Baptists and Futurism

[JM]

Why are Baptists obsessed with Jesuit eschatology?

WIKI:

Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian, identified with the Futurist Christian eschatological view.

Futurism (Christianity) is the proposal that the Book of Revelation does not bear the application to the Middle Ages or the papacy, rather the "future" (more particularly to a period immediately prior to the Second Coming). The Dictionary of Premillennial Theology (1997) states that Ribera was an Augustinian amillennialist, whose form of futurism proposed that only the introductory chapters of "Revelation referred to ancient Rome, and the remainder referred to a literal three and half years at the end of time. His interpretation was then followed by Robert Bellarmine and the Spanish Dominican Thomas Malvenda.

Dispensationalism is a Christian evangelical, futurist, Biblical interpretation that believes that God has related to human beings in different ways under differentBiblical covenants in a series of "dispensations," or periods in history. End quotes

"My brother, I am a constant reader of my Bible, and I soon found that what I was taught to believe did not always agree with what my Bible said. I came to see that I must either part company with John Darby, or my precious Bible, and I chose to cling to my Bible and part from Mr. Darby." George Müeller (1805–1898)

I am quite convinced that all the promises to Israél are found, are finding and will find their perfect fulfilment in the Church. It is true that in time past, in my expositions, I gave a definite place to Israél in the purposes of God. I have now come to the conviction, as I have just said, that it is, the new and spiritual Israélthat is intended. G. Campbell Morgan (1863-1945)

[edited]

It is mortifying to remember that I not only held and taught these novelties myself, but that I even enjoyed a complacent sense of superiority because thereof, and regarded with feelings of pity and contempt those who had not received the "new light" and were unacquainted with this up-to-date method of "rightly dividing the word of truth." For I fully believed what an advertising circular says in presenting "Twelve Reasons why you should use THE SCOFIELD REFERENCE BIBLE," namely, that: "First, the Scofield Bible outlines the Scriptures from the standpoint of DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH, and there can be no adequate understanding or rightly dividing of the Word of God except from the standpoint of dispensational truth."

What a slur is this upon the spiritual understanding of the ten thousands of men, "mighty in the Scriptures," whom God gave as teachers to His people during all the Christian centuries before "dispensational truth" (or dispensational error), was discovered! And what an affront to the thousands of men of God of our own day, workmen that need not to be ashamed, who have never accepted the newly invented system! Yet I was among those who eagerly embraced it (upon human authority solely, for there is none other) and who earnestly pressed it upon my fellow Christians. I am deeply thankful, however, that the time came (it was just ten years ago) when the inconsistencies and self contradictions of the system itself, and above all, the impossibility of reconciling its main positions with the plain statements of the Word of God, became so glaringly evident that I could not do otherwise than renounce it. Philip Mauro (1859-1952)

 

[JM]

A good outline:

"The origin of this theory can be traced to three Jesuit priests; (1) Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), (2) Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) one of the best known Jesuit apologists, who promoted similar theories to Ribera in his published work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time, and (3) Manuel Lacunza (1731–1801). The writings of Ribera and Bellarmine, which contain the precedence upon which the theory of Dispensationalism is founded, were originally written to counteract the Protestant reformers' interpretation of the Book of the Revelation which, according to the reformers, exposed the Pope as Antichrist and the Roman Catholic Church as the harlot of Babylon.

Ribera's theory lay dormant until it was revisited by Lacunza, and Lacunza's work the Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty (Vol.I, Vol.II.), was translated into English by Edward Irving (1792–1834) in 1827. However, Irving was not aware that the author of this work was not the converted Jewish Rabbi he pretended to be, but a Roman Catholic imposter, and a Jesuit at that! Irving was duped into believing that Lacunza was a converted Jewish Rabbi named Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, and he was taken in by his anti-Protestant writings. It should be noted that J. N. Darby was also vehemently opposed to Protestantism and at one time, like his friend John Henry Newman, considered converting from Anglicanism to the Roman Church. Having been led astray by this Jesuit work, Irving completely rejected the historical orthodox Christian belief concerning the return of Jesus Christ; as the following extract from his introduction to his translation of Lacunza's work clearly shows.

"...having, by God’s especial providence, been brought to the knowledge of a book, written in the Spanish tongue, which clearly sets forth, and demonstrates from Holy Scripture, the erroneousness of the opinion, almost universally entertained amongst us, that He is not to come till the end of the millennium, and what you call the last day, meaning thereby the instant or very small period preceding the conflagration and annihilation of this earth; I have thought it my duty to translate the same into the English tongue for your sake, that you may be able to disabuse yourselves of that great error, which hath become the inlet to many false hopes, and will, I fear, if not speedily corrected, prove the inlet to many worldly principles and confederacies, and hasten the ruin and downfall of the present churches."

Another Roman Catholic counter-interpretation to that held by Protestants is that of Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), a Spanish Jesuit. Alcazar also wrote a commentary on the book of the Revelation entitled An Investigation into the Hidden Meaning of the Apocalypse. In which he suggests that the entire Revelation applies to pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. Perhaps the Roman Catholic origin of the dispensationalist view is best described by Le Roy Edwin Froom"
http://regal-network.com/dispensationalism/

 

[classicalhero]

A clear reading of Revelation shows that these events haven't happened yet, otherwise we would be in the new heavens and new earth right now.

 

[JM]

A clear reading of Revelation shows that these events haven't happened yet, otherwise we would be in the new heavens and new earth right now.

"A clear reading..." means what? Ignoring the "things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified...?" Before the Jesuit schemes of Futurism and Preterism Christians understood that Revelation was a book of symbols that "signified" a prophetic reality. Futurism is new, false and unbelievable.

Yours in the Lord.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

A clear reading of Revelation shows that these events haven't happened yet, otherwise we would be in the new heavens and new earth right now.

...the raising of the dead, Judgement Day, etc. I could see a case made that Revelation describes the Pope as the Antichrist. I could see a case made that Revelation had begun to be fulfilled almost from its inception. Perhaps all of history could be found somewhere in Revelation, but, like you say, there's no new Heaven and new earth. Otherwise the curse would be broken, and the bark would stop falling off of my geocaches, and the trim would stop peeling from my car.

That prophecy has been fulfilled is easy to accept. That there's nothing left to give us hope (or warning) for the future is flatly unacceptable to me. People have had prophecy to guide them since mere days after the Fall of Man. Until His Story comes to a conclusion, I must conclude that history still has some prophecy left to fulfill.

 

[Bluelion]

To clear it up premillianist believe the thousand years of Christ is literal, that Christ will come back and reign for literal thousand years, that the tribulation period has not happen yet. From there is branches to 3 main schools some believe in pre tribulation rapture before the tribulation period, 2nd is mid tribulation which will happen 3 and half years in when the anti Christ breaks the peace deal with Israel, and then you have post tribulation which views when Christ comes in the cloud is when we are raptures up with Him and then return.

and you are preaching what amillennialism. That we are living in the thousand year reign of Christ and the person is raptures away buy receiving Christ, yet does not leave this world that it is all spirit and they stay here and then are under the reign of Christ and all that is left is judgement day. (staff edit)

 

[miamited]

Hi JM,

Not sure what the Jesuits believed about the Revelation, but can give you my understanding. Not based on what they believe, but rather on what I have come to believe by studying and praying for the Holy Spirit's guidance in understanding the things that God has caused to be revealed to His creation.

To me, the Revelation seems to cover pretty much the entire span of the 'times of the Gentiles' up to and including the final day of God's judgment upon the inhabitants of the earth. The beginning of the writing does cover things that would 'soon come to pass'. As I understand it, the letters and the horsemen accounts have already been fulfilled. Jesus had John to write the letters to the churches of the various cities to be given to them at that time to correct them and warn them of things that they were doing, both right and wrong, in that day. His purpose was to correct them from the errors which had already infiltrated the various churches and to set their foot back on the path of right worship. He gives fair warning to them, just as God often did with His people Israel, of the consequences of not correcting their errors.

The horsemen have been loosed upon the earth and still today ride throughout the width and breadth of the earth. The first horseman being the gospel of salvation. The others having control over various temporary trials and tribulations which plague mankind.

Beyond that, most of the Revelation seems to be related to future events, although some may have already come to pass. The full reading of the Revelation seems to reveal that it is not all in sequential and chronological order. For example, the woman who bears the child in chapter 12 seems to most definitely be referring to Israel and the birth of the Savior, the Son of God, and the events that transpired in those days and the casting out of Israel from its land, the diaspora, and the resultant tribulation of Satan against the believers in Jesus.

So, I am in full agreement that the events portrayed in the Revelation did 'soon come to pass' as in when they started. But, the account covers a very wide range of history and, although the things spoken of in the Revelation did begin shortly after or even were occurring at the time that John penned the account, they tell of things that we should be aware of coming along as the future unfolds up to the day of God's judgment. The final chapters even give an account of what the eternal life will be like after the day of God's judgment. The Revelation is exactly that. It is God revealing to His created some of the events that will be revealed as the future, from the resurrection of our Lord, unrolls.

You may not agree, and that's fine with me. I have found, especially on this site, that very, very few find agreement in all that the Scriptures tell us and reveal to us. I too, feel sorrow when we allow our great wisdom of the Scriptures to build an unrighteous pride in our hearts.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi JM,

Some other things to keep in mind about the use of the word 'soon'. Depending, of course on what translation one uses of the Scriptures, we find in the Revelation chapter 3 that Jesus says he is coming 'soon'. However, it has now been 2,000 years and he hasn't returned yet. In chapter 22 we find the same thing. Jesus says that behold he is coming soon, and yet still some 2,000 years have passed. So, how God defines 'soon' and how we define 'soon' may not be in agreement.

In chapter 1 we find that Jesus even tells John that some of the things he would be writing would be taking place 'now' and some 'hereafter'. So, as I explained, I find that the Revelation covers a very long period of time upon the earth and some of what is revealed in the writing did come soon and some hereafter. Further, John mentions twice that he was immediately in the spirit. That would provide some evidence that not all of the Revelation was given to John at the same time. So, it may well be that the first things that Jesus revealed to John were going to be 'soon', but later revelation may have been separated from that word.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JM]

Historically, Baptists did not believe in Dispensationalism. It is a knew form of eschatology created by Jesuits to obscure the meaning of Daniel and Revelation by pushing all prophetic events into the future. The acceptance of Dispensationalism by Baptists can be traced back to the Niagara Bible Conferences where it was taught by Gospel Hall Brethren. Once it took root Lewis Sperry Chafer started Dallas Theological Seminary which taught this new distinct form of hermeneutic that avoided the literary genre and the literal meaning of the Bible for a "literalism" that operates with a set of unbiblical presuppositions. These presuppositions lead to a near Gnostic view of man, God, Satan, sin, prophecy, etc. and have become the default position of North American Christianity especially in the U.S.

Folks, spend some time reading Bible commentaries written before 1900 to see what I mean. Even Historic Premil looks completely different compared to the odd Premil we have today.

Yours in the Lord.

 

[miamited]

Hi JM,

Honestly, I've never even been sure what dispensationalism is. I'm really not one to attach names to what people believe. There are only two beliefs as far as I know. The truth and everything else.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Historically, Baptists did not believe in Dispensationalism.

To paraphrase a well-respected member of our forum community:

I can't believe this thread is still going...

Still going, and it just gave birth!

Sorry, JM, I couldn't resist. You complained about the debate on dispensationalism, and then segued into another debate on dispensationalism.

 

[JM]

It's more about the origins of Futurism, why it was created and it infiltrated Christian thinking. But maybe you're right.

 

[classicalhero]

I'm just wondering when did 1/4 quarter of the world's population die and when did the seas turn to blood? There are some very specific events in Revelation that has no historical possibility.

"And the name of the star is called Wormwood:

AND

the third part of the waters became wormwood;"

I will not point out the obvious.

Why did they die?

 

[JM]

I'm just wondering when did 1/4 quarter of the world's population die and when did the seas turn to blood? There are some very specific events in Revelation that has no historical possibility. Why did they die?

Ooooh, hero really has got me. Haha! Not really, you think you're slick but your really not. Try a commentary prior to 1900. Now look up "sea" in scripture, how it is used and what the word "signifies" like Revelation 1.1 instructs us to do. Keep in mind that you already assume everything is future like a good Futurist even when we read what takes place will "shortly come to pass." So much for a clear reading...

 

[Job8]

Why are Baptists obsessed with Jesuit eschatology?

What makes you think Jesuit eschatology trumps Bible Truth? Why has Francisco Ribera become a whipping boy for some? If what he said is supported by Scripture, then only those who have another agenda will reject whatever he said. Even if Ribera had never existed, Futurism would be solidly supported by Scripture as well as historical facts (not theological fantasies).

 

[Job8]

Honestly, I've never even been sure what dispensationalism is.

miamited,
Dispensationalism is simply a system of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation) which attempts to take all Bible truth (including all prophecies) as real, literal, historical (or future historical), and factual.

One must go back to the Abrahamic Covenant to understand why Dispensationalism recognizes that God has a distinct eternal plan for the Church in the New Jerusalem (redeemed Jews and Gentiles in one Body until the Rapture) and another eternal plan for redeemed and restored Israel on earth after the Church is raptured.

Every prophecy pertaining to the redemption of Israel and the restoration of the Promised Land (which will ultimately extend from the Nile to the Euphrates) according to the Abrahamic Covenant must be fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the future. There will be a future Millennium (Rev 20) and a future Millennial Temple (Ezekiel 40-47). Study the prophecy of Ezekiel carefully and note that it describes what is expected in the future for Israel under Christ.

All this talk about Ribera, Darby, Scofield, Ryrie etc. is simply a red herring, and a diversion to put peoples minds on personalities rather than prophetic fulfilment. The same applies to the enumeration all the wonderful Amillenialists that have ever existed. None of that is relevant. Even if these men had never existed or written about these matters, Bible Truth would ultimately be revealed as above.

 

[JM]

miamited,
Dispensationalism is simply a system of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation) which attempts to take all Bible truth (including all prophecies) as real, literal, historical (or future historical), and factual.

One must go back to the Abrahamic Covenant to understand why Dispensationalism recognizes that God has a distinct eternal plan for the Church in the New Jerusalem (redeemed Jews and Gentiles in one Body until the Rapture) and another eternal plan for redeemed and restored Israel on earth after the Church is raptured.

Every prophecy pertaining to the redemption of Israel and the restoration of the Promised Land (which will ultimately extend from the Nile to the Euphrates) according to the Abrahamic Covenant must be fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the future. There will be a future Millennium (Rev 20) and a future Millennial Temple (Ezekiel 40-47). Study the prophecy of Ezekiel carefully and note that it describes what is expected in the future for Israel under Christ.

All this talk about Ribera, Darby, Scofield, Ryrie etc. is simply a red herring, and a diversion to put peoples minds on personalities rather than prophetic fulfilment. The same applies to the enumeration all the wonderful Amillenialists that have ever existed. None of that is relevant. Even if these men had never existed or written about these matters, Bible Truth would ultimately be revealed as above.

A red herring is a debate trick to lead you off topic, it's not a red herring if the subject (established in the op by me) is being discussed.

Since I started this thread I actually know what the subject of the thread is and it's about the origins of modern Futurism. The origins of Futurism include the Jesuits, Darby, Scofield, Jewish Zionism, etc. That is the subject.

If you change the subject from Futurism because you really don't understand the topic or would prefer to discuss something else, it is YOU who is guilty of using a red herring.

Yours in the Lord.

 

[JM]

This is one of the funniest statements to be published abroad. Dispensationalism is supported by Scripture so it cannot possibly be a device of the Father of Lies.

Ah, feigned laughter...when you don't even understand what a red herring is...now that's funny.

 

[Bluelion]

WHat was the first doctrine of the church Guess what it was premillianism. According to Elwell premisliialism was the first docrine of millianism and they were called Historic premilliannism. these were the prevailing eschatology during the first 3 centuries of the church. and can be found in works of Papias, irenaeus, justin marty, tertuillian, hippolytus, methodius, commodianus, and lactantius.

The reformation millennialism was led by augustine bishop of hippo, which started the amillennial view was not until the middle ages when it became church doctrine of mid evil period, however groups still stay around in defiance of this view. premillenniialism group still fought back against amillianism, most notably the rebellion of the city of munster in 1534. matthy gained control of the commuinty by proclaiming to be enoch, he then pronounced munster the New Jerusalem. Europe with catholic and protestant force attack the city to break it up it should be noted most anabaptist jioned with a millennist, but were over come. Maybe it was the muster uprising which led to protestant reforms.

I could go on But my point is made and I am going to eat the early church first 300 years were premillisist. Amillinism did not come about until the middle ages, yes it was accepted by the church at that time How ever it was not true to church doctrine. That of the early church. And the point is what does any of this have to do with God? you are speaking of bildings made of stone and wood not the body of Christ.

Your focus on men I am focus on God, care to discuss what God says or would you like to go on about the wars of men? And as I have stated with reference That premillism was the doctrine of the early church from start you know when luke and Paul were around. That trumps you.

(Elwells a. W Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd ed.)

 

[miamited]

miamited,
Dispensationalism is simply a system of hermeneutics (Bible interpretation) which attempts to take all Bible truth (including all prophecies) as real, literal, historical (or future historical), and factual.

One must go back to the Abrahamic Covenant to understand why Dispensationalism recognizes that God has a distinct eternal plan for the Church in the New Jerusalem (redeemed Jews and Gentiles in one Body until the Rapture) and another eternal plan for redeemed and restored Israel on earth after the Church is raptured.

Every prophecy pertaining to the redemption of Israel and the restoration of the Promised Land (which will ultimately extend from the Nile to the Euphrates) according to the Abrahamic Covenant must be fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the future. There will be a future Millennium (Rev 20) and a future Millennial Temple (Ezekiel 40-47). Study the prophecy of Ezekiel carefully and note that it describes what is expected in the future for Israel under Christ.

All this talk about Ribera, Darby, Scofield, Ryrie etc. is simply a red herring, and a diversion to put peoples minds on personalities rather than prophetic fulfilment. The same applies to the enumeration all the wonderful Amillenialists that have ever existed. None of that is relevant. Even if these men had never existed or written about these matters, Bible Truth would ultimately be revealed as above.

Hi job8,

Based on that definition, then I would be comfortable with anyone saying that I am a dispensationalist. I believe that all Scripture, including prophecy is real, literal, historical and factual. However, as to what you claim that dispensationalists recognize, I'm not so much in agreement with that. So, am I or am I not a dispensationalist. I do agree that the Scriptures are true, literal, historical and factual, but when I read them as such I'm not necessarily convicted on some of the things that you believe the true, literal, historical and factual Scriptures reveal. One question that comes to my mind in the passage of Ezekiel that you posted is that it is a conditional command. God tells Ezekiel to describe the temple to the people of Israel that they may be ashamed of their sin. He then tells him that 'if' they do become ashamed of their sin, 'then' he is to make known to them the requirements for building the structure. As far as I can recall, Israel never did this.

If Ezekiel did as the Lord told him, and waited for them to be ashamed of their sin, I don't believe the Scriptures recount that there ever was any godly shame in Israel. Now, you may well say, "Well, that's because it foretells of a future Israel, but that doesn't seem to be what God is telling Ezekiel. My understanding is that He was telling Ezekiel in the 6th or 7th century BC, when he was a prophet in Israel, to do that then. Ezekiel was a prophet who lived in the days of Babylon going out and destroying the city of Jerusalem and laying siege against its inhabitants. Thus he says that this vision was like the one in which God came to destroy the city. Now God is telling him to tell the people about this new temple and 'if' they are ashamed of their sin, then give them the plans to build the temple and the gates. I rather imagine that it never got that far and it doesn't give a clue that 'if' they weren't ashamed of their sin, then He would have the temple built at a later time.

However, we do know that a later temple was built and if it wasn't built to these specifications then God wouldn't be beholden to be there always with Israel as He says He will be if the temple that He describes is built. Lastly, we do know that the 'prince' did visit the temple. There are several accounts of Jesus being in the temple. Did he enter through the proper gate? Or, because it wasn't the temple that God had commanded to be built, if Israel became ashamed of their sin, did it matter?

So, I'm not completely convicted that this tells of some future temple to be built many centuries later at the return of Jesus as much as it is the command for a particular temple to be built when Israel returned to its land, but because of its continued unfaithfulness to God, wasn't ever built in that prescribed manner. There is even some evidence that a very, very large portion of the Israelites never returned to Israel even when they were released from their captivity in Babylon. We do know that Nehemiah did and with a fairly large number that took on the job of rebuilding Jerusalem and then later the temple, but I have seen some historical accounts that, of the overall number of Israelites who had lived in Israel and Jerusalem before the Babylonian conquest, most did not return. This alone would have been evidence to God that they were still not ashamed of their sin and desirous to be in their land with Him.

All of the major prophets were fairly contemporaries of each other. Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jeremiah all lived within 100 years or so of each other. It is claimed that Ezekiel lived from 622-570 BC. Isaiah lived 740-681 BC. He was the first of the major prophets we find in the Scriptures. Jeremiah lived app. 650-570. Daniel, while in captivity in Babylon, mentions having gained understanding about the length of time of their exile from the writings of Jeremiah.

So, again, I'm not convicted that Ezekiel was writing of some long future temple.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted