When was the Book of Revelation written?

[Dorothy Mae]

No, this is Samuel lee (1800s) on Eusebius’ theophania

OK, so at least one person does not think that Eusebius thought the end of the Roman Empire was the fulfillment of Revelation. That is what one would expect. One would not expect all who lived agreed since they do not all agree today.

 

[David Kent]

I said that because I know that you cannot provide the quotations.

As I say you say you have studied it. You gave a list of quotations that you say showed that the early writers were futurists. Not on of those quotations showed any such thing, except perhaps Hippolytus. and he only mentioned as you say about 500 years. He was out of step woth the others.

I am packing ready to move house and just don't have time at the moment to do research. We are downsizing (again) and I will have to get rid of a lost of my books. Trying to work out which of the to keep.

 

[Biblewriter]

They were nearer to gospel time that you, and to call the foolish is actually to be foolish yourself unless you study what they actually said, and why.

What I believe is foolish is to follow Jesuit teaching, whether preterism or futurism.

While preterism was indeed invented by a Jesuit, it is simple nonsense to claim that Futurism is a Jesuit doctrine.

Based entirely on comments I have personally found in the works of early Church writers, I can assuredly say that:

A future millennium was clearly taught at least by Papias, Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertulian, Hyppolytus, Commodianus, Lactantius, Nepos, Apollinaris and Victorinus of Petau.

A future coming of a personal Antichrist was taught at least by Barnabas, Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Tertullian, Commodianus, Cyprian of Carthage, John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo.

A future dissolution of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms was taught at least by Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hyppolytus, Victorinus, Commodianus, Lactantius, and Jerome.

God's dealing with mankind in various dispensations (yes, they used that word) was clearly taught by at least by Irenaeus, Hermas, and Ignatius.

A delayed fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week was taught at least by the unkown writer of the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," and Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Hyppolytus.

A rapture before the great tribulation was taught at least by Irenaeus, Victorinus, and the unknown writer called "Pseudo-Ephraem." And John of Crysostem implied that some in his day were teaching that the restrained who would "be taken out of the way" was the Holy Spirit. As this is an essential element of pre-trib doctrine, it strongly implies that this was being taught in his time.

And although no document clearly teaching a future blessing for Israel survived the medieval purges, we know it was being taught in the early church from the arguments against it taught by the unknown writer of the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," and by Tertullian, Dionysius, and Caius.

Futurism was, in actual fact, so all-prevalent in the early church that in the fifth century Jerome wrote, "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

So futurism was unquestionably the standard doctrine of the church for its first few hundred years, and much dispensational doctrine was contained in their ministry, including a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week, a future restoration of Israel, and a rapture before the tribulation.

Not even one of these claims is based on anything someone else told me. I have actual ancient quotations (with references) to back up every detail of every one of these claims stored on my personal computer.

 

[Biblewriter]

I am packing ready to move house and just don't have time at the moment to do research. We are downsizing (again) and I will have to get rid of a lost of my books. Trying to work out which of the to keep.

I went through that three years ago.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

While preterism was indeed invented by a Jesuit, it is simple nonsense to claim that Futurism is a Jesuit doctrine.

Based entirely on comments I have personally found in the works of early Church writers, I can assuredly say that:

A future millennium was clearly taught at least by Papias, Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertulian, Hyppolytus, Commodianus, Lactantius, Nepos, Apollinaris and Victorinus of Petau.

A future coming of a personal Antichrist was taught at least by Barnabas, Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Tertullian, Commodianus, Cyprian of Carthage, John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo.

A future dissolution of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms was taught at least by Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hyppolytus, Victorinus, Commodianus, Lactantius, and Jerome.

God's dealing with mankind in various dispensations (yes, they used that word) was clearly taught by at least by Irenaeus, Hermas, and Ignatius.

A delayed fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week was taught at least by the unkown writer of the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," and Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Hyppolytus.

A rapture before the great tribulation was taught at least by Irenaeus, Victorinus, and the unknown writer called "Pseudo-Ephraem." And John of Crysostem implied that some in his day were teaching that the restrained who would "be taken out of the way" was the Holy Spirit. As this is an essential element of pre-trib doctrine, it strongly implies that this was being taught in his time.

And although no document clearly teaching a future blessing for Israel survived the medieval purges, we know it was being taught in the early church from the arguments against it taught by the unknown writer of the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," and by Tertullian, Dionysius, and Caius.

Futurism was, in actual fact, so all-prevalent in the early church that in the fifth century Jerome wrote, "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

So futurism was unquestionably the standard doctrine of the church for its first few hundred years, and much dispensational doctrine was contained in their ministry, including a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week, a future restoration of Israel, and a rapture before the tribulation.

Not even one of these claims is based on anything someone else told me. I have actual ancient quotations (with references) to back up every detail of every one of these claims stored on my personal computer.

This view of yours is extremely Catholic. You base the entirety of it upon what you claim is what christians centuries removed from the first church clsimed. This is actually questionable (that they all 100% said this.) But in any case, this believing without question what ordinary men wrote is what the Catholics do.

To provide a difference, the Protestants do not think writers who lived hundreds of years after the first church knew more. We believe each person is to read the Bible, not the writings of uninspired men, as the authority. You accept the writings of men as authoritative with no evidence they knew more. This is the Catholic mentality.

 

[Biblewriter]

This view of yours is extremely Catholic. You base the entirety of it upon what you claim is what christians centuries removed from the first church clsimed. This is actually questionable (that they all 100% said this.) But in any case, this believing without question what ordinary men wrote is what the Catholics do.

To provide a difference, the Protestants do not think writers who lived hundreds of years after the first church knew more. We believe each person is to read the Bible, not the writings of uninspired men, as the authority. You accept the writings of men as authoritative with no evidence they knew more. This is the Catholic mentality.

The question at hand was not whether or not these men were right. In actual fact, they were wrong about much of what they said. But that was not the question at hand. The question we were discussing was what they actually taught. And that was most absolutely a very definite futurism. So the claim that futurism originated with the Jesuits is flat out wrong.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The question at hand was not whether or not these men were right. In actual fact, they were wrong about much of what they said. But that was not the question at hand. The question we were discussing was what they actually taught. And that was most absolutely a very definite futurism. So the claim that futurism originated with the Jesuits is flat out wrong.

Ok then I need to leave the discussion. I have little use discussing people known to be wrong. Thanks for the input.

 

[David Kent]

While preterism was indeed invented by a Jesuit, it is simple nonsense to claim that Futurism is a Jesuit doctrine.

Based entirely on comments I have personally found in the works of early Church writers, I can assuredly say that:

A future millennium was clearly taught at least by Papias, Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertulian, Hyppolytus, Commodianus, Lactantius, Nepos, Apollinaris and Victorinus of Petau.

A future coming of a personal Antichrist was taught at least by Barnabas, Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Tertullian, Commodianus, Cyprian of Carthage, John of Damascus, Cyril of Jerusalem, John of Chrysostom, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo.

A future dissolution of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms was taught at least by Justyn Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hyppolytus, Victorinus, Commodianus, Lactantius, and Jerome.

God's dealing with mankind in various dispensations (yes, they used that word) was clearly taught by at least by Irenaeus, Hermas, and Ignatius.

A delayed fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week was taught at least by the unkown writer of the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," and Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus and Hyppolytus.

A rapture before the great tribulation was taught at least by Irenaeus, Victorinus, and the unknown writer called "Pseudo-Ephraem." And John of Crysostem implied that some in his day were teaching that the restrained who would "be taken out of the way" was the Holy Spirit. As this is an essential element of pre-trib doctrine, it strongly implies that this was being taught in his time.

And although no document clearly teaching a future blessing for Israel survived the medieval purges, we know it was being taught in the early church from the arguments against it taught by the unknown writer of the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," and by Tertullian, Dionysius, and Caius.

Futurism was, in actual fact, so all-prevalent in the early church that in the fifth century Jerome wrote, "We should therefore concur with the traditional interpretation of all the commentators of the Christian Church, that at the end of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall be ten kings who will partition the Roman world amongst themselves. Then an insignificant eleventh king will arise, who will overcome three of the ten kings... Then after they have been slain, the seven other kings will bow their necks to the victor." (Jerome’s comments on Daniel 7:8, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., published by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.)

So futurism was unquestionably the standard doctrine of the church for its first few hundred years, and much dispensational doctrine was contained in their ministry, including a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week, a future restoration of Israel, and a rapture before the tribulation.

Not even one of these claims is based on anything someone else told me. I have actual ancient quotations (with references) to back up every detail of every one of these claims stored on my personal computer.

I don't disagree with most of that. Millenialism was taught by most of them. as well as classical historicism. What i disagree with you about was that they were in any anyway futurists in the modern sense. The ten kingdoms were future to them, but history to us.
Dispensations have always been mentioned by Christians including historicists such as Elliott and Grattan Guinness, but that is not the same as modern dispensationalism.

You nay have them on your PC but my studies wer from the hard copies, I myst admit that I have never n=been a note taker, so I didn't. I used to work near the Evangellical Library in London, and used to borrow such books from them. I also had Irenaeus and also a book with the apologies of Justin Martyr and Tertullan, the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and other writings. Last year my grandson came and asked if he could have some of my books, and as he is young and I am not, I said "yes" as I thought he could make more use of them than I, at this stage.

In packing some of my books, I came across one entitled The Pilgrim Church. I did have another copy. It had the strange inscription inside:
"To my Wife
Christmas 1895
James White"
I guess my dad left it on my bookshelf. He used to do that when my mum told him to get rid of some books.

Neither Mrs white or any other owner including my dad read that book as most of the pages were uncut. Pity really as the top and side were beautifully gilt but the bottom uncut pages were not. The current copy I have is earlier and mush cheaper paper, but cut. I expect my dad put that there as well. From the little I have read of it I believe it is preterist.

As to your claim that futurism is not a Jesuits teaching that is, as they say, being economical with the truth.

 

[David Kent]

FUTURISM

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:

• Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
• Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
• Abolish the Christian religion.
• Deny Jesus Christ.
• Be received by the Jews.
• Pretend to be God.
• Kill the two witnesses of God.
• Conquer the world.

So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism. A 1591 edition, 1593 edition, and a 1603 edition of his commentary are now online.



Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini De controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, (Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time), in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of antichrist into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years. (See Froom, Prophetic Faith, Vol. 2, pgs. 495 - 502).

Volume I (Book 3 - De Summo Pontifice), 1608 printing.

A 19th century printing:

Volume I (Book 3 - De Summo Pontifice)
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume IV Part II



Michael Walpole

Available Online: A Treatise of Antichrist. Conteyning the defence of Cardinall Bellarmines arguments, which inuincibly demonstrate, that the pope is not Antichrist. Against George Downam by Michael Christopherson priest ..., Volume 1 of 2 by the English Jesuit, Michael Walpole (1570-1624?), 1613 edition. Christopherson is a pseudonym for Walpole.

The third chapter, titled "Wherein it is shewed, that Antichrist is not yet come", (pages 49-51) discusses the protestant (Lutheran) Matthias Flacius Illyricus(1520-1575) and his Catalogue of Witnesses to the Truth who before our day cried out against the Pope (Catalogus Testium Veritatis - Basel, 1556), his Magdeburg Centuries (Ecclesiastica Historia, 1559 - 1574), an ecclesiastical history of 13 volumes (1 volume per century) to 1298 A.D. which established from that history that the Bishop of Rome was the Antichrist, and a 1260 year spiritual reign of the papal Antichrist, proposed to be from 606 - 1866 A.D., with the Lord's judgment commencing in 1866!

Manuel De Lacunza (1731–1801), a Jesuit from Chile, wrote a manuscript in Spanish titled La Venida del Mesias en Gloria y Magestad ("The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty"), under the pen name of Juan Josafa [Rabbi] Ben-Ezra about 1791. Lacunza wrote under an assumed Jewish name to obscure the fact that he was a Catholic, in order to give his book better acceptance in Protestantism, his intended audience. Also an advocate of Futurism, Lacunza was deliberately attempting to take the pressure off the papacy by proposing that the Antichrist was still off in the future. His manuscript was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris between 1811 and 1826. Volume 1 Volume II Volume III

La Venida del Mesias en Gloria y Magestad online at the National Library of Chile (in Spanish).

 

[David Kent]

To provide a difference, the Protestants do not think writers who lived hundreds of years after the first church knew more. We believe each person is to read the Bible, not the writings of uninspired men, as the authority. You accept the writings of men as authoritative with no evidence they knew more. This is the Catholic mentality.

Protestants believe that the pope is Antichrist. If you don't believe that you are not protestant. Neither preterists or futurists are protestant as they ditch the key protestant doctrine.

American fundamentalist baptists try to get round that by saying baptists are not protestant.

 

[Biblewriter]

As to your claim that futurism is not a Jesuits teaching that is, as they say, being economical with the truth.

The fact that several Jesuits have taught a form of futurism does not nullify the fact that many others, both before and after those few Jesuits, have taught futurism.

 

[Biblewriter]

Protestants believe that the pope is Antichrist. If you don't believe that you are not protestant. Neither preterists or futurists are protestant as they ditch the key protestant doctrine.

This is nothing short of nonsense. SOME Protestants have indeed embraced this unscriptural idea. But MANY of them know the scriptures too well to be deceived by that distortion of the scriptures.

 

[Biblewriter]

FUTURISM

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:

• Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
• Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
• Abolish the Christian religion.
• Deny Jesus Christ.
• Be received by the Jews.
• Pretend to be God.
• Kill the two witnesses of God.
• Conquer the world.

So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism. A 1591 edition, 1593 edition, and a 1603 edition of his commentary are now online.



Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Disputationum Roberti Bellarmini De controversiis Christian fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos, (Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time), in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of antichrist into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years. (See Froom, Prophetic Faith, Vol. 2, pgs. 495 - 502).

Volume I (Book 3 - De Summo Pontifice), 1608 printing.

A 19th century printing:

Volume I (Book 3 - De Summo Pontifice)
Volume II
Volume III
Volume IV
Volume IV Part II



Michael Walpole

Available Online: A Treatise of Antichrist. Conteyning the defence of Cardinall Bellarmines arguments, which inuincibly demonstrate, that the pope is not Antichrist. Against George Downam by Michael Christopherson priest ..., Volume 1 of 2 by the English Jesuit, Michael Walpole (1570-1624?), 1613 edition. Christopherson is a pseudonym for Walpole.

The third chapter, titled "Wherein it is shewed, that Antichrist is not yet come", (pages 49-51) discusses the protestant (Lutheran) Matthias Flacius Illyricus(1520-1575) and his Catalogue of Witnesses to the Truth who before our day cried out against the Pope (Catalogus Testium Veritatis - Basel, 1556), his Magdeburg Centuries (Ecclesiastica Historia, 1559 - 1574), an ecclesiastical history of 13 volumes (1 volume per century) to 1298 A.D. which established from that history that the Bishop of Rome was the Antichrist, and a 1260 year spiritual reign of the papal Antichrist, proposed to be from 606 - 1866 A.D., with the Lord's judgment commencing in 1866!

Manuel De Lacunza (1731–1801), a Jesuit from Chile, wrote a manuscript in Spanish titled La Venida del Mesias en Gloria y Magestad ("The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty"), under the pen name of Juan Josafa [Rabbi] Ben-Ezra about 1791. Lacunza wrote under an assumed Jewish name to obscure the fact that he was a Catholic, in order to give his book better acceptance in Protestantism, his intended audience. Also an advocate of Futurism, Lacunza was deliberately attempting to take the pressure off the papacy by proposing that the Antichrist was still off in the future. His manuscript was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris between 1811 and 1826. Volume 1 Volume II Volume III

La Venida del Mesias en Gloria y Magestad online at the National Library of Chile (in Spanish).

William Lowth was teaching futurism before Manuel Lacunza was even born. This is the only futurist from this era that I have personally studied. But William Watson’s book covers others dating back to the 1500s. And I am in the process of publishing a book on truly ancient futurists.

The very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of significant length) that has survived to the present day clearly taught that the 3-1/2 years and 1260 days were literal, and applied to the time of Antichrist.

And the very oldest Christian commentary on scripture (as opposed to a commentary on a scriptural subject) very clearly and explicitly taught that the seventieth week of Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks, remained to be fulfilled in the future.

 

[Biblewriter]

Duplicate post deleted by the writer.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Protestants believe that the pope is Antichrist. If you don't believe that you are not protestant. Neither preterists or futurists are protestant as they ditch the key protestant doctrine.

American fundamentalist baptists try to get round that by saying baptists are not protestant.

If I may, I think you are way too much into labels. I know it is easier to just label people and judge them by that label, but it will not lead you into understanding men or truth. What is missing is knowing God and knowing truth as a result.

Those of us on the journey to knowing God are at different points and have had different matters of correction applied to our thinking. One can learn a lot from listening to what others have learned that one has not encountered yet on our own. What will abort the learning process is applying lables and think that sums up the whole of a man's thinking (and you are not very good at applying them in any case) and therefore dismiss the bits the other has learned. I know it is a lot easier to simply slap on some label so you can dismiss them altogether rather than carefully listen to what others have learned, but you are going to miss a lot of understanding that way.

 

[David Kent]

This is nothing short of nonsense. SOME Protestants have indeed embraced this unscriptural idea. But MANY of them know the scriptures too well to be deceived by that distortion of the scriptures.

You are being economical with the truth again.
And I did not post that one Jesuit taught futurism but I listed four, unless some of the post got lost as seems to happen a lot.

You claim to be an expert on church history and you can propagate the blatant lie that only a few protestants in the past believed that the Pope is Antichrist. Most believed that the Pope is Antichrist. European Protestants were either Calvinist or Lutheran and both groups taught that the pope is Antichrist.

Dispensationalism began in England in the early 19th Century when Edward Irving absorbed Manuel Lacunza's teaching. Soon after the followers of Irving began to hold annual prophetic conferences, at Albury the home of one of the Irvingites. One who attended was Lady Powerscourt, who then held similar conferences at her home id Powerscourt, Ireland. Among those who attended were Irving and Darby. Dispensationalism began to spread.

The new teaching was mainly confined to those two groups during the 19th century and in England it was widely considered to be a heresy. Darby took the teaching to France, and later the USA. It didn't really take off till Scofield produced HIS infamous bible, which was given free to most theological schools.

​

Philip Mauro said he was one of the early US dispensationalists. Writing in the 1920's he said he then looked down on those who did not accept the new teaching. Later, he applied his lawyer's mind to his studies and found the teaching false.

 

[David Kent]

The very oldest Christian commentary on Bible prophecy (of significant length) that has survived to the present day clearly taught that the 3-1/2 years and 1260 days were literal, and applied to the time of Antichrist.

I know. Many of them did, But they thought it would be soon, almost at the doors as one of them said. But they could not see the long ages of persecution ahead described in the book of Revelation, This book was to comfort those Christians during those dark ages who suffered tribulation under the papal Antichrist. John was their companion in tribulation.

We don't get the same tribulation these days as most Christians teach the Roman doctrines of futurism and preterism.

 

[Biblewriter]

You are being economical with the truth again.
And I did not post that one Jesuit taught futurism but I listed four, unless some of the post got lost as seems to happen a lot.

"Some" is not "one."

You claim to be an expert on church history and you can propagate the blatant lie that only a few protestants in the past believed that the Pope is Antichrist. Most believed that the Pope is Antichrist. European Protestants were either Calvinist or Lutheran and both groups taught that the pope is Antichrist.

"Some" is also not "only a few."

Dispensationalism began in England in the early 19th Century when Edward Irving absorbed Manuel Lacunza's teaching. Soon after the followers of Irving began to hold annual prophetic conferences, at Albury the home of one of the Irvingites. One who attended was Lady Powerscourt, who then held similar conferences at her home id Powerscourt, Ireland. Among those who attended were Irving and Darby. Dispensationalism began to spread.

This claim, though widely circulated, has been thoroughly disproved. One of the presenters at these conference was Lewis Way, a clergyman of the Church of England who had already been teaching a fully developed Dispensationalism for five years before these conferences began, which in turn was a year before Irving published his translation of the book written by Lacunza.

And in 2015 William C. Watson published a 300+ page book titled "Dispensationalism Before Darby," in which he quoted a very large number of writers who had advanced Dispensational concepts in the 1700s and 1600s, plus a few who had done so in the 1500s. And I have many similar quotations from that period that he missed. I am also in the process of publishing a large number of such quotations from the 100s, 200s, 300s, and 400s.

The new teaching was mainly confined to those two groups during the 19th century and in England it was widely considered to be a heresy.

Actually, the first nineteenth century writer to teach this doctrine was the Lewis Way I mentioned earlier.

Here is what the famous church historian Andrew Miller, writing in 1874, said about him.

"“The study of prophetic truth was greatly revived in the early part of this century. In the year 1821 a short treatise, entitled ‘The Latter Rain,’ by the Rev. Lewis Way, made its appearance. The main object of the writer is to prove from scripture the restoration of Israel, and the consequent glory in the land. His poem entitled, ‘Palingenesia,’ or ‘The World to Come,’ appeared in 1824. Thoughts on the ‘Scriptural Expectations of the Church,’ by Basilicus, followed it in 1826. The author takes a wider range in this book than in the former, though the kingdom of Israel occupies a prominent place."

He then added that

"In 1827 the Rev. Edward Irving endeavoured to arouse the professing church, but especially his brethren in the ministry, to a sense of their responsibility as to the truth of prophecy. He translated the work of Ben Ezra, a converted Jew, on ‘The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty,’ with a long preliminary discourse. This book was originally written in Spanish, and first published in Spain in the year 1812."

(“Short Papers on Church History,” by Andrew Miller, London, G. Morrish, 1874, pg. 644.)

Note that all of Way's books were published before any of Irving's were.

 

[David Kent]

This is nothing short of nonsense. SOME Protestants have indeed embraced this unscriptural idea. But MANY of them know the scriptures too well to be deceived by that distortion of the scriptures.

The Jesuit pushed preterism and more especially Futurism, because their preterism didn't work, to counter the almost universal protestant teaching that the Pope is Antichrist and the Roman Church is the harlot of Revelation. Their efforts did't bear fruit until Edward Irving began to teach futurism.The taught the rapture would leave the world without a preacher or a prophet for 3½ years and that the rapture would be in mid 1833, about the time of Irving's death. They didn't mention 'tribulation saints' in any writings I have seen.

 

[Biblewriter]

The Jesuit pushed preterism and more especially Futurism, because their preterism didn't work, to counter the almost universal protestant teaching that the Pope is Antichrist and the Roman Church is the harlot of Revelation. Their efforts did't bear fruit until Edward Irving began to teach futurism.The taught the rapture would leave the world without a preacher or a prophet for 3½ years and that the rapture would be in mid 1833, about the time of Irving's death. They didn't mention 'tribulation saints' in any writings I have seen.

You simply cannot let hold of this now totally discredited story. Futurism was the standard doctrine of the church, from the oldest known Christian writings on the subject, and continuing until the church was at least 400 years old. And it was revived by many Protestant writers in the 1500s, 1600s, and 1700s, long before Irving was even born. The fact that you insist upon crediting it to the Jesuits is nothing but stubbornness.