The Jesuit Origins of Futurism

[Hidden In Him]

So the Jesuits existed when Irenaeus and Hippolytus did?

Greetings, Davy. I've heard this a lot myself, the claim that the origins of Futurism were with the Jesuits. And yet early church evidence proves they were futurists. When this is pointed out, proponents of this business will then admit that the early fathers taught futurism, yet still claim that it originated with the Jesuits. What's going on?

 

[Enoch111]

When this is pointed out, proponents of this business will then admit that the early fathers taught futurism, yet still claim that it originated with the Jesuits. What's going on?

What's going on is simply the promotion of PROPAGANDA -- Fake News -- rather than the truth. What is truly appalling in Christian forums is that there is rarely a love for the truth over all other considerations.

Even if no Jesuit had ever existed, the Bible and actual human history would reveal that there are numerous prophecies which remain to be fulfilled, both before and after the Second Coming of Christ.

 

[Hidden In Him]

What is truly appalling in Christian forums is that there is rarely a love for the truth over all other considerations.

I still honestly have no idea what's going on truly. It's like people present answers in a way that suggests they fully believe what they are saying, yet inside you're going, "That's nonsense..."

Enoch, you and I disagree on a few things, but we can still have an intelligent, logical conversation about the scriptures and in the end maybe agree to disagree on something. But at least with you I feel like I am talking to a thinking, sentient being. I honestly don't get that with a lot of people, and it's enough to make me think something is wrong with me. It starts effecting my mind after while...

I truly don't understand. Even now, I don't understand what's going on. It's blindness on a level I can't comprehend. I don't know if it's willful or not, or if they are simply unable but I am honestly getting to the point where I don't even want to converse with many people anymore. I'm now coming to the place where I will no longer even be acknowledging the existence of such people, unless we are talking about how cute puppies are or something.

It's so unlike me, since I want to teach, but the only ones you can teach are those with ears to hear. The rest I am now becoming determined to completely ignore as if they did not exist.

 

[marks]

Greetings, Davy. I've heard this a lot myself, the claim that the origins of Futurism were with the Jesuits. And yet early church evidence proves they were futurists. When this is pointed out, proponents of this business will then admit that the early fathers taught futurism, yet still claim that it originated with the Jesuits. What's going on?

I think it's called "gaslighting".

Just keep saying the same thing over and over, no matter how preposterous, hoping people will believe you, and, no matter how many times someone proves otherwise, just hold the course . . ."

Much love!

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think it's called "gaslighting".

To think people were doing that deliberately would be even worse...

Just keep saying the same thing over and over, no matter how preposterous, hoping people will believe you, and, no matter how many times someone proves otherwise, just hold the course . . .

But I do get that impression sometimes.

 

[marks]

I've been reading this thread, but it seems the most part "appeals to authority", magaret, Irenaeus, Darby, Larkin, the Creeds, all appeals to authority.

"Futurism" is simply saying there are parts yet to be fulfilled. Anyone who looks for Jesus' return yet to come sees it as a futurist fulfillment

To think people were doing that deliberately would be even worse...


But I do get that impression sometimes.

The question arises . . . how much is deliberate?

The Bible says, in a futurist sense, there will be those deceiving and being deceived. I don't know. I wonder sometimes.

Much love!

 

[Dave L]

I've been reading this thread, but it seems the most part "appeals to authority", magaret, Irenaeus, Darby, Larkin, the Creeds, all appeals to authority.

"Futurism" is simply saying there are parts yet to be fulfilled. Anyone who looks for Jesus' return yet to come sees it as a futurist fulfillment


The question arises . . . how much is deliberate?

The Bible says, in a futurist sense, there will be those deceiving and being deceived. I don't know. I wonder sometimes.

Much love!

You are redefining futurism as pertaining to Dispensationalism that thinks all end time prophecy is yet future.

 

[marks]

You are redefining futurism as pertaining to Dispensationalism that thinks all end time prophecy is yet future.

No, I'm saying that the return of Jesus is future. I'm saying that there are other prophecies yet future. I haven't said anything towards dispensationalism. I have not said that all end times prophecy is future.

So why claim otherwise? Isn't that a red herring?

How do I redefine Futurism by saying that Jesus hasn't returned yet?

Much love!

 

[Dave L]

No, I'm saying that the return of Jesus is future. I'm saying that there are other prophecies yet future. I haven't said anything towards dispensationalism. I have not said that all end times prophecy is future.

So why claim otherwise? Isn't that a red herring?

How do I redefine Futurism by saying that Jesus hasn't returned yet?

Much love!

You are redefining the theological use of futurism and confusing the issue. Making it less obvious how wrong it is.

 

[marks]

You are redefining the theological use of futurism and confusing the issue. Making it less obvious how wrong it is.

Hi Dave,

Please back up a step.

You said I was making Futurism into Dispensationalism.

"You are redefining futurism as pertaining to Dispensationalism that thinks all end time prophecy is yet future."

You can respond to what I'm saying, or not, but this is a Straw Man.

Argue against it to your heart's content.

Much love!

 

[Dave L]

Hi Dave,

Please back up a step.

You said I was making Futurism into Dispensationalism.

"You are redefining futurism as pertaining to Dispensationalism that thinks all end time prophecy is yet future."

You can respond to what I'm saying, or not, but this is a Straw Man.

Argue against it to your heart's content.

Much love!

You are redefining the theological term for Dispensational and Premillenial thinking.

 

[CoreIssue]

Dispensationalism

 

[Davy]

Greetings, Davy. I've heard this a lot myself, the claim that the origins of Futurism were with the Jesuits. And yet early church evidence proves they were futurists. When this is pointed out, proponents of this business will then admit that the early fathers taught futurism, yet still claim that it originated with the Jesuits. What's going on?

It's just the same ole' one-trick-pony show some men have to come up with as an attempt to fill their gap of Bible understanding.

The way our Lord Jesus taught about it was with the idea of the baskets of bread fragments Christ's disciples gathered up after feeding the five thousand and seven thousand (Mark 8). The Word of God went out as five whole loaves, but it came back as twelve baskets of fragments. The fragments represent the whole loaves broken into pieces, with a lot of (?) added to the original loaves. So in reality, there are no such categories in The Bible as Futurism, Historicism, or Preterism, nor Dispensationalism, or whatever. Those are just the 'fragments' of men's leaven doctrines. To be given understanding in God's Word means being able to recognize those fragments and instead to tune into the "strong meat" of God's Word.

 

[CoreIssue]

It's just the same ole' one-trick-pony show some men have to come up with as an attempt to fill their gap of Bible understanding.

The way our Lord Jesus taught about it was with the idea of the baskets of bread fragments Christ's disciples gathered up after feeding the five thousand and seven thousand (Mark 8). The Word of God went out as five whole loaves, but it came back as twelve baskets of fragments. The fragments represent the whole loaves broken into pieces, with a lot of (?) added to the original loaves. So in reality, there are no such categories in The Bible as Futurism, Historicism, or Preterism, nor Dispensationalism, or whatever. Those are just the 'fragments' of men's leaven doctrines. To be given understanding in God's Word means being able to recognize those fragments and instead to tune into the "strong meat" of God's Word.

So when God gives a prophecy about tomorrow that is nothing more than the doctrine of man. It is not God talking about the future.

 

[Hidden In Him]

It's just the same ole' one-trick-pony show some men have to come up with as an attempt to fill their gap of Bible understanding.

The way our Lord Jesus taught about it was with the idea of the baskets of bread fragments Christ's disciples gathered up after feeding the five thousand and seven thousand (Mark 8). The Word of God went out as five whole loaves, but it came back as twelve baskets of fragments. The fragments represent the whole loaves broken into pieces, with a lot of (?) added to the original loaves. So in reality, there are no such categories in The Bible as Futurism, Historicism, or Preterism, nor Dispensationalism, or whatever. Those are just the 'fragments' of men's leaven doctrines. To be given understanding in God's Word means being able to recognize those fragments and instead to tune into the "strong meat" of God's Word.

That's an interesting take on the multiplication of the bread.

As for the Jesuit-origination argument, I think it arose out of anti-Catholic/anti-papacy theology, but what shocks me is why it keeps getting parroted to this day when it is so patently fraudulent... I suppose one-trick pony is one way of describing it. Certainly Catholicism and even Protestant denominationalism will be given over to the enemy when we get deeper into the end-times, but those who think that is where the Antichrist will be arising from are sorely misled. History will prove them wrong.

 

[Davy]

That's an interesting take on the multiplication of the bread.

As for the Jesuit-origination argument, I think it arose out of anti-Catholic/anti-papacy theology, but what shocks me is why it keeps getting parroted to this day when it is so patently fraudulent... I suppose one-trick pony is one way of describing it. Certainly Catholicism and even Protestant denominationalism will be given over to the enemy when we get deeper into the end-times, but those who think that is where the Antichrist will be arising from are sorely misled. History will prove them wrong.

You've heard of 'politically correct'? Politically correct ideology only means those who adhere to it are just holding to the status quo. There are many educated people in the world that hold to politically correct ideas, but never actually have looked into those ideas for themselves. An idea becomes popular, and other people simply jump on board, just because others accept it. That is what the idea that the Jesuits were the originators of the Pre-trib Rapture theory is like. There's no solid evidence that it came from the Jesuits or Catholic Church, but just because some Revisionist historians said so, and have created a kind of 'status quo', others just jump on board.

God showed it would be a major false idea at the end of this world in the Ezekiel 13 chapter. He was speaking to the teachers of His people, to the house of Israel (ten tribes), which by that time the ten tribes had already been removed and were in captivity. A remnant of these would migrate to the West and help form the western Christian nations. So His Message there is not just for Israelites, but also for Christian pastors...

Ezek 13:20
20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
KJV

 

[Davy]

That's an interesting take on the multiplication of the bread.

And by the way, my explanation of what Jesus was teaching His disciples about the fragments isn't a "take". It's not my... idea. It is our Lord Jesus' idea that He showed His disciples there. So I hope you were not suggesting that it was an idea I made up, because I didn't. And if you think I did, then it would show that you've never actually read or understood this Scripture:

Mark 8:15-21
15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
16 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread.
17 And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? perceive ye not yet, neither understand? have ye your heart yet hardened?
18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?
19 When I brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
20 And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven.
21 And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?
KJV