Historicist Only The People of the Revelation

[WilliamLhk]

The Mod already dealt with this on the very first page because of the rule being violated, and I quote:

Folks, this thread is tagged Historicist Only. That means that only those who hold to the Historicist view of Revelation should post in this thread. If you are unaware of what the Historicist view is, then you are likely not an Historicist. Here is a source: (emphasis mine) Historicist Only - The People of the Revelation​

She deleted the offenders’ posts and cited Wiki, which says in the second paragraph:

One of the most influential aspects of the early Protestant historicist paradigm was the assertion that scriptural identifiers of the Antichrist were matched only by the institution of the Papacy. Particular significance and concern were the Papal claims of authority over the Church through Apostolic Succession, and the State through the Divine Right of Kings. When the Papacy aspires to exercise authority beyond its religious realm into civil affairs, on account of the Papal claim to be the Vicar of Christ, then the institution was fulfilling the more perilous biblical indicators of the Antichrist. Martin Luther wrote this view into the Smalcald Articles of 1537; this view was not novel and had been leveled at various popes throughout the centuries, even by Roman Catholic saints. (emphasis mine) Historicist interpretations of the Book of Revelation - Wikipedia​

Historicism dates from the Ante-Nicene fathers. Even Catholics had historicists, a notable one being Joachim of Florida, 12th century. If you wanted to limit the topic to a narrow time period of Protestant Historicists, you should have said so in your title and/or first post.

I have about 40 years of studying the subject, making me more of an authority on it than you are if you resort to Wiki. And it isn’t the forum's responsibility to educate you.

I have 40+ years of studying historicism also, the whole gamut.

Now again, is the beast in Revelation 13 the papacy in agreement with the day-for-year method of interpretation?

Asked and answered.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Historicism dates from the Ante-Nicene fathers. Even Catholics had historicists, a notable one being Joachim of Florida, 12th century. If you wanted to limit the topic to a narrow time period of Protestant Historicists, you should have said so in your title and/or first post.

I have 40+ years of studying historicism also, the whole gamut.

Asked and answered.

I already pointed you to the moderator’s post that limited the definition to Protestant historicism. You have been shown, and there is no more excuse.

Issues about its development are no excuse either. Any early development points to the papacy as the beast in Revelation, and at this late date, the 1260 days or 42 months cannot be literal but a day-for-year in historicism.

One more chance: is the beast in Revelation 13 the papacy in agreement with the day-for-year method of interpretation? You have never answered my challenge.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

All roads lead to Rome; today Rome should be considered globalism and the power behind that. One would need an expensive surgical kit to separate the Papacy from the beast, but the Papacy is Jezebel riding the beast, others keeping Sunday are daughters of Jezebel also riding the beast.

Futurism and Preterism deny Christ and the power thereof.

Globalism relates to the rich merchants in Revelation, not the beast since globalism is synonymous with trade. And all roads lead to Protestantism when it comes to the rise of the merchants.

Under the papacy's power, the merchants were at the bottom of society during feudal times. Protestantism held intercourse with the princes of the earth to cast off the yoke of the papacy and secularized society.

And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven… And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen… For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. (Revelation 18:1-3)​

According to history, apostate Protestantism is the harlot Babylon and rose during the time of Sardis, which vindicates historicism and exposes the falsehood of futurism and preterism.

 

[WilliamLhk]

I already pointed you to the moderator’s post that limited the definition to Protestant historicism. You have been shown, and there is no more excuse.

Issues about its development are no excuse either. Any early development points to the papacy as the beast in Revelation, and at this late date, the 1260 days or 42 months cannot be literal but a day-for-year in historicism.

One more chance: is the beast in Revelation 13 the papacy in agreement with the day-for-year method of interpretation? You have never answered my challenge.

It can be in agreement with it. However, the Beast of Rev. 13:1 was also, by many Reformers, believed to be the Roman Empire/Emperor (called the Holy Roman Empire in their day). As this Historicist chart shows:

Historical Expositors of the 2 Beasts of Revelation 13 - Historicist.com The Protestant Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy. The Historical Alternative

Did you know that Sir Isacc Newton wrote over one million words on Bible Prophecy? - Topics in Protestant Church History , from before 1000 AD to our present age.

historicist.info

Some of the 1260-year datings apply to the papacy; others to the Emperors, such as dates originating in the acts of Justinian, who exalted the Papal authority.

You, being a 40-year scholar of these things, of course know this. Or should.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

It can be in agreement with it. However, the Beast of Rev. 13:1 was also, by many Reformers, believed to be the Roman Empire/Emperor (called the Holy Roman Empire in their day). As this Historicist chart shows:

Historical Expositors of the 2 Beasts of Revelation 13 - Historicist.com The Protestant Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy. The Historical Alternative

Did you know that Sir Isacc Newton wrote over one million words on Bible Prophecy? - Topics in Protestant Church History , from before 1000 AD to our present age.

historicist.info

Some of the 1260-year datings apply to the papacy; others to the Emperors, such as dates originating in the acts of Justinian, who exalted the Papal authority.

You, being a 40-year scholar of these things, of course know this. Or should.

The Holy Roman Emperors received their authority from the papacy. The papacy can’t be divorced from interpreting Revelation 13 and the day-for-a-year in historicism.

And the statement or purpose was defined by the Mod’s post as Protestant historicism.

If you don’t agree with Protestant historicism, you shouldn’t be posting here.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

The Beast that "was, and is not [present], and will ascend out of the Abyss" is "the King/Angel of the Abyss" of Revelation 9:11, which is not released until the Abyss is opened at the fifth trumpet. Rev. 9:1-2 This is a fallen angel, not a man. But angelic spirits, both good and evil, are manifested on earth in governments/kingdoms and in churches.

The angle of the bottomless pit pertains to the fifth trumpet, while the scarlet beast rises as the final eighth manifestation of the seven, nay eight kings in Revelation 17:9-11. The sixth trumpet precedes when the eighth king ascends and kills the two witnesses, maintaining their separate identities.

And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. (Revelation 11:7)​

 

[sparow]

Globalism relates to the rich merchants in Revelation, not the beast since globalism is synonymous with trade. And all roads lead to Protestantism when it comes to the rise of the merchants.

Under the papacy's power, the merchants were at the bottom of society during feudal times. Protestantism held intercourse with the princes of the earth to cast off the yoke of the papacy and secularized society.

And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven… And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen… For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. (Revelation 18:1-3)​

According to history, apostate Protestantism is the harlot Babylon and rose during the time of Sardis, which vindicates historicism and exposes the falsehood of futurism and preterism.

Globalism is the ultimate world order, tyranny is coming. Every human motion is toward this end.

Rome (the west) is the main player, possibly with good intentions, but waiting for Rome to fall are Russia, China and Persia and Armageddon.

 

[WilliamLhk]

The Holy Roman Emperors received their authority from the papacy. The papacy can’t be divorced from interpreting Revelation 13 and the day-for-a-year in historicism.

And the statement or purpose was defined by the Mod’s post as Protestant historicism.

If you don’t agree with Protestant historicism, you shouldn’t be posting here.

And the moderator referenced a webpage that says in part this: "The English Reformer William Tyndale held that while the Roman Catholic realms of that age were the empire of Antichrist, any religious organization that distorted the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments also showed the work of Antichrist. ...and he taught that Antichrist is a present spiritual force that will be with us until the end of the age under different religious disguises from time to time."

Nothing in the post by the moderator says that one must have to believe that the Beast is the papacy in order for one to be a believer in Protestant historicism. The chart I referenced shows that there was no consensus among Reformers on this issue. So I stand by my earlier statement:

"If you want to pre-title this topic "Huerta's Historicist Views only," then you have a complaint. But you didn't, so you don't honestly have a complaint, because your historicism is not the only version, not by a long shot. And it never was."

 

[Jerryhuerta]

And the moderator referenced a webpage that says in part this: "The English Reformer William Tyndale held that while the Roman Catholic realms of that age were the empire of Antichrist, any religious organization that distorted the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments also showed the work of Antichrist. ...and he taught that Antichrist is a present spiritual force that will be with us until the end of the age under different religious disguises from time to time."

Nothing in the post by the moderator says that one must have to believe that the Beast is the papacy in order for one to be a believer in Protestant historicism. The chart I referenced shows that there was no consensus among Reformers on this issue. So I stand by my earlier statement:

"If you want to pre-title this topic "Huerta's Historicist Views only," then you have a complaint. But you didn't, so you don't honestly have a complaint, because your historicism is not the only version, not by a long shot. And it never was."

In an article, Tyndale, Interpretation and Revelation, for the Tyndale Society Journal, 1, 2 (June 1995), pp. 29-36, author Laurence Coupe’s research concludes:

Strictly speaking, we hear of the Antichrist only in the first two Epistles of John, where he is a terrible, but human, enemy of the Messiah. But popular wisdom (of which I take Tyndale to be acutely aware) had long since associated him with the figure of the first ‘beast’ in Revelation…​

​

Thus while we know Tyndale had a great influence on the apocalyptic thinking of John Foxe, there is no need to attribute to either master or disciple any commitment to millenarianism. What Foxe took from Tyndale primarily was an understanding of the inevitability of persecution under the false power of Rome – figured in apocalyptic terms as, alternatively, beast or harlot of Babylon… (emphasis added) Tyndale, Interpretation and Revelation | Laurence Coupe​

You obviously do not know what you’re talking about. Your research leaves much to be desired, especially with outrageous statements like historicism dates from the Ante-Nicene era.

In the article, the Mod cited:

The historicist views of Revelation 12–13 concern prophecies about the forces of evil viewed to have occurred in the middle ages. The first beast of Revelation 13 (from the sea) is considered to be the pagan Rome and the Papacy, or more exclusively the latter. (emphasis mine)​

Furthermore, the Wiki article has been updated since 2021, and the relevance is that the Mod is going by a contemporary interpretation, not a long-past developer like Tyndale. This is the 21st century, not the 16th. By the way, Tyndale is considered an early Protestant reformer.

Keep digging your hole and denying Historicism, defined by the day-year method, and the Papacy, represented in Revelation 13, 17, and 19. Keep denying the Mods define the statement of purpose, not WilliamLhk.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:12-13)​

The passage from Timothy does not support this age as Christ’s millennial reign. The OT passages concerning Christ’s reign promote justice and security for the people of God (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:3-8; Ezekiel 37:21-25). Considering the Church is supposed to be the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13-16), the prophecy in Timothy supports the loss of the salt’s savor and good for nothing, which is reason enough the judgments in Revelation are on Christ’s people, in support of historicism.

In like manner, the warning against false doctrines in the last days is against the Church, not the Old Covenant people,

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)​

The fables are futurism and preterism. The point is that the NT affirms there is a great falling away in the last days, and apostasy calls for judgment upon the Church in the last days,

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? (1 Peter 4:17-18)​

Again, the house of God that Peter is addressing is the Church, not strictly the biological descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob under the Old Covenant.

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (1 Peter 2:5-6)​

No argument prevails against the truth. In the last days, the Church will be judged for its apostasy, and Amos affirms that Revelation prophesies about that judgment because “GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”

Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7)​

 

[WilliamLhk]

In an article, Tyndale, Interpretation and Revelation, for the Tyndale Society Journal, 1, 2 (June 1995), pp. 29-36, author Laurence Coupe’s research concludes:

Strictly speaking, we hear of the Antichrist only in the first two Epistles of John, where he is a terrible, but human, enemy of the Messiah. But popular wisdom (of which I take Tyndale to be acutely aware) had long since associated him with the figure of the first ‘beast’ in Revelation…​

"Popular wisdom" is just a fancy term for public opinion. Hardly a standard to judge Bible prophecy by.

You obviously do not know what you’re talking about. Your research leaves much to be desired, especially with outrageous statements like historicism dates from the Ante-Nicene era.

The year-day method of Bible interpretation most definitely dates from the Ante-Nicene era.

In the article, the Mod cited:

The historicist views of Revelation 12–13 concern prophecies about the forces of evil viewed to have occurred in the middle ages. The first beast of Revelation 13 (from the sea) is considered to be the pagan Rome and the Papacy, or more exclusively the latter. (emphasis mine)​

Again, pagan Rome was believed to be the Beast of Rev. 13 by a sizable number of leading Reformers, as the link I posted clearly shows. Your denials and selected quotes notwithstanding. Like so many online these days, you claim that you have the authority to determine what is truth, whatever the actual facts of the situation.

Furthermore, the Wiki article has been updated since 2021, and the relevance is that the Mod is going by a contemporary interpretation, not a long-past developer like Tyndale. This is the 21st century, not the 16th. By the way, Tyndale is considered an early Protestant reformer."

So once again, you are redefining what "Historicist Only" means, because, as Dubya (Bush II) once said, "I am the decider!

Keep digging your hole and denying Historicism, defined by the day-year method, and the Papacy, represented in Revelation 13, 17, and 19. Keep denying the Mods define the statement of purpose, not WilliamLhk.

Moving on now, having sadly demonstrated that the narrow-mindedness and authoritarianism of your views leaves no room for any comment that varies in any degree from your own.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

"Popular wisdom" is just a fancy term for public opinion. Hardly a standard to judge Bible prophecy by.

“Wisdom” as opposed to folly is what the article about Tyndale relates.

The year-day method of Bible interpretation most definitely dates from the Ante-Nicene era.

The year-day method does not define historicism by itself. When the method was used to reveal that the papacy is the little horn in Daniel and the Beast Revelation, it became the sine qua none of historicism. You’re in denial of progressive revelation; prophecy is best interpreted after it’s been fulfilled. The progressive unfolding of historical interpretation requires reevaluating past interpretations as history shows us accurate and true fulfillment. You’re stuck in the past, denying present truth and proper research.

Again, pagan Rome was believed to be the Beast of Rev. 13 by a sizable number of leading Reformers, as the link I posted clearly shows. Your denials and selected quotes notwithstanding. Like so many online these days, you claim that you have the authority to determine what is truth, whatever the actual facts of the situation.

The early “reformers” held several places for pagan Rome in Revelation, but you’re selectively evading the fact that they all held antagonistic places for the papacy, consigned to the beast and the little horn in Daniel. The latter is the sine qua none of historicism.

So once again, you are redefining what "Historicist Only" means, because, as Dubya (Bush II) once said, "I am the decider!

Moving on now, having sadly demonstrated that the narrow-mindedness and authoritarianism of your views leaves no room for any comment that varies in any degree from your own.

You fail to grasp progressive revelation, which Protestant historicism pursued and made it unique. After all, they represented the progressive unfolding of history to interpret Revelation. It's what made them unique from the futurists and preterists. You are stuck in the past and refuse to grasp that the progressive unfolding view must progress in reevaluating past interpretations. Those stuck in the past, like yourself, are why historicism has lost ground to futurists and preterists.

 

[WilliamLhk]

You are stuck in the past and refuse to grasp that the progressive unfolding view must progress in reevaluating past interpretations. Those stuck in the past, like yourself, are why historicism has lost ground to futurists and preterists.

If you read any amount of my posts, you would realize the absurdity of this accusation.

"[T]he progressive unfolding view" is itself futuristic. This is why I avoid narrow labeling of views, because there can be a lot of overlap between them. And a whole lot of unprofitable name-calling by narrow-minded proponents of them.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

If you read any amount of my posts, you would realize the absurdity of this accusation.

"[T]he progressive unfolding view" is itself futuristic. This is why I avoid narrow labeling of views, because there can be a lot of overlap between them. And a whole lot of unprofitable name-calling by narrow-minded proponents of them.

But the progressive unfolding isn't stuck in the future; it includes the past. I have to go by your evasion of holding the progressive view that the papacy is the beast and little horn. I'm still waiting for your concession, which is how contemporary historicism is defined, even by the Wiki definition.