# Eschatology of the Reformers



## JM (Sep 2, 2008)

Who, of the Reformers, were not Historicists?


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 2, 2008)

JM said:


> Who, of the Reformers, were not Historicists?



Might be easier to ask who were..


----------



## JM (Sep 2, 2008)

A quote :



> *Also the Protestant Reformers were Historicalists.*
> 
> These include: Luther, Oecolampadius, Melanchthon, Striegel, Joye, Osiander, Bibliander, Knox, Tyndale, Hooper, Bale, Latimer, Ridley, Von Amsdorff, Flaccius Illyricus, Bullinger, Funck, Virgil Solis, Conradus, Lambert, the Geneva Bible, Jewel, Nigrinus, Chytraeus, Cranmer, Foxe, Napier, and Junius. (Though Calvin never wrote a commentary on and rarely even quoted from the Book of Revelation, it is clear that also he interpreted other apocalyptic passages like Dan. chs. 1 to 12 and II Thess. 2 historicalistically -- as too did the Calvinistic Geneva Bible, the Dordt Dutch Bible, and the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Larger Catechism.)
> 
> ...


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 2, 2008)

Source of that quote? Sounds like someone who's trying to bolster the case for historicism by claiming that anyone who holds any SHRED of historicism is a historicist...


----------



## JM (Sep 2, 2008)

source

From Wiki : In Christian eschatology, Historicism is a school of interpretation which treats the eschatological prophecies of Daniel and Revelation as finding literal earthly fulfillment through the history of the church age and especially in relation to the struggle between the true church and apostasy. Historicism became a significant feature in the Protestant-Catholic conflicts of the Reformation. A common feature of Historicist interpretations, which makes them very controversial, is the identification of the Antichrist (1 and 2 John), the Beast (Revelation 13), the Man of Sin or Man of Lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2) and the Whore of Babylon (Revelation 17) with the Roman Catholic Church, the Papal system and each successive Pope himself (a common position held by Protestants in the Reformation, which is not prevalent today). However, it must be noted that such an identification is not unique to Historicism, has not been held by all Historicists, and has been and is currently, held by some Futurists.

We could always go through the list striking off the names of those who believe were not Historicists?


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 2, 2008)

And I thought it might be Dr. Lee. 

Point is, though, that many of those same names are just as clearly held to be either postmillenialists, amillenialists or partial (or even FULL) preterists. 

Another point - holding that the papacy is the AntiChrist is not, as the wiki page points out, defining of historicism. I happen to hold that opinion, but I am no historicist.


----------



## JM (Sep 2, 2008)

> Point is, though, that many of those same names are just as clearly held to be either postmillenialists, amillenialists or partial (or even FULL) preterists.



As Johnathan Tate pointed out in another recent thread,



> Many Postmillennialists are historicists. Views of Revelation below are different angles on the eschatology debate -
> 
> Preterist - Many amil, postmil
> Historicist - Many (if not most) postmils, some historic premils (Henry Halley)
> ...



How do you defined historicism?



> And I thought it might be Dr. Lee.



Is Lee's work suspect?



> Another point - holding that the papacy is the AntiChrist is not, as the wiki page points out, defining of historicism. I happen to hold that opinion, but I am no historicist.



Agreed. So what does define Historicism?

Thanks.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 2, 2008)

JM said:


> Agreed. So what does define Historicism?
> 
> Thanks.



I guess that's my main issue with the thread. Since you asked the question, it probably would have been good to supply a definition first.


----------



## JM (Sep 2, 2008)

Does this help?
http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/eschatology-reformers-37060/#post460284


----------



## JM (Sep 2, 2008)

Welcome to the Web Site of the Historicism Research Foundation.


> Historicism is unlike Preterism, which teaches that most of prophecy has been fulfilled in the past. It also differs from Futurism, which teaches that prophecy will only be fulfilled at some future date. In brief, Historicism teaches that biblical predictions are being fulfilled throughout history and continue to be fulfilled today. The Book of Revelation is a pre-written history of the Church from the time of its writing to the future Second Advent of Christ, which shall usher in the new heaven and new earth.





> Historicists agree on the following unique concepts:
> 
> * The "Year-Day" principle - In prophetic language, a day of symbolic time represents a year of actual, historic time.
> * The "Time, Times and Half a time," "3 1/2 years," "1260 days", and "42 month" time period, which occurs seven times in Daniel and Revelation, is understood by Historicists to be fulfilled in history.
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 2, 2008)

Dr. Steven Dilday, _The Eschatology of George Gillespie: An Introductory Analysis and Evaluation_, pp. 13-14:



> As earlier observed, the historicist approach to prophetic oracles in general, and to John's Apocalypse in particular, appears to have been predominant among English and Scottish divines of the first half of the seventeenth century. This approach appears to have even found its way into the Westminster Standards...This conclusion is further strengthened in that the English Annotations on the Bible that came to be associated with the Westminster Assembly (Parliament having employed many of her divines in the production of this work) are clearly historicist in their analysis of John's Apocalypse.[2]...In the 1640's, there was a broad enough consensus concerning the historicist approach that it made its way into the Confession of Faith...



The Eschatology of George Gillespie: An Introductory Analysis and Evaluation by Steven Dilday (Book) in Religion & Spirituality


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 2, 2008)

H. Grattan Guinness, _History Unveiling Prophecy_, Preface:



> It is a deep satisfaction to the author to remember that whatever may be the views of a modern section of sceptical or speculative interpreters of the Apocalypse, who either see no reference to definite historical events in the prophecy, or relegate its fulfilment to future times, in accepting and advocating its historical interpretation, in regarding it as the story told in advance in symbolic language of the events of the Christian centuries, he is treading in the steps of the greater part of Apocalyptic interpreters from the earliest times, of Justin Martyr; Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Victorinus, Methodius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine among the Fathers; of Bede and Anspert, Andreas and Anselm, Joachim Abbas and Almeric of the middle ages, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, of Wickliffe and the Lollards, of John Huss and Jerome of Prague of pre-Reformation times; of the Reformers, English, Scottish, and Continental; of the noble army of Confessors and Martyrs who suffered under Pagan and Papal Rome; of the Puritan theologians, of the Pilgrim Fathers of New England, of Mede and More, and Sir Isaac Newton, and Jonathan Edwards that greatest of American theologians, of Bengel the learned German exegete, of Alford and Wordsworth, of Birks and Bickersteth, of Faber and Elliott in England, and a host of others, men distinguished for their ability, their assiduity, their spirituality, their deep study of the prophetic world, in short by what appear to be the greatest and best of the expositors of the book. Modern historical interpreters of the Apocalypse are in good company; they stand with the Fathers, the Confessors, the Martyrs, the Reformers, with men who suffered for the truth they believed, and were practically guided and inspired by the interpretations they have handed down to posterity.



http://www.historicism.com/Guinness/Unveiling/unveiling.pdf


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 19, 2008)

There must be some confusion here. The historicist is NOT contrasted with post-millennial, amillennial, and historic premillennial. It is contrasted with futurist and preterist. Within the historicist view there were post, pre, and amillennialists. Before the Scofield Reference Bible came out nearly everyone was historicist. Historicim was actually called the "Protestant View". Historicism refers to the belief that the prophesies of Daniel and Revelation are describing the time between the 2 advents of Christ. The Papacy (not an individual pope) is seen as the antichrist. 

WCF XXV--VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God. 

LBC 1689 Chapter 26-Paragraph 4. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner;7 neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.

George Ladd said in his commentary on the book of Revelation--...One of the prevailing features of this interpretation has been the view that the beast is the Roman Papacy and the false prophet is the Roman Church. *This view was so widely held that for a long time it was called the protestant view.*

I have Calvin's commentary on 2 Thessalonians and he refutes preterism and says the man of sin is the Papacy (Crossway Classic Commentaries, 1 & 2 Thessalonians by John Calvin, pg 87)

This is the protestant view until dispensationalism came along and turned everyone on to the Left Behind type stuff. I gladly uphold the "Protestant View".


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Sep 19, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> And I thought it might be Dr. Lee.
> 
> Point is, though, that many of those same names are just as clearly held to be either postmillenialists, amillenialists or partial (or even FULL) preterists.
> 
> Another point - holding that the papacy is the AntiChrist is not, as the wiki page points out, defining of historicism. I happen to hold that opinion, but I am no historicist.



It doesnt define it technically but does practically since Ive never heard of a historicist who didnt believe the Papacy is the man of sin. Also, if you believe the Papacy is the antichrist you must be a historicist. The Papacy is a position that has existed through centuries. If you're saying there is much to take place in the future then historicism agrees. Historicism says that the apocalyptic prophesies take place between Christ's ascension and His return. There is more to come because Christ has not returned.


----------

