and treated as 'God.' We could even be looking for someone outside the church who seeks to usurp God in the minds and hearts of believers.

Elicott's commentary sums up how broad this prophecy could be like this:

"Though the image is drawn from the Jewish temple, we may say with some confidence that St. Paul did not expect the Antichrist as a prose fact to take his seat in that edifice. Neither is the metaphor to be pressed into a mere synonym of “the Church” (1 Corinthians 3:17). The words, so far need not necessarily mean that the Man of Sin will make special claims upon the Christian community as such. Rather, the whole phrase, “taking his seat in the temple of God,” is a poetical or prophetical description of usurping divine prerogatives generally: not the prerogatives of the true God alone, but whatever prerogatives have been offered to anything “called God.” Though the prophecy might be fulfilled without any symbolical act (e.g., of assuming any material throne), yet the spontaneousness (“himself ) and the openness (“showing himself”) seem so essentially parts of the prophecy as of necessity to imply that the Man of Sin will make formal claim to occupy that central seat in men’s minds and aspirations which is acknowledged to be due to God alone."
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_thessalonians/2-4.htm


So the Papacy is neither a guaranteed nor impossible candidate here. The Papacy sets itself up as the center of the Universal church, with the Pope as the highest member - even called 'Holy Father.' The Pope sits on a throne and others often bow to him, prostrate before him, bow and kiss, etc.

"The leader of the Catholic church is defined by the faith as the Vicar of Jesus Christ (and is accepted as such by believers). The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son, who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity....Catholics believe this and therefore call him "Holy Father" or "Your Holiness." (John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, p. 3, 1994)." goo.gl/MJcwDa

Bull of Pope Boniface VIII:
"Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter,... Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/unamsanctum.htm

"Christ entrusted his office to the chief Pontiff; (Mat 16:18, Mat 24:45) but all power in heaven and in earth had been given to Christ; (Mat. 28:18) therefore the chief Pontiff, who is his vicar, will have this power."
(Extravagantes, Decretal. Greg. IX. de Transl. lib. i. tit. 7. c. 3.'Quanto personam,' Pope Innocent III)
goo.gl/kz2feu


While various Bible scholars and commentators have come to different views and theories on 'who is the Antichrist' - the Papacy is a common theory (very common during the Reformation) and certainly not implausible. It is not without history and scripture to support the view, though there are other possibilities as well.

Click to expand...

In an examination of both Scripture and history, it becomes apparent that none rivals the historic apostate papacy in a comparison of the latter to the former. The papacy did situate itself as a spiritual counterfeit within the Church, arrogating authority theretofore ascribed to the only Head of the Church, Christ Himself. Over the centuries as its apostasy deepened, recognition of the papacy as an antichrist began to increasingly appear. The first known public declaration was in the late 10th century. From Wikipedia:

"Arnulf (archbishop of Reims) disagreed with the policies and morals of Pope John XV. He expressed his views while presiding over the Council of Reims in A.D. 991. Arnulf accused John XV of being the Antichrist while also using the 2 Thessalonians passage about the "man of lawlessness" (or "lawless one"), saying, "Surely, if he is empty of charity and filled with vain knowledge and lifted up, he is Antichrist sitting in God's temple and showing himself as God." This incident is history's earliest record of anyone identifying a pope with the Antichrist."


The additional Scriptural and historical reinforcement seen within Daniel 7 and other Scripture laid the foundation for the subsequent emergence of the Reformers, their diagnoses, and their Reformation, which began several centuries later. The doctrine of the apostate papacy as an antichrist was integral and indispensable to the ultimate success of the Reformation.

The Reformers' diagnoses proved to be accurate, and ultimately indisputable by all objective measures and criteria.

This was affirmed by the post-Reformation historical true Church for the next two centuries.

RACarvalho said:

First The Antichrist is an office / title of a function and not a person.
Second, it developed (it was not put in place in one day) after and took vantage of the great apostasy that was going on even before Constantine declare Christianity the religion of the state.
The 538 date is counted because it is when it became to be ENFORCED over the believers.
You can be the most pious person on earth but if you deny Jesus doctrines and uphold blasphemies, you are not a disciple of Jesus Christ and you are working against Jesus.
The popes commissioned the Jesuits to fight the reformation and in 1590 they distorted Daniel 9:27 (literally calling the Messiah the antichrist) and started preaching that the rapture would be fulfilled in a 7 year tribulation in the future when the antichrist would appear, therefore the Protestant teaching that the papacy is the antichrist can not be true because the antichrist is still in the future....
Futurism (the jesuit preaching) is a blasphemy for call Messiah the antichrist and violate all rules of interpretation.
So Jesus would write an entire Book of prophecies for the Church and completely miss all the history of the Catholic Church while if we study human History it is impossible to miss the Roman pontiff???? Does that make sense?
More: Even Catholics agree that the beasts of the prophecy in Daniel chapter 7 are the Babylonian, mede/persian, Greek and Roman empires and what is the interpretation method used for that? => Historicism!!! People would study the symbols in the prophecy and the look in the History what power / person, etc hold that and that is the fulfillment of the prophecy....
When you apply that to Revelation, you can't miss the popery as the antichrist...

Click to expand...

I have to question your history.

By 'it' you mean the Catholic faith, which at that time was universal throughout the empire and not yet subject to schism between the east and west? It seems like an odd date to say the Anti-Christ Papacy began at that date when you should make it earlier because Theodosius was the one to enforce Christianity on the empire and it's subjects. Also what do you do about the Western Roman Empire which collapsed, so there wasn't a single authority to enforce religious compliance by the Pope? Rather individual kings converted to Catholicism and brought their subjects with them throughout the middle ages.

As for Jesuits preaching about the rapture, I'm going to need proof of that, since the rapture is a uniquely protestant doctrine not found in the early Church or Church during the time of the reformation. So how were they mishandling Daniel any more than any other interpretation of the bible they had?

As for missing Popery as the Anti-Christ, a great deal of us have. We remain unconvinced.

RACarvalho said:

Willian Kelly liked John Derby's ideas.
Derby got his ideas on eschatology from Edward Irving that in turn took his ideas from the JESUIT Manuel Lacunza work, which was an expansion on Jesuit Francisco Ribera's work of 1590... Basically FUTURISM...
Just as a curiosity, Scofield got his ideas from Darby and his Scofield Bible commentary made it into the Southern Baptist Seminary early 20th century so that was how Jesuit Futurism got into Baptists....
I'll try to read William work though for I'm interested in the truth.

Click to expand...

This widely circulated claim has been thoroughly disproved multiple times, right in this very forum.

Biblewriter said:

This widely circulated claim has been thoroughly discredited multiple times, right in this very forum.

Click to expand...

jgr said:

Thanks for the chuckle du jour.

From Wikipedia:

Horae Apocalypticae (Hours with the Apocalypse) is doubtless the most elaborate work ever produced on the Apocalypse. Without an equal in exhaustive research in its field, it was occasioned by the futurist attack on the Historical School of interpretation. Begun in 1837, its 2,500 pages are buttressed by some 10,000 invaluable references to ancient and modern works. Horae Apocalypticae consists of 4 volumes. It ran through five editions (1844, 1846, 1847, 1851 and 1862)."[1] In 1868 he published a Postscript to comment on the events, or perceived lack of events, marking the prophetically significant years, 1865/7.

Charles Spurgeon wrote in 1876, the year after Elliott died, that Horae was "the standard work on the subject."


The speculative reveries of Darbyite futurist William Kelly cannot begin to remotely compare to the monumentality of Horae Apocalypticae.

Click to expand...

Have you even bothered to read William Kelly's response to this work?Or have you simply dismissed it out of hand?

Biblewriter said:

Have you even bothered to read William Kelly's response to this work?Or have you simply dismissed it out of hand?

Click to expand...

Have you even bothered to read Horae Apocalypticae? Or have you simply taken Kelly's word about it?

Why not provide some citations to corroborate your claim?

Al Masihi said:

Islamism is barbarism and to be fought at every turn, but Luther supported the Muslims.

Click to expand...

Luther, like many central Europeans, considered the Turks to be a scourge.

FireDragon76 said:

Luther, like many central Europeans, considered the Turks to be a scourge.

Click to expand...

A scourge he believed should not have been fought.

RACarvalho said:

Since Revelation was written in Greek, I prefer to keep the Greek solution, which render "Lateinos" in Ancient Greek - Which means "Latin Speaking man..."

Click to expand...

Correct, the Latin speaking emperor Nero, the sixth ever from Caesar.

So everyone knows the Iron Maiden Song "666, the number of the Beast".

So, please tell me how many books are there in the Bible?

FireDragon76 said:

Luther, like many central Europeans, considered the Turks to be a scourge.

Click to expand...

According to the History Channel Documentary ottoman empire the Ottomans paid Luther and the Protestants to break away from the Catholic Church in order to undermine their Catholic enemy who was trying to defend the gates of Europe against them.

If so, the Protestants "stabbed the Catholics in the back" so to speak in the middle of a religious war to defend Europe.

Al Masihi said:

A scourge he believed should not have been fought.

Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand him. He wasn't opposed to European states fighting the Turks, he just didn't believe in the concept of a holy war or crusade. National defense is ultimately a civic issue, not a religious issue.

Erik Nelson said:

According to the History Channel Documentary ottoman empire the Ottomans paid Luther and the Protestants to break away from the Catholic Church in order to undermine their Catholic enemy who was trying to defend the gates of Europe against them.

Click to expand...

I've seen little evidence to substantiate that claim. It wasn't until the late 16th century that some nations like the Dutch began to seek military alliance with the Ottomans. This is long after the religious issues of the Reformation were largely settled.

Luther's stance was relatively quietist politically, which means he would not oppose the right of the Holy Roman Empire to defend itself against the Turks.

After the victory at the battle of Lepanto in 1571, there were celebrations in many Protestant cities even though the battle had been fought by Catholics against the Turkish navy.

Anyone here heard of the Christadelphians?
They are also historicists, and some historicists have some really "way out there, off the wall" beliefs......

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...reat-did-not-ride-on-the-white-horse.2231060/

quote: OK. here we go.
The 2nd horseman (in the historicist view) is Charles the Great who
founded the Holy Roman Empire. He rode a red horse and conquered with a
great sword (or lance, see Rev. 6:3-4)
It should also be noted that both Constantine's Byzantine Empire and the
the Holy Roman Empire lasted 1000 years, as did Israel, the first chosen
people.
The 3rd horseman is King james who rode a black horse and conquered with
economics (6:5-6).
The 4th horseman (IMO) is George Washington who rode a pale horse. His
successors brought us mass death (i.e. the nuclear bomb).

Adding further proof, the seven stars of ch. 1 form 21 vectors which
circle the earth and point to many things foretold. One vector points to
Rome, another to Constantinople (Constantine's capitals). Another vector
points to Versailles (where Charles the Great was crowned). One vector
points to London (King James' capital). Another vector forms a great
circle that points to New York, Philadelphia and Washington, DC, the 3
historical capitals of the USA.

http://blog.dianoigo.com/2016/03/christadelphian-apologetics-modern.html

Christadelphian interpretation of the Book of Revelation

Christadelphians have traditionally held to the continuous historical or historicist interpretation of the Book of Revelation, which interprets the visions from chapter 4 onward as a long-term forecast of world history from the end of the first century through the present and into the eschatological future.
This view was introduced to the Christadelphians by Dr. John Thomas (1805-71), the movement's founder, whose magnum opus was Eureka: An Exposition of the Apocalypse, a three-volume work written toward the end of his life. Dr. Thomas appears to have regarded the historicist interpretation of Revelation as virtually an article of faith.

A Statement of Faith provided by Dr. Thomas to the editor of a magazine in 1869 included the following among the propositions that Christadelphians 'from the very first most surely believed and [which have been] taught by their recognized scribes and their literature':

19. They regard the Roman church as “the Mother of Harlots;” and the papal dynasty as “the name of blasphemy,” seated on the seven heads of Rome (Rev. xiii. 1; xvii. 9,) and the paramour of the Old Mother. They hold, also, that their harlot-daughters answer to the state churches of Anti-Christendom; and the “abominations of the earth,” to all the dissenting names and denominations, aggregately styled “names of blasphemy,” of which the European body politic, symbolized by the eight-headed scarlet-coloured beast, is said to be “full.” – (Rev. xvii. 3.)

24. They teach we are living in the period of the sixth vial, in which Christ appears upon the theatre of mundane events; and that the two great leading and notable signs of the times are the drying-up up of the Ottoman Power, and the imperial French Frog Power in its political operations in Rome, Vienna, and Constantinople, during the past twenty-one years. – (Rev xvi. 12, 16)3

Al Masihi said:

Rome is not visited and payed respects by all people, Rome does not sit on seven hills. Mecca sits on seven hills and is payed respects by all people, it’s Kaaba decorated with the finest silk, fragrances, and incense. From Mecca a traditional city there are horses, oil, jewels, and souls of men.

Click to expand...

Jennifer Rothnie said:

Rome is well known through history as as the "city of seven hills." .......................Besides Rome, what is the other famous Biblical city of seven hills?
Jerusalem. And to be fair, there were many people in Jerusalem of the time who were 'anti-Christ' - but it really doesn't fit elsewise.

• 
  Constantine, also, shortly built Constantinople on seven hills in *imitation* of Rome..........

Click to expand...

The greek word used in Revelation 17:9 is #3735, which is rendered as "mountains".

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/luke-23-30-mountains-fall-on-us-hills-cover-us.8077312/
Luke 23:30 "..Mountains fall on us, hills cover us.."

Isaiah 65:7
Your iniquities and the iniquities of your fathers together” says Yahweh,
“Who have burned incense on the mountains<2022>
And blasphemed Me on the hills<1389>;
Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom.”

3735. oros or'-os probably from an obsolete oro (to rise or "rear"; perhaps akin to 142; compare 3733); a mountain (as lifting itself above the plain): -hill, mount(-ain).
1015. bounos boo-nos' probably of foreign origin; a hillock:--hill.

Luke 3:5 [Isaiah 40:4]
Every valley shall be filled And every mountain/ὄρος<3735> and hill/βουνὸς<1015> brought low;
The crooked places shall be made straight And the rough ways smooth;

Luke 23:30
Then they will begin ‘to say to the mountains/ὄρεσιν<3735>, 'Fall on us!”, and to the hills/βουνοῖς, “Cover us!” '

Hebrews 12:
37 They were stoned, they were sawed in two,c they were killed by slaughter of the sword; they wandered in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, being oppressed, being mistreated;
38 of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, and mountains/ὄρη<3735>, and caves and holes of the earth.

Revelation 6:
15 And the kings of the land, and the great ones, and the commanders, and the rich, and the powerful, and every slave and free,
hid themselves in the caves, and among the rocks of the mountains/ὀρέων<3735>.
16 And they are saying to the mountains/ὀργῆς<3735> and to the rocks, “be falling! on us and hide us! from the face of the One sitting on the throne,
and from the wrath of the Lamb,

Revelation 17:9
“Here is the mind which has wisdom:
The seven heads are seven mountains/ὄρη<3735> on which the Woman sits.