Olivet Discourse historicist or preterist?

[RandyPNW]

Sometimes schools of thought are a little straight-jacketed. I consider myself historicist with respect to Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse, and futurist with respect to the book of Revelation.

I get attacked regularly as being a Preterist, when I am not. Preterists view the book of Revelation in an historicist way, and reject any futurism in it with respect to the Antichrist.

The Early Church Fathers viewed this generally the way I do myself. They were largely futurists with respect to Antichrist in the book of Revelation, and historicist with respect to Dan 9 (the 70th Week) and the Olivet Discourse.

Instead of responding reasonably the vast majority of my detractors simply fall back on cheap attacks like, "you're worshiping the church fathers."

 

[jgr]

Scripture is our evidence, in that the recorded word of God documents the future events, so for a Futurist, the word of God is good enough.

Thankfully, the Reformers understood the evidence of Scripture with accuracy unknown by Kenneth Gentry, today's futurists, et al.

Had they not, this forum would not exist, and the apostasized papacy would still rule.

Contemporary futurism refuses to admit that futurism arose out of Francisco Ribera's Jesuitan counterfeit counter-reformation, commissioned to deflect the Reformation recognition, declaration, and proclamation of the apostasized papacy as the dominant antichrist of its era.

Futurism embraces and espouses a counterfeit prophetic legacy.

Those such as Gentry demonstrate an inexcusable complicit puerile ignorance.

 

[RandyPNW]

Thankfully, the Reformers understood the evidence of Scripture with accuracy unknown by Kenneth Gentry, today's futurists, et al.

Had they not, this forum would not exist, and the apostasized papacy would still rule.

Contemporary futurism refuses to admit that futurism arose out of Francisco Ribera's Jesuitan counterfeit counter-reformation, commissioned to deflect the Reformation recognition, declaration, and proclamation of the apostasized papacy as the dominant antichrist of its era.

Futurism embraces and espouses a counterfeit prophetic legacy.

Those such as Gentry demonstrate an inexcusable complicit puerile ignorance.

Although I consider myself a Futurist with respect to believing in a future Antichrist, I completely agree with the sentiment contained in your post! The Reformers were Amillennialists who believed the Antichrist was right in front of them, namely the Papacy.

While I reject both Amil and the belief that the Papacy was the Antichrist, I think the Reformers were critically important in the development of Scripture Only as our authority, as opposed to Papal authority. And yes, they understood Scriptures very well, and likely better than Futurists in general today.

Futurism, in its mix with Dispensationalism, is very flawed, with its Pretribulationism and in its separation between Israel and the Church, and in its claim that the Old Covenant, with its Temple, will be reestablished in some way, by God's plan. Thanks. In the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses.... I'm seconding the motion!

 

[sovereigngrace]

Sometimes schools of thought are a little straight-jacketed. I consider myself historicist with respect to Dan 9 and the Olivet Discourse, and futurist with respect to the book of Revelation.

I get attacked regularly as being a Preterist, when I am not. Preterists view the book of Revelation in an historicist way, and reject any futurism in it with respect to the Antichrist.

The Early Church Fathers viewed this generally the way I do myself. They were largely futurists with respect to Antichrist in the book of Revelation, and historicist with respect to Dan 9 (the 70th Week) and the Olivet Discourse.

Instead of responding reasonably the vast majority of my detractors simply fall back on cheap attacks like, "you're worshiping the church fathers."

The ECF were a mixture of Historism and Futurism.

 

[jgr]

Although I consider myself a Futurist with respect to believing in a future Antichrist, I completely agree with the sentiment contained in your post! The Reformers were Amillennialists who believed the Antichrist was right in front of them, namely the Papacy.

While I reject both Amil and the belief that the Papacy was the Antichrist, I think the Reformers were critically important in the development of Scripture Only as our authority, as opposed to Papal authority. And yes, they understood Scriptures very well, and likely better than Futurists in general today.

Futurism, in its mix with Dispensationalism, is very flawed, with its Pretribulationism and in its separation between Israel and the Church, and in its claim that the Old Covenant, with its Temple, will be reestablished in some way, by God's plan. Thanks. In the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses.... I'm seconding the motion!

Thanks. The Reformers were well aware of John's descriptions of antichrists, and that antichrists were already present within the Church when John wrote.

Thus, unlike today's futurists who believe that there will be a future one-and-only Antichrist of all time, the Reformers did not believe that the apostasized papacy was the one-and-only Antichrist of all time, but rather that it was the dominant antichrist of their era, with whom they were locked in deadly spiritual battle.

By God's grace and mercy, they prevailed, and we are here today because of their faith, vision, and sacrifice.

 

[jgr]

The ECF were a mixture of Historism and Futurism.

I've often said that if every futurist ECF had lived to the time of the Reformation, they, along with every other Reformer, would have been devout converted historicists.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I've often said that if every futurist ECF had lived to the time of the Reformation, they, along with every other Reformer, would have been devout converted historicists.

Exactly. They had a short window of history to work with.

 

[RandyPNW]

The ECF were a mixture of Historism and Futurism.

Yes, that's how I read it too. The majority saw Dan 9, the 70th Week, and the Olivet Discourse as both telling the same tale, namely the 1st Coming of Christ, followed by the punishment of the Jews, beginning in 70 AD. I don't honestly see any other way of reading it, after decades of looking at it, and after having held a couple different views of it.

They did appear to believe in a future Antichrist as a general consensus. And that would qualify them to be Futurists, and not Preterists. At any rate, these schools of thought were assigned later. Thank you!
Randy

 

[RandyPNW]

Thanks. The Reformers were well aware of John's descriptions of antichrists, and that antichrists were already present within the Church when John wrote.

Thus, unlike today's futurists who believe that there will be a future one-and-only Antichrist of all time, the Reformers did not believe that the apostasized papacy was the one-and-only Antichrist of all time, but rather that it was the dominant antichrist of their era, with whom they were locked in deadly spiritual battle.

By God's grace and mercy, they prevailed, and we are here today because of their faith, vision, and sacrifice.

Right, and I would add that though they may or may not have believed in a future Antichrist, beyond the Papacy, the whole purpose of the book of Revelation was not merely to explain that THE Antichrist was coming, but rather, to prepare all generations of the Church for similar antichrists.

They were to know that until the final Antichrist had come and been defeated, they were to ignore any claims to be Christ's Kingdom in advance, and to keep watch out for the constant flow of false Christs and false prophets. The idea is to maintain constant vigilance in all generations until the last Antichrist is down for the count.

 

[Christian Gedge]

Thanks. The Reformers were well aware of John's descriptions of antichrists, and that antichrists were already present within the Church when John wrote.

Thus, unlike today's futurists who believe that there will be a future one-and-only Antichrist of all time, the Reformers did not believe that the apostasized papacy was the one-and-only Antichrist of all time, but rather that it was the dominant antichrist of their era, with whom they were locked in deadly spiritual battle.

By God's grace and mercy, they prevailed, and we are here today because of their faith, vision, and sacrifice.

So, you see the papacy as the middle-age era Antichrist, but a different manifestation of Antichrist to the one that is coming? If so, how do you see the religious nature of Antichrist in the last days?

 

[jgr]

So, you see the papacy as the middle-age era Antichrist, but a different manifestation of Antichrist to the one that is coming? If so, how do you see the religious nature of Antichrist in the last days?

I'm of no particular persuasion regarding antichrist into the future. I believe, as John declared in his time, that there will be many. There are many today. Islam and Zionism are two evident examples. Whether either one, or a different one, will become predominant to the extent that the apostasized papacy of the past became predominant, is unknown.

But it is the antichrists in our midst which pose far greater dangers.

As RandyPNW has expressed, vigilance is ever and always essential since, as John described, antichrist has and can emerge within the Church. One salient example today is the heresy which denies that the New Covenant is for the Church. It seems inconceivable that something which so egregiously repudiates Scripture, and over 19 centuries of historic orthodox Christian
doctrine, could be countenanced in the Christian community. Yet it is, and not infrequently so on these very forums.

Looking for a future antichrist, while failing to recognize such antichrists in our midst, is a recipe for degeneracy, disempowerment, disintegration, and ultimate disaster.

 

[FredVB]

We could see if we looked into it how there are previous and later fulfillments to prophecies. The end times will still have fulfillment of prophecies more fully that are waiting.

Time is not abundant, the crisis is coming that starts the coming scenario when Mystery Babylon falls. Its collapse is coming so soon that believers are surprised and they are not fully ready to flee out from the city, because they are not preparing to leave, where they should not be with all the exploitation involved that makes that way of living there possible for all there.

If Mystery Babylon is currently being occupied by believers on earth, which city is it?

What city could it not be? Why try seeing that it is some other city? Look to how a city fills the characteristics of exploitation and destructiveness, which God hates (Revelation 11:18), shown in Revelation 18. Any of that is what God's people if they are repentant and faithful are to depart from. Stewardship to the earth that is required to be in God's image is a great failure, and we need to start right as originally required and not stay with Mystery Babylon or its ways. We do not have long, its fall is at the start of prophecies being fulfilled.

Why ask which city is it? Theories of which one city is depicted have been out for a very long time, that those holding to one claim that to be the truth. Look at the exploitation shown to characterize Mystery Babylon, in Revelation 18. Is that the history of your city? Believers in Mystery Babylon fail to look at that, while observing what some say of their theory of which one city is Mystery Babylon. Doom coming to it is certain, they should look at their city, see the exploitation is not right, with harm to the world growing, and get out from that. Moving to another city is not meant, get out and live independently from cities of civilization. Do not wait for the last minute when it is clear as ever you need to get out from where believers should not be staying. Believers should do what they can to get out right away, now.

We could see if we looked into it how there are previous and later fulfillments to prophecies. The end times will still have fulfillment of prophecies more fully that are waiting.

Well Revelation 18:2 says Babylon is fallen and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. This would have to include those in 2 Peter 2:4 where there are angels that sinned which were not spared but cast down into hell. So either Babylon falls into hell or the angels in hell, which were reserved unto judgment, come into Babylon.

How do you see this? Is Babylon in hell or is hell opened and the angels allowed to go into Babylon? Keep in mind that Revelation 18:4 says “come out of her my people” and this command is said after the fall of Babylon in verse 2.

One other question I have; what constitutes a city? From the 2020 census in the USA there are some very small cities.

McMullen Alabama, population 9
Bettles Alaska, population 12
Gilbert Arkansas, population 26
Vernon California, population 110

And how about Carbonate Colorado, population 0. Property owners in this area voted to have Carbonate continue as an incorporated town with hopes of restoring interest and having people move there someday.

If I were to leave the city I currently live in I certainly wouldn’t want to move into another Babylon, so how would a person know ahead of time if they were moving into another Babylon?

No city is not just as hateful to God for the destructiveness

 

[FredVB]

How can we miss the signs of the times? In the same way Jewish leaders seeking what would show the Messiah's coming missed it with their expectations in place. Many of us have our formulated eschatological chronologies, and will miss signs already here that don't conform to those expectations. That is a trap for us. God hates the destructiveness to the earth, and it was clearly said, but that is avoided with the expectations many desire to hold on to. There is desire for expectations of what is meant by Mystery Babylon to be fulfilled. That there is ongoing destructiveness to this earth with humanity here with civilization and the demands on the earth with, which will lead to crises, and would come to collapse ultimately, is disregarded, while talking about if we can identify the Antichrist goes on. There will be someone trying to rebuild civilization when there would be collapse, and that one would have a huge following, greater than the following of any certain political candidate, with promises to rebuild from what remains with something better, at any cost, and they would follow him in that willingly.

We who are God's faithful should come out, with each other, from what is involved in great exploitation and destructiveness to this earth, that God made and cares for.