The Jesuit Origins of Futurism

[Dave L]

By Clarence Larkin, Dispensationalism's greatest advocate.

“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

 

[Harvest 1874]

By Clarence Larkin, Dispensationalism's greatest advocate.

“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

We concur and would suggest you likewise see Post #8 under the thread "The Absurdity of Preterism"

 

[Dave L]

We concur and would suggest you likewise see Post #8 under the thread "The Absurdity of Preterism"

I'm not preterist. I'm Amillennial.

 

[Enoch111]

"This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times."

This actually contradicts your title.

Jesuit Ribera simply re-discovered what was the earliest interpretation of Daniel's 70th week. How come you failed to highlight this portion as I have?

So this is simply more PROPAGANDA to mislead the unwary. Dave, you certainly prefer propaganda over Bible truth. And it is very clear that you have not studied Bible prophecy from Scripture -- just the opinions of men.

 

[Harvest 1874]

I'm not preterist. I'm Amillennial.

I didn't say you were a Preterist, I only mentioned that the post relating to Futurism was posted under the thread dealing with Preterism.

 

[Dave L]

I didn't say you were a Preterist, I only mentioned that the post relating to Futurism was posted under the thread dealing with Preterism.

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this.

 

[Dave L]

This actually contradicts your title.

Jesuit Ribera simply re-discovered what was the earliest interpretation of Daniel's 70th week. How come you failed to highlight this portion as I have?

So this is simply more PROPAGANDA to mislead the unwary. Dave, you certainly prefer propaganda over Bible truth. And it is very clear that you have not studied Bible prophecy from Scripture -- just the opinions of men.

This is true, but they used it cunningly to deceive those who were leaving the Catholic Church in droves after the Reformers disclosed that the Papacy was the Antichrist. It was part of the Counter Reformation.

 

[CoreIssue]

This is true, but they used it cunningly to deceive those who were leaving the Catholic Church in droves after the Reformers disclosed that the Papacy was the Antichrist. It was part of the Counter Reformation.

This what teaching is part of Historicism beliefs. No other group.

 

[Waiting on him]

This is true, but they used it cunningly to deceive those who were leaving the Catholic Church in droves after the Reformers disclosed that the Papacy was the Antichrist. It was part of the Counter Reformation.

Sounds like a fatal blow to the head to me.

 

[Dave L]

This what teaching is part of Historicism beliefs. No other group.

It's history, not a matter of religion.

 

[Davy]

By Clarence Larkin, Dispensationalism's greatest advocate.

“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

Firstly, I do not believe Darby's pre-tribulational rapture theory, nor his Dispensationalist theories. I believe in a post-tribulational return of our Lord Jesus and gathering of His Church, as written in His Word. Nor am I a Catholic. My French ancestors were among the first French Protestants, as they had to flee to the Americas because of Catholic persecution back then.

But the Catholic Church, or Jesuit arm, did not dream up the Pre-trib Rapture theory. That's simply Jewish propaganda, divide and conquer aims against Christ's Church in toto.

https://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/2001_macpherson_deceiving.html

 

[Dave L]

Firstly, I do not believe Darby's pre-tribulational rapture theory, nor his Dispensationalist theories. I believe in a post-tribulational return of our Lord Jesus and gathering of His Church, as written in His Word. Nor am I a Catholic. My French ancestors were among the first French Protestants, as they had to flee to the Americas because of Catholic persecution back then.

But the Catholic Church, or Jesuit arm, did not dream up the Pre-trib Rapture theory. That's simply Jewish propaganda, divide and conquer aims against Christ's Church in toto.

https://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/2001_macpherson_deceiving.html

Margaret MacDonald dreamed it up while hallucinating from a nasty fever. Darby and Irving picked up on it.

 

[Davy]

Margaret MacDonald dreamed it up while hallucinating from a nasty fever. Darby and Irving picked up on it.

What you quoted by Larkin contradicts that. In it he says the Catholic Church picked up on the pre-trib rapture idea and held to it for a while, which that has never been true.

 

[Dave L]

What you quoted by Larkin contradicts that. In it he says the Catholic Church picked up on the pre-trib rapture idea and held to it for a while, which that has never been true.

Larkin speaks of futurism.


The Jesuit Origins of Futurism


“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

 

[Davy]

Larkin speaks of futurism.


The Jesuit Origins of Futurism


“The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel's Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views. It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as fore shadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the “Type” of those great “Anti-Types” yet future, the “Beast” and the “False Prophet.” The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.” Dispensational Truth; pg. 5 Clarence Larkin

Useless seminary doctrines of men. All that is. Terms like 'pre-trib rapture' are more authentic tools because that term actually admits going outside the Bible to create a false doctrine of man. But terms like 'Futurism' are hallucinations by men's doctrines, simply because it suggests that any... prophecy that has yet to happen could be included.

 

[Dave L]

Useless seminary doctrines of men. All that is. Terms like 'pre-trib rapture' are more authentic tools because that term actually admits going outside the Bible to create a false doctrine of man. But terms like 'Futurism' are hallucinations by men's doctrines, simply because it suggests that any... prophecy that has yet to happen could be included.

But not a single scripture mentions it.

 

[CoreIssue]

It's history, not a matter of religion.

No, it is a false claim. There is even futurism in the Old Testament, called prophecy..

 

[Dave L]

No, it is a false claim. There is even futurism in the Old Testament, called prophecy..

Larkin, (dispy yoda) says the Jesuits hood winked you.

 

[CoreIssue]

Larkin, (dispy yoda) says the Jesuits hood winked you.

Go take your meds.

 

[Enoch111]

Larkin, (dispy yoda) says the Jesuits hood winked you.

Your obsession with Jesuits means that you are blind to the truth. Your assumption is that all Jesuits were clueless, but that is not borne out by the facts. And even if no Jesuit had ever existed, the Bible is sufficient -- in and of itself -- to prove that many things recorded in the Bible HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED AS YET. And that in a nutshell is so-called "Futurism".

However, it is clear from your posts that you refuse to carefully and diligently study the Scriptures alone, and rely on the opinions of theologians and delusional men for your theology and eschatology. And to him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away.