reddogs
Member
Until the 19th century, Protestants Bible Scholars studying the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation used the historicist method to interpret the prophecies in these books. Two competenting methods then seem to come out of nowhere to refute the traditional view of Protestants and there origins were troubling. The papacy suffered a major setback through the Reformation as it lost much influence in the religious world as the prophecies has shown that it was the antichrist entity that would come. The Papacy sought the help of the monastic orders, such as the Dominicans and Franciscans, but they were so corrupted that they too had lost the respect of the people.
At this crisis Loyola along with others he led, offered his services, to go wherever the pope should designate, as preachers, missionaries, teachers, counselors, and reformers. So a new order was authorized, and they had and ambitious goal which was to become the universal and principal order of the Roman church. Though they took the name Society of Jesus (Jesuits), they were far from true followers of Christ.
One of the main pillars of the historicist method is the year-day principle which says that a day in apocalyptic time prophecies represents a year, and the Jesuits tried to refute it and the same time they brought the ideas of futurism and preterism to replace it.
Here is from Wikipedia and it is straightforward:
'One of the most influential aspects of the early Protestant historicist paradigm was the assertion that scriptural identifiers of the Antichrist where matched only by the institution of the Papacy. Particular significance and concern were the Papal claims of authority over both 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, which was not novel, into the Smalcald Articles of 1537. It was then widely popularized in the 16th century, via sermons, drama, books, and broadside publication. The alternate methods of prophetic interpretation, Futurism and Preterism were derived from Jesuit writings, whose counter reformation efforts were aimed at opposing this interpretation that the Antichrist was the Papacy or the power of the Roman Catholic Church
Protestant Reformers, including John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Thomas, John Knox, Roger Williams, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley, as well as most Protestants of the 16th–18th centuries, felt that the Early Church had been led into the Great Apostasy by the Papacy and identified the Pope with the Antichrist. The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume Magdeburg Centuries to discredit the Catholic Church and lead other Christians to recognize the Pope as the Antichrist. So, rather than expecting a single Antichrist to rule the earth during a future Tribulation period, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Protestant Reformers saw the Antichrist as a present feature in the world of their time, fulfilled in the Papacy. '
Now in order to counter this view that the papacy was the Antichrist power it the church turned to the Jesuits who were summoned to counter the reformers' teachings, and here two Jesuit scholars stand out in particular. They are Ribera and Alcasar, and they developed the Futurist and Preterist systems of prophetic interpretation.
Spanish Jesuit Francisco Ribera published a commentary on the book of Revelation which proposed that the bulk of the prophecies would be fulfilled in a brief three-and-one-half-year period at the end of the Christian era. In that short space antichrist (a single individual, according to Ribera) would rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, deny Christ, abolish Christianity, be received by the Jews, pretend to be god, and conquer the world. Thus the Protestant contention that the apocalyptic symbols of antichrist denoted an apostate religious system was countered, and the focus of the prophecies was diverted from the present to the far distant future.
Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar also published a scholarly work on Revelation, to refute the Protestant Reformation on the Antichrist power. Alcazar's thesis, the opposite of Ribera's, was that all the prophecies of Revelation had been fulfilled in the past, that is, by the fifth and sixth centuries A.D., the early centuries of Christianity. He asserted that this prophetic book simply described a two-fold war by the church-its victory over the Jewish synagogue on the one hand (chaps. 1-11) and Roman paganism on the other (chaps. 12-19). Chapters 21, 22 Alcazar applied to the Roman Catholic Church as the New Jerusalem, glorious and triumphant. His writings were developed into a system of interpretation known as preterism.
Over time these specific systems of counter interpretations of the Antichrist spread and began to penetrate Protestant thought. Preterism was the first; it began to enter Protestantism in the late eighteenth century. Preterist interpretations of the prophecies have today become the standard view of liberal Protestantism.
The ideas of futurism, although refuted at first, eventually spread into Protestantism during the nineteenth century. Futurism, is currently followed in some form by most conservative Protestant bodies. Thus both spectrum of the Protestant denominations has picked up this counter reformation view set about to change the views of the papacy as the Antichrist power that was from the Reformers.
The false doctrine as you can see, basically are to put aside the Reformers view of the Antichrist. Preterist interpretation puts all prophecy pertaining to the Antichrist into the past so it is long gone, and the Futurist interpretation puts them into the future so the papacy could claim it was not this power.
At this crisis Loyola along with others he led, offered his services, to go wherever the pope should designate, as preachers, missionaries, teachers, counselors, and reformers. So a new order was authorized, and they had and ambitious goal which was to become the universal and principal order of the Roman church. Though they took the name Society of Jesus (Jesuits), they were far from true followers of Christ.
One of the main pillars of the historicist method is the year-day principle which says that a day in apocalyptic time prophecies represents a year, and the Jesuits tried to refute it and the same time they brought the ideas of futurism and preterism to replace it.
Here is from Wikipedia and it is straightforward:
'One of the most influential aspects of the early Protestant historicist paradigm was the assertion that scriptural identifiers of the Antichrist where matched only by the institution of the Papacy. Particular significance and concern were the Papal claims of authority over both 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, which was not novel, into the Smalcald Articles of 1537. It was then widely popularized in the 16th century, via sermons, drama, books, and broadside publication. The alternate methods of prophetic interpretation, Futurism and Preterism were derived from Jesuit writings, whose counter reformation efforts were aimed at opposing this interpretation that the Antichrist was the Papacy or the power of the Roman Catholic Church
Protestant Reformers, including John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Thomas, John Knox, Roger Williams, Cotton Mather, Jonathan Edwards, and John Wesley, as well as most Protestants of the 16th–18th centuries, felt that the Early Church had been led into the Great Apostasy by the Papacy and identified the Pope with the Antichrist. The Centuriators of Magdeburg, a group of Lutheran scholars in Magdeburg headed by Matthias Flacius, wrote the 12-volume Magdeburg Centuries to discredit the Catholic Church and lead other Christians to recognize the Pope as the Antichrist. So, rather than expecting a single Antichrist to rule the earth during a future Tribulation period, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other Protestant Reformers saw the Antichrist as a present feature in the world of their time, fulfilled in the Papacy. '
Now in order to counter this view that the papacy was the Antichrist power it the church turned to the Jesuits who were summoned to counter the reformers' teachings, and here two Jesuit scholars stand out in particular. They are Ribera and Alcasar, and they developed the Futurist and Preterist systems of prophetic interpretation.
Spanish Jesuit Francisco Ribera published a commentary on the book of Revelation which proposed that the bulk of the prophecies would be fulfilled in a brief three-and-one-half-year period at the end of the Christian era. In that short space antichrist (a single individual, according to Ribera) would rebuild the Jerusalem Temple, deny Christ, abolish Christianity, be received by the Jews, pretend to be god, and conquer the world. Thus the Protestant contention that the apocalyptic symbols of antichrist denoted an apostate religious system was countered, and the focus of the prophecies was diverted from the present to the far distant future.
Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar also published a scholarly work on Revelation, to refute the Protestant Reformation on the Antichrist power. Alcazar's thesis, the opposite of Ribera's, was that all the prophecies of Revelation had been fulfilled in the past, that is, by the fifth and sixth centuries A.D., the early centuries of Christianity. He asserted that this prophetic book simply described a two-fold war by the church-its victory over the Jewish synagogue on the one hand (chaps. 1-11) and Roman paganism on the other (chaps. 12-19). Chapters 21, 22 Alcazar applied to the Roman Catholic Church as the New Jerusalem, glorious and triumphant. His writings were developed into a system of interpretation known as preterism.
Over time these specific systems of counter interpretations of the Antichrist spread and began to penetrate Protestant thought. Preterism was the first; it began to enter Protestantism in the late eighteenth century. Preterist interpretations of the prophecies have today become the standard view of liberal Protestantism.
The ideas of futurism, although refuted at first, eventually spread into Protestantism during the nineteenth century. Futurism, is currently followed in some form by most conservative Protestant bodies. Thus both spectrum of the Protestant denominations has picked up this counter reformation view set about to change the views of the papacy as the Antichrist power that was from the Reformers.
The false doctrine as you can see, basically are to put aside the Reformers view of the Antichrist. Preterist interpretation puts all prophecy pertaining to the Antichrist into the past so it is long gone, and the Futurist interpretation puts them into the future so the papacy could claim it was not this power.
