# Historicism for or against ?



## PresbyDane (Jan 1, 2009)

What is your position on Historicism?

Preterist, futurist or historicist and why?

Please define to give me some more insight in the subject.


----------



## Reformingstudent (Jan 3, 2009)




----------



## Herald (Jan 3, 2009)

Preterist? Are you lumping in partial-preterism with this category? If so, you might want to separate it into its own category. Full preterism is considered by many to be heretical.


----------



## JM (Jan 3, 2009)

On a good day, after reading some Puritan lit I'm a historicist...


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 4, 2009)

I am historicist.


----------



## Theogenes (Jan 4, 2009)

I'm a historicist too.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2009)

I accept a lot of Preterist arguments, especially regarding Rev 1:3-4 and much of the reading of 2nd Peter. But I view the overall narrative of Revelation as neither. I would say idealist but it isn't and I don't want to be lumped with idealists.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 5, 2009)

Partial preterist for a few reasons:

1. The prophets (Moses - Malachi) all deal with the destruction of the Jewish nation and people, and the call of the Gentiles, and then the recall of the Jews. 

2. The gospels teach the destruction of the Temple, etc. as an event very close at hand (See for instance, Matthew 21 - 23, and the first half of Matthew 24 dealing with the destruction of the Temple and the Nation of the Jews).

3. John's Revelation follows the pattern of the "7-times" plagues of Leviticus 26 in the destruction of the Jews and the Temple. "Sodom and Egypt" is Jerusalem, where our Lord was crucified, and which was to be destroyed; no stone being left upon another.

4. PARTIAL, because certain aspects of Revelation, and the consummation of the New Heavens and the New Earth have not taken place. No glorified bodies, no eradication of sin. All nations have not been converted to the pure worship of Christ, and obedience to "everything He has commanded". God's kingdom has not come to the extent that His will is "done on earth as it is in heaven".


This is, perhaps, ignorance on my part, but I have yet to study the Westminster Standards teaching on eschatology in-depth. However, from what I do know, they seem to encompass an optimistic amil or a post-mil position; most likely historicists, given the original identification of the Pope as Anti-Christ. I'd be interested in learning more about the historicist aspect of the original Westminster Standards.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## KMK (Jan 5, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> This is, perhaps, ignorance on my part, but I have yet to study the Westminster Standards teaching on eschatology in-depth. However, from what I do know, they seem to encompass an optimistic amil or a post-mil position; most likely historicists, given the original identification of the Pope as Anti-Christ. I'd be interested in learning more about the historicist aspect of the original Westminster Standards.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam



Due to my own ignorance, I would like to hear a defense of how one can subscribe to the Reformed standards and *not* be historicist. Can someone help me?


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 5, 2009)

KMK said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > This is, perhaps, ignorance on my part, but I have yet to study the Westminster Standards teaching on eschatology in-depth. However, from what I do know, they seem to encompass an optimistic amil or a post-mil position; most likely historicists, given the original identification of the Pope as Anti-Christ. I'd be interested in learning more about the historicist aspect of the original Westminster Standards.
> ...



The overall program of the Standards (in my ignorance) does not seem to require historicism. It seems to require a few core beliefs:

Future resurrection of the body 
Hell
Purification of the church
God's will done on earth as in heaven
Conversion of the Jews
Pope is antiChrist, whom Christ will destroy at His 2d coming

Perhaps I'm missing something...

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2009)

KMK said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > This is, perhaps, ignorance on my part, but I have yet to study the Westminster Standards teaching on eschatology in-depth. However, from what I do know, they seem to encompass an optimistic amil or a post-mil position; most likely historicists, given the original identification of the Pope as Anti-Christ. I'd be interested in learning more about the historicist aspect of the original Westminster Standards.
> ...



The American standards weakened the language on this point. The originals placed the Pope on an eschatological time-table which demanded (or close to) historicism. The American standards, while maintaining the opposition to the Pope, took him off the time-table.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 5, 2009)

Ivanhoe said:


> The American standards weakened the language on this point. The originals placed the Pope on an eschatological time-table which demanded (or close to) historicism. The American standards, while maintaining the opposition to the Pope, took him off the time-table.



I don't find anything contradictory in being partial preterist, and believing that the Pope is Antichrist according to a certain time table yet future. I think this assumes that P.P. requires one to accept the identification of Antichrist with a past historical figure. Probably cuz I don't know enough... 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 5, 2009)

the P.P. jury is out on identifying "the beast" of Revelation 13, which I think is more accurate than "antichrist" (since John identifies *an* antichrist as a denier of the Incarnation). 

Most PPers say Nero is the Beast. That has its merits, simplicity being one of them. However some make a good argument that Caiaphas is the Beast. That is not without its problems but flows better with most of the story.

So one could at the moment identify a Pope as the Beast--it's possible but I would be interested in the argument.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 7, 2009)

Dr. Calvin's commentary on 2 Thess. 2.


*4. An adversary, and that exalteth himself. The two epithets—man of sin, and son of perdition—intimate, in the first place, how dreadful the confusion would be, that the unseemliness of it might not discourage weak minds; and farther, they tend to stir up the pious to a feeling of detestation, lest they should degenerate along with others. Paul, however, now draws, as if in a picture, a striking likeness of Antichrist; for it may be easily gathered from these words what is the nature of his kingdom, and in what things it consists. For, when he calls him an adversary, when he says that he will claim for himself those things which belong to God, so that he is worshipped in the temple as God, he places his kingdom in direct opposition to the kingdom of Christ. Hence, as the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so this tyranny must be upon souls, that it may rival the kingdom of Christ. We shall also find him afterwards assigning to him the power of deceiving, by means of wicked doctrines and pretended miracles. If, accordingly, you would know Antichrist, you must view him as diametrically opposed to Christ. 
Where I have rendered—everything that is called God, the reading more generally received among the Greeks is, every one that is called. It may, however, be conjectured, both from the old translation and from some Greek commentaries, that Paul's words have been corrupted. The mistake, too, of a single letter was readily fallen into, especially when the shape of the letter was much similar; for, where there was written <START GREEK>
pa=n to\<END GREEK>
, (everything,) some transcriber, or too daring reader, turned it into <START GREEK>
pa/nta<END GREEK>
, (every one.) This difference, however, is not of so much importance as to the sense, for Paul undoubtedly means that Antichrist would take to himself those things that belonged to God alone, so that he would exalt himself above every divine claim, that all religion and all worship of God might lie under his feet. This expression then, everything that is reckoned to be God, is equivalent to everything that is reckoned as Divinity, and <START GREEK>
se/basma<END GREEK>
, that is, in which the veneration due to God consists.
Here, however, the subject treated of is not the name of God himself, but his majesty and worship, and, in general, everything that he claims for himself. "True religion is that by which the true God alone is worshipped; that, the son of perdition will transfer to himself." Now, every one that has learned from Scripture what are the things that more especially belong to God, and will, on the other hand, observe what the Pope claims for himself—though he were but a boy of ten years of age—will have no great difficulty in recognizing Antichrist. Scripture declares that God is the alone Lawgiver (James 4:12) who is able to save and to destroy ; the alone King, whose office it is to govern souls by his word. It represents him as the author of all sacred rites; it teaches that righteousness and salvation are to be sought from Christ alone; and it assigns, at the same time, the manner and means. There is not one of these things that the Pope does not affirm to be under his authority. He boasts that it is his to bind consciences with such laws as seem good to him, and subject them to everlasting punishment. As to sacraments, he either institutes new ones, according to his own inclination, or he corrupts and deforms those which had been instituted by Christ—nay, sets them aside altogether, that he may substitute in their place the sacrileges which he has invented. He contrives means of attaining salvation that are altogether at variance with the doctrine of the Gospel; and, in fine, he does not hesitate to change the whole of religion at his own pleasure. What is it, I pray you, for one to lift up himself above everything that is reckoned God, if the Pope does not do so? When he thus robs God of his honor, he leaves him nothing remaining but an empty title of Deity, while he transfers to himself the whole of his power. And this is what Paul adds shortly afterwards, that the son of perdition would shew himself as God. For, as has been said, he does not insist upon the simple term God, but intimates, that the pride of Antichrist would be such, that, raising himself above the number and rank of servants, and mounting the judgment—seat of God, would reign, not with a human, but with a divine authority. For we know that whatever is raised up into the place of God is an idol, though it should not bear the name of God.
In the temple of God. By this one term there is a sufficient refutation of the error, nay more, the stupidity of those who reckon the Pope to be Vicar of Christ, on the ground that he has his seat in the Church, in whatever manner he may conduct himself; for Paul places Antichrist nowhere else than in the very sanctuary of God. For this is not a foreign, but a domestic enemy, who opposes Christ under the very name of Christ. But it is asked, how the Church is represented as the den of so many superstitions, while it was destined to be the pillar of the truth? (1 Tim 3:15.) I answer, that it is thus represented, not on the ground of its retaining all the qualities of the Church, but because it has something of it remaining. I accordingly acknowledge, that that is the temple of God in which the Pope bears rule, but at the same time profaned by innumerable sacrileges. 
*
(from Calvin's Commentaries, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2005-2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

-----Added 1/7/2009 at 03:33:14 EST-----

What is key to understanding historicism (and consequently all protestant eschatology until the 20th century when American protestants started believing the Jesuit teachings of futurism and preterism) is that it is not one Pope that is understood to a THE man of sin but the office of Papacy. That is the reason that both the reformers and puritrans referred to the Pope as "antichrist". They weren't disagreeing about which pope was the antichrist but were taking the historicism view that the office of the Papacy is the antichrist filled by many men. This is why 2 Thess. 2 refers to the "man of sin" as being presently restrained in Paul's day but not being destroyed until Christ returns.


----------



## Theogenes (Jan 7, 2009)

Check out:

Welcome to the Web Site of the Historicism Research Foundation.


Historicist Home

Historicism.com (LastDays.ca)


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 7, 2009)

Here's a good article on the subject.

http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf


----------



## MOSES (Jan 7, 2009)

*in my opinion*

The historicist position, and its KEY foundational doctrine (i.e., the Pope is anti-Christ) is a political position that was *essential* for the reformation of the Church, and the seperation from Rome.



kmk said:


> I would like to hear a defense of how one can subscribe to the Reformed standards and not be historicist



The WCF needed to uphold the historicist position for Political reasons as well. (Even the document itself was drafted for political/state unity...it was NOT just a church "creed").
Those political circumstances have long passed, and the historcist position has been removed from the WCF in the American version.
This being the case, an OPC minister for example, could hold to the WCF and still be opposed to historicism.



MOSES said:


> It benefited the poiticians of the reformation period, as the doctrine may very well of been specifically designed to do. The mideval european kingdoms (states) were tired of Rome's (i.e., the institutional church) yoke being around thier neck. . . But, the people were bound up in the roman relegion. The doctrine that the Pope was the anti-Christ, or the man of sin, is just what the politians seeking seperation from Rome needed to get the people on thier side. The doctrine was the fuel for the fire. These seperatist "Statists" got just what they wanted in the reformation, the removal of the Catholic churches yoke. The people also, believing now that the pope was the man of sin, were moved to go along with the politicians



The reformation is complete. We don't have to worry about droves of people returning back to Rome. The Political propaganda of the pope as the man of sin is long gone. Thus, the removing of this from the American WCF was, in my opinion, a very good idea.

-----Added 1/7/2009 at 04:34:32 EST-----

Oh yea...*I am a Preterist * that is neither a "partial preterist" or a "hyper-preterist"...
Both partial and hyper preterism have inconsistency problems, in my opinion. (though not near the exegetical problems that idealism, futurism, histocism, etc. have)


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 7, 2009)

MOSES said:


> Oh yea...*I am a Preterist * that is neither a "partial preterist" or a "hyper-preterist"...
> Both partial and hyper preterism have inconsistency problems, in my opinion. (though not near the exegetical problems that idealism, futurism, histocism, etc. have)



I think this requires more detailed explanation. It sounds like the guy that says "I'm neither Arminian nor Calvinist" and points out the flaws of both. In the end, the guy is usually an Arminian.

What sayest thou?

Adam


----------



## MOSES (Jan 7, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yea...*I am a Preterist * that is neither a "partial preterist" or a "hyper-preterist"...
> ...




Well, your right.
We have all heard, I'm sure, about the whole inconsistency problem with the Partial-Pret position in that there essentialy becomes 2 "Comings" of Christ...one REAL judgment coming in 70ad, and another REAL coming at the end of the world. Or, also, the inconsistency where one passage is referring to the 70ad coming, and then suddenly with no notice moves to a latter final coming.
There are many more inconstencies as well.

Also, the Hyper-Pret. We all know about the "Resurrection" problem. How they make the bodily resurrection an event that took place in 70ad, and even some say a rapture happened then too! Thus, they deny any future ressurrection.

As much as both of these positions have in common, they both have problems. Personally, I think they are just both missing the exegetical mark. One goes too far, one does not go far enough.

A hyper-pret kind of takes a futurist hermeneutic and applies it in reverse. A partial pret takes an exegetical position on some verses, but, draws a line in the sand as says "I will go thus far, but, no farther," and that is usually because of a fear of departing from a creed and reciveing the famous "heretic" stamp by his creedal brothers (albeit, that is a good reason...the creeds should not be departed from casually).


I hold to a PRETERIST position that is both creedal (with limitations) and is also a realized eschatology, i.e., full fulfillment of all scripture (with limitations).

A lot of this comes about because of the false interpretation of apocolyptic utterances, as though they were prophecies.
Apocolyptic utterances do not neccessarily need to be fulfilled.
EG.
Revelation 19. Christ's "coming" on the clouds of heaven with the saints, with a sword coming out of his mouth, riding on a white horse.

That is NOT a prophecy that needs to be fulfilled. *That is an apocolyptic image*. It reveals a heavenly mysterious truth. IT is a picture of Christ's ROLE in heaven...(his Kingship and work from the right hand of God subduing the nations).

There is no literal prophetic fulfillment that is needed for this verse.
note: I see all of Revelation as "fulfilled"...but, remembering the point on Apocolyptics.

hope that makes at least little sense.


----------



## Confessor (Jan 7, 2009)

Can I have a quick definition of the terms in the OP? I am completely ignorant on this subject.

Or better yet, can someone recommend a good book on the subject?


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 7, 2009)

Shawn,

Thanks for explaining. What limitations to you place on your creedal stance? You seem to imply that systematics is bad when it makes a man say "thus far and no further". If you are implying this, I believe you are dead wrong. If not, disregard that last sentence 

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## MOSES (Jan 7, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Shawn,
> 
> Thanks for explaining. What limitations to you place on your creedal stance?



The limitation is in presumption, and interpretation of a creed. Sometimes we have creeds, and it is not the "creed" itself that is the standard, NO, it is the popular/modern interpretation of the creed that becomes the standard. 
My pret position is creedal...but I put limitations on the creeds modern interpretation and will not be bound by that interpretation unless convinced by the scriptures.
Eg. I see all of Rev. as fulfilled...yet I recite the Apostles creed in good conscience when it comes to the judgment.
I may disagree with some modern interpretations of the apostles creed on the judgment coming...but I believe the creed to be true.




Christusregnat said:


> You seem to imply that systematics is bad when it makes a man say "thus far and no further".



Well, I don't mean to imply that in a bad way.
Even the Apostles creed is a "systematic"...can we go further? Yes. 
It would be bad if men simply made, for example, the apostles creed the only systematic, "going no further," and denying or rejectiong further systematizing, as would be found in the WCF, or Calvins Institutes, etc...It would not be good, in my opinion, to box yourself in this way.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 7, 2009)

MOSES said:


> *in my opinion*
> 
> The historicist position, and its KEY foundational doctrine (i.e., the Pope is anti-Christ) is a political position that was *essential* for the reformation of the Church, and the seperation from Rome.
> 
> ...



It's very disrespectful to the reformers, puritans, and all protestants up until 100 years ago to say their view was merely some pragmatic political manipulation. I think there was (and is) huge scriptural support for the Papacy being the "man of sin". None of the protestants believed that the papacy would continue to wield the same power to persecute that it had at the heights of its power. They believed that the papacy would continue to claim the authority of Christ and deceive people into following the apostate church. 2 Thess 2 clearly makes a distinction between the slaying of the "man of sin" by the breath of Christ's mouth (scripture/gospel truth) and his destruction at Christ's appearance. 

We do have to worry about people going back to Rome; they are! Many historically protestant countries (USA, Britain, Denmark etc) are seeing more people become Papists since the reformation began.

I believe we should be much more willing to say that we are engaging in foolishness then to say all protestantism up until the 20th century was. The "man of sin" is still deceiving the world and the church has already identified him.


----------



## KMK (Jan 7, 2009)

MOSES said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > MOSES said:
> ...



Are you saying that the 'creed' can mean something different in modern times than it did originally yet keep the same 'wording'? That sounds a lot like what liberals want to do with our Constitution.

BTW, do you believe that all of 1 Cor 15 has been accomplished/fulfilled/realized?


----------



## MOSES (Jan 7, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> It's very disrespectful to the reformers, puritans, and all protestants up until 100 years ago to say their view was merely some pragmatic political manipulation



Well I surely did not intend to be disrespectful to the reformers (my spiritual fore-fathers) or anyone else. Nor did I intend to bring about the meaning that _their _view was MERELY political manipulation.

Most, if not all of them, probably sincerely believed, sripturally, in the position...all i was saying is that, in my opinion, that belief has outward influences...(much like the modern day end times futurist may have with world wars..etc.)...Which, influences can now, from hindsight, and historical record, be better ananlyzed.

Note: I was a historcist myself for some time, and I have put some thought into this topic. I am not here to pick a fight, only, perhaps, to promote and defend some of what I have found through my analysis of the position.
I apologize if I have offended anyone.

-----Added 1/7/2009 at 08:28:16 EST-----



KMK said:


> Are you saying that the 'creed' can mean something different in modern times than it did originally yet keep the same 'wording'? That sounds a lot like what liberals want to do with our Constitution.



*The only "meaning" in a creed is the authors intended meaning.*
What I was saying is that that often is not the modern meaning or interpretation....much like the scriptures. The only meaning that matters, for example, in 1Corithians 15, is what Paul meant when he penned those words.

Unfortunately, with the creeds and scripture, a lot of times the modern interpretation of a creed or verse, becomes the standard which defines the meaning...(and this in my opinion is wrong). And when someone departs from the _modern or popular interpretation _ they may not be departing from the creed itself.



KMK said:


> BTW, do you believe that all of 1 Cor 15 has been accomplished/fulfilled/realized?



In an eschatological way, yes (i.e., "already/not-yet")...in a personal or practical way NO..(surely I have not been resurrected with an incorruptible body yet...That remains in the future).

I hold to a FUTURE Ressurection if that is what your wanting to know..(but again, that scripture is eschatoligically realized...AND...the apocololypical language of that scripture, by nature, needs no fulfillment, unless it is strictly prophetic)


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 7, 2009)

MOSES said:


> Well, I don't mean to imply that in a bad way.
> Even the Apostles creed is a "systematic"...can we go further? Yes.
> It would be bad if men simply made, for example, the apostles creed the only systematic, "going no further," and denying or rejectiong further systematizing, as would be found in the WCF, or Calvins Institutes, etc...It would not be good, in my opinion, to box yourself in this way.



Shawn,

All well and good, but you seem to be evading the force of the questions put to you. The WCF holds the future resurrection of saints and wicked, as in germ form in the Apostle's Creed. Do you hold to a future resurrection of saints and wicked? Some to eternal life, and some to eternal death?

Adam


----------



## MOSES (Jan 7, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> All well and good, but you seem to be evading the force of the questions put to you. The WCF holds the future resurrection of saints and wicked, as in germ form in the Apostle's Creed. *Do you hold to a future resurrection of saints and wicked?* Some to eternal life, and some to eternal death?



Perhaps you posted this before seeing my last post.

The answer is YES...(though perhaps not in the exact same way you do**)

** Again, I hold that all scripture is realized. You may answer Yes to your question too, but you may base it on an explicit prophecy which you may say needs to be literally fulfilled as a "prophetic future event," and the scripture you use to justify this event in your mind, may be interpreted differently by you then how I would interpret it.


----------



## Theogenes (Jan 7, 2009)

ManleyBeasley said:


> Here's a good article on the subject.
> 
> http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf



Manley,
I agree. Wylie's treatment of the subject is one of the best. We studied this essay in our adult Sunday school class a couple of years ago.
Jim


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Jan 7, 2009)

On one hand, the resurrection is in the future, on the other hand is the traditional id of the papacy with the beast. I'd like to see a debate on the varying views on where the history ends and prediction begins and how to interpret the beast with institutions in time.


----------



## Christusregnat (Jan 7, 2009)

MOSES said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > All well and good, but you seem to be evading the force of the questions put to you. The WCF holds the future resurrection of saints and wicked, as in germ form in the Apostle's Creed. *Do you hold to a future resurrection of saints and wicked?* Some to eternal life, and some to eternal death?
> ...



I don't know Shawn, the more you dance around this issue, the more you sound like a hyperpreterist.

I pray you are not. Does your local session know what your views are?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jan 7, 2009)

Historicism is the correct understanding of the Book of Revelation.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 8, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> I don't know Shawn, the more you dance around this issue, the more you sound like a hyperpreterist.
> 
> I pray you are not. Does your local session know what your views are?



*Well I can assure you that I am not a hyper-pret*. I have been debating hyper-prets for years, mainly over the issue of the resurrection, and specifically over the issue of bodily ressurrection...(note: This can be validated by many who have wintessesed my numerous debates with some of these fellows at CRTA)
But, I can also assure you that I am not a partial-pret...

I will admit, and refrain from "dancing around" the issue, that, I do have a lot in common with many in the idealist full pret camp. So, I'm sure that much of what I say may be confused by you and others as being "hyper-preterism" (but there are key issues that definitely distinguish my view from being in that camp)




Christusregnat said:


> Does your local session know what your views are?



NO...but I'm sure it does not matter**
Why do you think it would matter...or why would you bother to ask me that?

**I'm a member, not a church officer, or a ministerial candidate. (not that I take many exceptions to the wcf anyway)


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2009)

MOSES said:


> I hold to a FUTURE Ressurection if that is what your wanting to know..(but again, that scripture is eschatoligically realized...AND...the apocololypical language *of that scripture*, by nature, needs no fulfillment, unless it is strictly prophetic)



Are you referring to 1 Cor 15?

Also, could you point me to any Puritan writers who shared your views?


----------



## Theognome (Jan 8, 2009)

Another Historicist.

Theognome


----------



## Matthew1034 (Jan 8, 2009)

Whatever is most opposite of the dispensationalist view 

just kidding, just had to poke some fun in the Dispensational direction (as an ex-dispensationalist)


----------



## Matthias (Jan 8, 2009)

Historicist....but better men than me have already beat this horse  so.... look it up  lol


----------



## Pergamum (Jan 8, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Christusregnat said:
> ...




Can you flesh out that "conversion of the Jews" part? I am currently dealing with this issue....feel free to start another thread and enlighten me. 

I won't even fight witcha!


----------



## MOSES (Jan 8, 2009)

KMK said:


> MOSES said:
> 
> 
> > I hold to a FUTURE Ressurection if that is what your wanting to know..(but again, that scripture is eschatoligically realized...AND...the apocololypical language *of that scripture*, by nature, needs no fulfillment, unless it is strictly prophetic)
> ...



Yes (that is what you originally asked about right?) I am referring to 1 Cor 15. It is within this section of scripture that I find hope for my own future resurrection...being Christ, the firstfruit, has been raised, I am, we are, guranteed that the rest of the harvest will be accepted.
note: as I said before though...these verses contain symbolic images. eg. sounding trumpets, swallowing death...(God is neither going to blow into a physical trumpet, nor, is he going to get hungry and decide to swallow death) 



kmk said:


> Also, could you point me to any *Puritan* writers who shared your views



You mean those guys who wanted to "purify" the church of England?
That seems like a rather small and limited section of all of Christendom. So, NO, I am not _aware_ of any "puritans" who would share my eschaotlogical views...but...also, most of the puritans had bigger things they were concerned with then writing about eschatology (like purifying england), so, I do not, would not, expect to find writings on this anyhow.

note: I know "Lightfoot" (not JB, the other one) was preterist...but I'm not sure if he would quite qualify as a puritan.


----------



## Tripel (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm a little late to this discussion, and I have to admit that I know very little about the Historicist position. Is the papacy as the Antichrist something that is unique to that position? I consider myself a partial preterist, but believe that the papacy=Antichrist view has some validity.


----------



## KMK (Jan 8, 2009)

MOSES said:


> Well I surely did not intend to be disrespectful to the reformers (my spiritual fore-fathers) or anyone else. Nor did I intend to bring about the meaning that _their _view was MERELY political manipulation.
> 
> Most, if not all of them, probably sincerely believed, sripturally, in the position...all i was saying is that, in my opinion, that belief has outward influences...(much like the modern day end times futurist may have with world wars..etc.)...Which, influences can now, from hindsight, and historical record, be better ananlyzed.
> 
> ...





MOSES said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > MOSES said:
> ...



You say, "The only "meaning" in a creed is the authors _intended_ meaning." And then you say, "NO, I am not _aware_ of any "puritans" who would share my eschaotlogical views."

Do you agree with the 'intended meaning' of this:



> Q. 87. What are we to believe concerning the resurrection?
> 
> A. We are to believe that at the last day there shall be a general resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust:[379] when they that are then found alive shall in a moment be changed; and the *selfsame* bodies of the dead which were laid in the grave, being then again united to their souls forever, shall be raised up by the power of Christ.[380] The bodies of the just, by the Spirit of Christ, and by virtue of his resurrection as their head, shall be raised in power, spiritual, incorruptible, and made like to his glorious body;[381] and the bodies of the wicked shall be raised up in dishonour by him, as an offended judge.[382]
> 
> ...



I'm sorry for all of the questions. I have seen first hand how hyperpreterism tears families and churches apart. It is a growing problem and I want to clearly define where the boundaries of orthodoxy are.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm not savvy on the definitions. Would historical premillennialism necessitate a futurist position? Even some contemporary premil/pretrib see some possibilities of past fulfillment in Rev. And not all hold to the 70th week scenario. 
I guess the idea of a future millennium seems at odds with the idea of a historical position. Now, back to my popcorn.


----------



## MOSES (Jan 8, 2009)

Ken

No problem, I apprciate your concern.

Concerning question 87: Resurrection of the self same body.
I agree with this (this is one of the things I have argued many times with hyper's about). There is a future bodily resurrection.

note: there is a side to this that I don't agree with though which some may presume within the question. And that would be a pessimistic a-mill, or premill end times fanatasism, _influenced resurrection_.
I believe (as a progressive postmill) that all enemies are progressively being put under Christ...and that the RESULT of this is "life from the dead"...As we also sing in the famous hymn "and heaven and earth be one"...(i.e., the world progressively is being restored...and that Christ, who is the resurrection and the life, is filling all in all...The finished result of his filling all and all is "resurrection" or life from the dead...both heaven and earth/spiritual and earthly,,,,assuming the body)

10 He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, *that he might fill all things*
Ephesians 4

Again, the result of this filling all things is the restoration of all of creation...the resurrection.

Note: The very same word that created the heavens and the earth in the fist place, is the very same word that is now restoring, recreating, all things.


concerning question 88:

I believe in the judgment of all people (living and dead)...but I do take issue with the language of this question, because I believe it is taken from a faulty interpretation of several passages of scripture, for example Matt 25, which deals specifically with the nation of Israel.

I do not believe that history is just going to stop one day (before all things are recreated and restored as Christ fills all and all) and that men get judged on the day history supposedly stops.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 8, 2009)

A few thoughts that haven't been brought up but have been made by other critics of historicism. Historicism isn't just a Reformed phenomenon. Secular philosophy also has historicist models. Oliver O'Donovan in _Resurrection and Moral Order_ notes--and while he is mainly criticizing secular historicisms, I think his comments bear notice--that historicist models have to re-write themselves after every generation. 

Historicism, in its strictest and more original forms, implies a totality of knowledge over previous events. But when a new generation comes, then comes more knowledge. With more knowledge, our perspective on events changes and our situations usually change as well. therefore, previous models are not helpful.

If the Pope is the "Antichrist" (an misnomer since Antichrist is applicable to the people 1 John says it is applicable to), he is a very poor one given the one world order of Revelation 13.

Some criticisms of secular historicisms that apply insofar as they are similiar

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Moral-Order-Outline-Evangelical/dp/0802806929/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231437961&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics: Oliver O'Donovan: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Social-Theory-Political-Profiles/dp/1405136847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231438022&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Theology and Social Theory: Beyond Secular Reason (Political Profiles): John Milbank: Books[/ame]

(see the sections "For and Against Marx" and "For and Against Hegel."


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 8, 2009)

Ivanhoe said:


> A few thoughts that haven't been brought up but have been made by other critics of historicism. Historicism isn't just a Reformed phenomenon. Secular philosophy also has historicist models. Oliver O'Donovan in _Resurrection and Moral Order_ notes--and while he is mainly criticizing secular historicisms, I think his comments bear notice--that historicist models have to re-write themselves after every generation.
> 
> Historicism, in its strictest and more original forms, implies a totality of knowledge over previous events. But when a new generation comes, then comes more knowledge. With more knowledge, our perspective on events changes and our situations usually change as well. therefore, previous models are not helpful.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure if the philosophical idea is an accurate description of what is meant by historicism in eschatology. If you can explain it a little more then I may see what you mean but I don't really follow you on that.

I assume by your interpretation of Rev. 13 that you are a futurist since Nero certainly didn't fulfill the "one world order" as nearly as the papacy has. The office of the Papacy has had authority over people in more countries then any other position in all of history.


----------



## JM (Jan 8, 2009)

Historicism.com - Site Tour
Historicism is the view that most of Revelation describes history as it has been unfolding over the last 20 centuries. Historicists see in the prophecies concerning the Dragon, the Beast, the False Prophet, and the Whore of Babylon, references to the pagan Roman Empire, papal Rome (that is, Roman Europe under the rule of the popes ), the Papacy, and the Roman Catholic Church. The majority of Historicists also identify the symbols of the smoke rising from the Abyss and the invasion of locusts as descriptions of the rise and spread of Islam. This view united all Protestants throughout the Reformation and has largely been replaced by Futurism as the dominant eschatology (belief about the end-times) of evangelical Christians. 

To put it another way, Historicism is the method of interpreting Biblical prophecy by comparing history to the prophecy in question. Historicists believe that prophecy is history pre-written. Therefore prophecy can be understood by looking to the past to discover what has, and hasn't, been fulfilled. Historicism, as a school of thought, like futurism, contains many differing opinions as to details of prophetic interpretation. It is not a system that must stand or fall by its ability to withstand criticism. It is a method of interpretation that allows its adherents to continually re-evaluate their opinions as they grow in their understanding of both history, and the Bible.​


----------



## RamistThomist (Jan 8, 2009)

More on the explanation later--probably tomorrow. I am neither futurist nor preterist. I will explain late.r


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 8, 2009)

I understand what historicism is in protestant eschatology but just wanted more explanation of what Mr. Atken is referring to in philosophy. I'm not seeing how philosophers would use its method and am skeptical of a philosophical critique. I'm certainly fine with a biblical one.


----------



## Witsius (Jan 8, 2009)

Another Historicist.

Try Elliott's Horae Apocalyptae
and Guinness' Romanism and the Reformation,
and,
anything by Francis Nigel Lee.


----------



## YXU (Jan 8, 2009)

I used to be partial preterist and postmil, due to the increase in experience, I changed to historicism now.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 8, 2009)

What would be the main difference between a futurist and historicist? It seems there must be some overlap.


----------



## tdowns (Jan 8, 2009)

*From Mccarter:*

"Historicism interprets the eschatological prophecies described in Revelation, II Thess 2, Matt 24 and other relevant passages as unfolding over the history of mankind, from the First Advent to the future Second Advent, just as it interprets the prophecies of Daniel as unfolding over a vast expanse of time. This contrasts with futurism which tends to confine their fulfillment to some future time in a relatively short time frame, and it contrasts with preterism which tends to consign their fulfillment to the distant past, generally in the Apostolic era. Historicism identifies that Man of Sin and Beast of Revelation with the Romish Papacy."

From "A Critique of Full Pret and a Defense of Historicistic Post-Mill" J. Parnell Mccarter

So, yes, some of Hisoricisitic interpretations are still future, some are past.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 8, 2009)

Well, I guess I'm a historicist with futurist leanings... or is it a futurist with historicist leanings? Eh, I guess I'll just sit here on the fence eating popcorn.


----------



## YXU (Jan 8, 2009)

Wannabee said:


> What would be the main difference between a futurist and historicist? It seems there must be some overlap.



Preterist=most prophecies were fulfilled in the 1st century.
Futurist=most prophecies are to be fulfilled in the end of the world.
Historicist=prophecies are being fulfilled in history.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Jan 9, 2009)

http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/iithess/iithess.pdf

Link to Dr. Lee.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Mar 5, 2009)

Coming at this late, but I am an amil historicist. And there seems to be much confusion as to when the "Antichrist clause" was removed from the Westminster Confession 25.6. To the best of my knowledge, that wording was not altered until 1903, when the PCUSA made several additional changes to the Confession, nearly all of them recognized as evidencing a liberalizing tendency in that denomination. Surprisingly, this change concerning the Protestant identification of Antichrist is not likewise understood to be a liberal alteration. -- See the prefatory material to the comparison between the original and the American versions of the Confession on the OPC's website, American Revisions to the Westminster Confession of Faith.


----------

