# Historicists -- what convinced you?



## nwink (Oct 28, 2010)

I'm new to studying the Historicism issue, and I was wondering if Historicists on PB could provide a few of the arguments for what convinced them of that position. Basically, what's the sparknotes-version of why you are a Historicist? (And what convinced you that your previous position wasn't correct?)


----------



## Philip (Oct 28, 2010)

What exactly do you mean by "historicism"?


----------



## nwink (Oct 28, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> What exactly do you mean by "historicism"?


 
"Historicism" as in the Historicist interpretation of Biblical prophecy -- the Confessional understanding, papacy is the anti-Christ, etc.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 28, 2010)

I'm more of a pretero-historicist or historical preterist, generally speaking.

It seems fairly clear from I John that antichrists and the Antichriist must come from within the Christian Church, as the example of antichrists in his day that the apostle gives is that of Christian gnosticism.

So an antichrist is an idol posing as a false Christ set up in God's Church. 

The Papacy fits this bill, and also has done far more damage to people's souls rather than bodies, than any "endtimes" antichrist or an antichrist like Nero.

So I identify the Antichrist in I John and the Man of Sin, Son of Perdition, in II Thessalonians with the Papacy. The Papacy apes Christ in so many different ways. There are other antichrists e.g. Liberal theology.

The Second Beast in Revelation may represent various antichrists and the Antichrist that turn the Woman (the Church) into a Whore. 

The First Beast may represent statist, pagan and secular persecution down the years starting with Nero and the Roman Empire.

Take this all with a pinch of salt, as Revelation isn't like history written beforehand.

I got quite a lot of help from "The Interpretation of Prophecy" by Patrick Fairbairn, and also listening to Greg Bahnsen's tapes on Revelation, although he is much more preterist than I would be, and Gentry is more preterist than him.

I don't know if the more traditionally historicist approach e.g. Francis Nigel Lee/some of the older Reformed and Puritan commentaries, can get bogged down in identifying this seal, trumpet or plague with particular events of church history. Maybe Fairbairn is somewhat idealist in that he avoids a lot of this. I wouldn't be able to say if that kind of detailed historicist identification of seals, trumpets and plagues with e.g. Mohammedan incursions into Europe works well, as I haven't studied historicist books that closely. Some of them may be treating Revelation too much like a history book (?)

Read Fairbairn, listen to Bahnsen, then put it together.

Jerusalem ("Where our lord was crucified") - the apostate Old Covenant Church. Judged in the seals and trumpets.

The Woman in the Desert - the New Covenant Church.

The Prostitute Babylon in the Desert - the New Covenant Church gone bad because of the influence of Statist/Worldly persecution (First Beast) and Ecclesiatical error (Second Beast).

The Bride New Jerusalem - the Church cleansed.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 28, 2010)

What he said.


----------



## JM (Oct 28, 2010)

If you're new, try these: SermonAudio.com - How To Approach The Book Of Revelation


----------

