Futurism

[theBelovedDisciple]

Your mother sounds like a great woman, but it won't be a 3 1/2 years of tribulation. The "futurist" view, or Gap Theory view has mislead a lot of people. It was proposed by a Jesuit (Fransicso Ribera) in Spain in the 1500's to fight the reformers. The reformers proved the Roman Church to be antichrist in the scriptures of Daniel and Revelation. This "futurist" theory was proposed by the Catholics to make it seem antichrist was off in the future somewhere and not them. Do not be tricked my friend.

The 3 1/2 years, 42 months, 1260 days, time times and half a time... whatever you want to call it... has already happened. The Church prospered in the early days but had to flee to the wilderness around 538 AD (when the Catholic Church came to power) where God kept it safe for 1260 years(a day is a year in prophecy). The Catholics waged war on the saints and killed many true Christians. 538 AD to 1798 AD is 1260 years. What happened in 1798? The French Revolution, the pope was imprisoned and died, the Catholic Church lost the Vatican and it's power (the beast was wounded unto death). The true church emerges from the wilderness, God rules in favor of the saints, and the gospel begins to spread to the entire world. The beast was healed in 1929 with the Lateran Treaty.

I'm not in the debating mood today... but I strongly disagree with your 'theology'... and the futurist view being deceiving... and I"m not Catholic... the antichirst has yet to be revealed.. and his head wound has yet to happen...

as far as a place of safety for the 'Jews' during the Great Tribulation when the wrath of satan is unleashed thru the beast or anti christ... I believe there is a place in the mountains called

'petros'... or Petra... where they will be supernaturally protected by the Hand of God... these will flee to this place.... when they see the Abomination of the Desolation happen... and its 'these'....... WHO He has known since the foundation fo the World... and whose names are Found in the Lambs Book of Life.. they will witness the Revelation of public unveiling of Jesus Christ from Heaven with His Armies and Saints as He comes back to make war....and to put down all evil...and wickedness.. turning the nations swords into plowshares... and their spears into pruning hooks.. and they will learn no more... with the King of kings and LORD of lords Reigning from the Captial of this Planet.. Jersualem... THIS KING.... WHO... is Jesus the Christ.. God manifest in the flesh..

[RockSolid]

I'm not in the debating mood today... but I strongly disagree with your 'theology'... and the futurist view being deceiving... and I"m not Catholic... the antichirst has yet to be revealed.. and his head wound has yet to happen...

as far as a place of safety for the 'Jews' during the Great Tribulation when the wrath of satan is unleashed thru the beast or anti christ... I believe there is a place in the mountains called

'petros'... or Petra... where they will be supernaturally protected by the Hand of God... these will flee to this place.... when they see the Abomination of the Desolation happen... and its 'these'....... WHO He has known since the foundation fo the World... and whose names are Found in the Lambs Book of Life.. they will witness the Revelation of public unveiling of Jesus Christ from Heaven with His Armies and Saints as He comes back to make war....and to put down all evil...and wickedness.. turning the nations swords into plowshares... and their spears into pruning hooks.. and they will learn no more... with the King of kings and LORD of lords Reigning from the Captial of this Planet.. Jersualem... THIS KING.... WHO... is Jesus the Christ.. God manifest in the flesh..

So you follow the teachings of a Jesuit priest, Fransisco Ribera? He is the one who first proposed this theory in 1590 to defend the Catholics from the reformers.

[HisLeast]

So you follow the teachings of a Jesuit priest, Fransisco Ribera? He is the one who first proposed this theory in 1590 to defend the Catholics from the reformers.

I'd like to see compelling evidence that this is, in fact, the origin of futurist teaching.

[RockSolid]

I'd like to see compelling evidence that this is, in fact, the origin of futurist teaching.

"Apocalypsin Commentarii", edition 1602, by Francisco Ribera.

http://www.francisco-ribera.com/bio_...co-ribera.html

this isn't the only source, google it if you wish... multiple books on the subject.

The Reformation was built on two principles... "the just shall live by faith, not by works.. and the papacy is the antichrist in daniel and revelation". All reformers, including Martin Luther, believed this way. One of the Catholic attacks to the reformation was futurism, they tried to make it look like they weren't antichrist, instead him being one evil person off in the distant future. The RCC didn't even care about Daniel or Revelation till the Reformation, when those great saints of the reformation saw the RCC for what it really was.. an oppressive, murdering, property confiscating antichrist. Protestants scoffed at futurism till the early-1900's. I choose to take the view of the Reformation protestants than the view of the RCC.

[HisLeast]

"Just google it"

Got it.

[forum lurker]

Your mother sounds like a great woman, but it won't be a 3 1/2 years of tribulation. The "futurist" view, or Gap Theory view has mislead a lot of people. It was proposed by a Jesuit (Fransicso Ribera) in Spain in the 1500's to fight the reformers. The reformers proved the Roman Church to be antichrist in the scriptures of Daniel and Revelation. This "futurist" theory was proposed by the Catholics to make it seem antichrist was off in the future somewhere and not them. Do not be tricked my friend.

The RCC doctrine is amillennial, more than anything. The Roman Catholic Church generally follows Augustine who has deemed that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught." link

The "futurist" theory goes back all the way to Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John.

I find the consequences of looking for something that doesn't exist not very harmful. Like the antichrist, what am I tricked into if he doesn't emerge in my time? On the other hand, if you have convinced yourself that he possibly cannot emerge, you could be in real trouble.

[RockSolid]

The RCC doctrine is amillennial, more than anything. The Roman Catholic Church generally follows Augustine who has deemed that premillennialism "cannot safely be taught." link

The "futurist" theory goes back all the way to Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of John.

I find the consequences of looking for something that doesn't exist not very harmful. Like the antichrist, what am I tricked into if he doesn't emerge in my time? On the other hand, if you have convinced yourself that he possibly cannot emerge, you could be in real trouble.

Daniel 8: 23-24 says that an insolent, terrible king will arise in the very last days of the rule of antichrist, so we are waiting on a single man to emerge for the final persecution of the saints... but i wouldn't call him "the antichrist", the antichrist power is already here

[DeafPosttrib]

former lurker,

Roman Catholic and Augustine, both doesn't invent amillennailism. Early Church during First and Second Century, there were mixed of Christians' belief on end times, some were premills, some were amills. Although, they do not have the term of millennial. All early Christians believe there will be one future coming at the end of the age. Clearly, they were all posttribs. You need to be realize that the term, "premillennialism" was not developed till 19th Century. While, Dispensationalism was developed at the same time.

So, no, Augustine was not the first person, to claim it. Many Christians believe it long before Augustine teaching. Later, I will put the link of Early Fathers, what they said of millennial at the end of the age, to show you which they were premill or amill. To prove you that not all were premills.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

[forum lurker]

Daniel 8: 23-24 says that an insolent, terrible king will arise in the very last days of the rule of antichrist, so we are waiting on a single man to emerge for the final persecution of the saints... but i wouldn't call him "the antichrist", the antichrist power is already here

Does it really matter what he is called? If he's the little horn described in Revelation, who will lead the rebellion against Christ, I find it useful to have some information on him. What is there to lose, if it turned out I was wrong? Yes, there are many antichrists and I would certainly call Nero an antichrist, but his life doesn't fulfill the prophecies accurately.

[forum lurker]

former lurker,

I suppose I am..

Roman Catholic and Augustine, both doesn't invent amillennailism. Early Church during First and Second Century, there were mixed of Christians' belief on end times, some were premills, some were amills. Although, they do not have the term of millennial. All early Christians believe there will be one future coming at the end of the age. Clearly, they were all posttribs. You need to be realize that the term, "premillennialism" was not developed till 19th Century. While, Dispensationalism was developed at the same time.

So, no, Augustine was not the first person, to claim it. Many Christians believe it long before Augustine teaching. Later, I will put the link of Early Fathers, what they said of millennial at the end of the age, to show you which they were premill or amill. To prove you that not all were premills.

Why do you claim I said these things? I didn't say Augustine invented amillennialism, I only said that he was an amillennialist. I'm fully aware that the term as well as premillennialism as a term didn't exist at that time. Does it make a difference?

I also didn't say that all of the early fathers were premillennial, I mentioned Irenaeus to refute the claim that futurism, premillennialism or what ever it's called is a 16th century invention.

[RockSolid]

Does it really matter what he is called? If he's the little horn described in Revelation, who will lead the rebellion against Christ, I find it useful to have some information on him. What is there to lose, if it turned out I was wrong? Yes, there are many antichrists and I would certainly call Nero an antichrist, but his life doesn't fulfill the prophecies accurately.

Daniel's little horn isn't one man, it is a kingdom.. a kingdom unlike any of the other ones he saw, a religous kingdom. It would have a mouth speaking great things, taking the place of God, wearing out the saints for 1260 years, destroying the continual, changing times and laws (changed the sabbath from saturday to sunday, the Catholic law is mostly made by man.. purgatory, indulgences, wearing amulets for protection, asking priests for forgiveness, the rosary, Hail Mary's... none of these things are Biblical), would come from Europe (it came out of the beast with 10 horns).

[forum lurker]

Daniel's little horn isn't one man, it is a kingdom.. a kingdom unlike any of the other ones he saw, a religous kingdom. It would have a mouth speaking great things, taking the place of God, wearing out the saints for 1260 years, destroying the continual, changing times and laws (changed the sabbath from saturday to sunday, the Catholic law is mostly made by man.. purgatory, indulgences, wearing amulets for protection, asking priests for forgiveness, the rosary, Hail Mary's... none of these things are Biblical), would come from Europe (it came out of the beast with 10 horns).

I'm not advocating the RCC doctrine here, I believe it is a false doctrine.

Whether the little horn is a man or not doesn't really prove your point, you have to blame the early church fathers for inventing premillennialism. That's all I'm saying.

[RockSolid]

Understood, thanks for your input.

[markedward]

So you follow the teachings of a Jesuit priest, Fransisco Ribera? He is the one who first proposed this theory in 1590 to defend the Catholics from the reformers.

No he's not. Just because Ribera publicly proposed Futurism in reaction to the Historicism of the Reformation does not arbitrarily equate to him having been the originator of Futurism.

The Reformation was built on two principles... "the just shall live by faith, not by works.. and the papacy is the antichrist in daniel and revelation". All reformers, including Martin Luther, believed this way. One of the Catholic attacks to the reformation was futurism, they tried to make it look like they weren't antichrist, instead him being one evil person off in the distant future. The RCC didn't even care about Daniel or Revelation till the Reformation, when those great saints of the reformation saw the RCC for what it really was.. an oppressive, murdering, property confiscating antichrist. Protestants scoffed at futurism till the early-1900's. I choose to take the view of the Reformation protestants than the view of the RCC.

There are so many flaws in this statement that it's nowhere near humorous.

1. The Reformation was built on one principle: the Roman Catholic Church had deviated from Scripture. The "faith not works" was simply one of the many things found to be wrong with the Roman Catholic Church. Initially, Martin Luther did not seek to break away from the RCC, he simply wanted to reform it. (Hence the name.) The RCC did openly receive a few of the reforms Luther proposed, but it didn't take all of them.

2. Just because the Reformers believed that the RCC was "the antichrist" does not make it true. That's the line of reasoning you're using: The RCC believes in (A), but the Reformationists believed in (B). Since the RCC is evil, (A) must be inherently false and (B) must be inherently false.

3. You rightly accuse the RCC for being "oppressive, murdering, property-confiscating". Sure. That was true. But so were Luther and Calvin. Calvin was a tyrant when he was governing Geneva. Here's a few examples of Geneva's minutes-book under Calvin's iron fist:

• A man smiled while attending a baptism: three days in prison.
• A man slept during Calvin’s sermon: prison.
• Some men ate pastries for breakfast: three days on bread and water.
• Two men played skittles: prison.
• Two men played dice for a quarter-bottle of wine: prison.
• Man refused the name Abraham for his son: prison.
• Blind fiddler played a dance: expulsion.

Talk about anti-Scriptural: Calvin's ridiculously rigid set of rules and punishments were simply wicked. Not to mention that both Luther and Calvin were anti-Semites. "But if the Reformationists taught it, it must be true", right?

4. Get your definition of "antichrist" right. Scripture says that "antichrist" is anyone who denies the Father, or denies the Son, or denies that the Son came from the Father, or denies that Jesus came in the flesh. Scripture says that anyone who believes/teaches this is an antichrist. There is no specific entity that is "the antichrist", let alone the Roman Catholic Church.

5. You're using the fact that the Reformationists ("those great saints") created Historicism as proof that it must be right... This point is merely my own opinion, but I tend to believe that the newer a school of doctrine is, the more likely it is to be wrong. Why do I believe this? Because in order to believe in a brand-new doctrine, you have to believe that, for some reason, God hid that doctrine from his followers for decades, centuries, or even millennia. Historicism came into being about 1500 years after the Church was founded, hence I am more reluctant to believe in such a doctrine.

[RockSolid]

So prophecy has been fulfilled all through history, but no prophecy is fulfilled from Christ till the Antichrist at the end of days, two or three thousand years? From reading scriptures, that doesn't fit the way God does things.