# Historicist



## Me Died Blue (Jul 4, 2005)

http://www.historicist.com/

This is an interesting site talking about the origins of the Historicist position, and the little-known role Isaac Newton played in its development, as well as some articles defending it theologically.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 22, 2005)

Any thoughts on the site? Is it accurate?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 22, 2005)

I personally have found the site useful. However, I prefer this site. The latter site explains much about the origins of futurism and preterism, as well as the Reformation consensus on historicism. I think Isaac Newton is given too much credit on the former site. I have respect for his writings and his genius, but I am also aware of his Masonic beliefs, and I don't view him as the best defender of orthodoxy.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 23, 2005)

I want a site for Idealists!:bigsmile:


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 27, 2005)

Try this site as well: http://www.historicism.com/index.htm

Before I became Reformed I was a Dispensational Premill. After I became Reformed I became a Preterist. But a few years ago I started to study the Historicist position, which used to be called THE Protestant method of interpreting prophecy and I've became convinced that it is true. I was amazed at how the pre-Reformers, the Reformers, The Puritans, and others in that stream, all held that view and that it was primarliy lost because of the Jesuit's Counter-Reformation theories of Futurism (the Dispensational-Premill view) and Preterism. 
Jim


----------



## BobVigneault (Jul 27, 2005)

I do have some difficulty with the preterist early dating of the Revelation but I find preterism to hard to leave. It makes for a nice neat explanation of the strange images. 

Bottom line for me is that the first century church has to be the intended audience and the ones who would most benefit and be blessed from reading of 'these things that will soon take place'. 

I can understand the reformers taking up the historicist view given the persecution they were enduring from the papacy, it must have 'felt' like the end of times, but I just don't see the pope's relevance to the first century church and the original hearers of John's writings.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

The Pope is anti-Christian but not the Anti-Christ(s). They were already alive and well in the first century, according to Scripture.


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 27, 2005)

I encourage you to read J.A. Wylie's essay, "The Papacy is Antichrist",
http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf 
It's an excellent essay from the Historicist position. I find his agrument very compelling.
Jim


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2005)

Not really,
Most historicists are postmillennial (there are exceptions). Many idealists are amillennial (exception being RJ Rushdoony; I find it humouros that many people who are most nervous about Rush share the same hermenuetic as him. Many preterists are postmillennial (Jay Adams excepted). 

There is really no hard and fast rule connecting hermeneutics with millennial positions (except futurism = premillennialism).

What is really funny is when people start saying that partial preterism = federal visionism. That's called "playing connect the dots."


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The Pope is anti-Christian but not the Anti-Christ(s). They were already alive and well in the first century, according to Scripture.



The mystery of lawlessness was already at work, in his time to be revealed according to 2 Thes. 2:6-7. The spirit of antichrist which was to come, according to 1 John 4:3, was already in the world. The Roman office of the papacy (Pontifex Maximus) was alive and well in the first century and indeed even before the time of Christ. Julius Caesar held that office before becoming Emperor. Much of the structure of the pagan Roman Empire carried over into the holy Roman Empire following Emperor Constintine's conversion, including the office of Pontifex Maximus which continues to this day.


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 27, 2005)

Some Historicists are "Historic Premillenialists" not to be confused with Dispensational Premill. for example, H.G. Guinness. See http://www.historicism.com/index.htm
And with a name like Guinness, he must be right!! 
Jim


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2005)

orthodox preterism has many of the first-century time referents applying to the first century. Events like the second coming, etc. are still in the future.

The reason that many are postmillennial is that many of the negative passages refer to the first century. This puts church in a position where she can conquer the world for Christ. Who is to hold her back. Phrases like the "present evil age" refer, as I see it, to the destruction of the jewish typological order in AD 70.

[Edited on 7--27-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> I'm confused further. I've always associated Preterism with Postmillenialism. Help me out. Give me a definition fo Preterism.



Josh,

Postmillennialism, Amillennialism, and Premillennialism all have to do with millennial views only. Preterism, Historicism, Futurism, and Idealism all have to do with overall eschatalogical views, especially one's overall approach to Revelation. The Preterist says Revelation was all mostly fulfilled by 70AD. The Historicist says Revelation is being fulfilled throughout church history. The Futurist says that all of it will be fulfilled in the future. The Idealist says that it should be viewed as allegory rather than prophesy. As it touches on the doctrine of Antichrist, the Preterist says the Antichrist was Nero; the Historicist, the Papacy; the Futurist, some future person at the end of history.

dC


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> I want a site for Idealists!:bigsmile:


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



Yes, sir.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jacob_
> ...



Yes, but...
I call partial pret postmillennials "New wave postmillennialists." The more classic brand of postmillennialism usually had historicists in it.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

Classic Postmil -> Historicist Postmil
"Modern" Postmil -> Preterist/Theonomic Postmil
Amil -> Historicist, Preterist, etc.
Premil -> Futurist


----------



## Peter (Jul 27, 2005)

Yes. The puritans were Postmillennial Historicist. That is, they believed Christ's kingdom would culminate with the millennium, a golden age when the earth will be filled with knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea, all nations kiss the son, and swords will be beaten into plowshares, followed by the Return of Christ and the consumation of all things (Postmillennialism). They also believed that predictive prophecy spans all of history not just a short period of time from the ascension to the destruction of jerusalem or the events immediately leading up to the second coming. They believed in a 1260 year (42 months) apostacy by consistently applying the day/year principle in prophecy, understood the papacy to be the man of sin and antichrist, and the 5th trumpet to refer to the Mohammedan invasions. (Historicism) 

Please see http://historicism.net/


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Thanks, Peter. So the majority of Puritans were NOT Amil? Why did I think that?



Dirty Amils and their lies!!!!!!!!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Thanks, Peter. So the majority of Puritans were NOT Amil? Why did I think that?



One of the best books I have ever read with regard to prophecy is Iain Murray's _The Puritan Hope_.

Seek your answers there


----------



## Peter (Jul 27, 2005)

Yes. Overwhelmingly. There's an entire book about it (that i have not read) by Ian Murray: "The Puritan Hope"

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Peter]

[Edited on 7-27-2005 by Peter]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 27, 2005)

Iain Murray's _The Puritan Hope_


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 27, 2005)

Not only does it proclaim the victory of King Jesus before the culmination of history, it is written with a rare, spiritual fervor that few can match.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by joshua_
> ...


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jim Snyder_
> I encourage you to read J.A. Wylie's essay, "The Papacy is Antichrist",
> http://www.historicism.net/readingmaterials/thepapacy.pdf
> It's an excellent essay from the Historicist position. I find his agrument very compelling.
> Jim



I love Wylie. Even better, in my opinion, is Turretin. He _proves_ that the Pope of Rome is the Antichrist. To my knowledge, no one has attempted a refutation.

http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/works-turretin.htm


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 29, 2005)

I have that article by Turretin saved and need to read it. He is my fellow Italian brother in Christ ... I guess I should give it a read. Plus, I love his _Institutes_.

[Edited on 7-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Theogenes (Jul 29, 2005)

Gregory,
I have Turretin's Disputation from Rand Winburn. I agree it's an excellent argument and impossible to dismiss. I'm amazed with all the interest in Turretin with his 3 vol. Syst. Theo. being published a number of years ago that this disputation is virtually unknown to most Reformed people. Makes you wonder if there's not a Jesuit conspiracy afoot  Have you read Samuel Cassels "Christ and Antichrist"?? It's another excellent book and argument. How about Guinness' "Romanism and the Reformation"? Or any other of Guinness' books?? 
Jim


----------



## JM (Feb 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jim Snyder_
> ...



Hey brother, do you have the title of Turretin's work, the link is broke and I'd like to google it up if I could. 

peace,


----------



## Peter (Feb 21, 2006)

Turretin's Seventh Disputation, where it is proven that the Papacy is the Antichrist


----------



## Kaalvenist (Feb 21, 2006)

Turretin was an Amil Historicist. Like myself.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Feb 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> They believed in a 1260 year (42 months) apostacy by consistently applying the day/year principle in prophecy, understood the papacy to be the man of sin and antichrist, and the 5th trumpet to refer to the Mohammedan invasions.


While Historicism has some central beliefs (the Pope is the Antichrist, the Church of Rome is the Whore of Babylon, the Year-Day Principle), there's actually a lot of room for variation within Historicism. John Brown of Haddington, for example, believed that the 5th trumpet referred, not to the Mahometans, but to the monks and friars of Rome. I'm not discounting anything that Peter said (except for the postmil emphasis in his original post); I'm simply saying that, other than a few "cardinal beliefs," there's a lot of room within Historicism for different interpretations of the prophecies of Revelation.

I personally believe that the Westminster Standards lend themselves more to an amil interpretation. But this doesn't seem to be the proper thread for that discussion.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Feb 22, 2006)

Does anyone know if the previously mentioned Turretin article:

(Turretin's Seventh Disputation, where it is proven that the Papacy is the Antichrist) 

...is available in his Institutes?


----------



## Kaalvenist (Feb 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SmokingFlax_
> Does anyone know if the previously mentioned Turretin article:
> 
> (Turretin's Seventh Disputation, where it is proven that the Papacy is the Antichrist)
> ...


No, it's not. Turretin's Opera ("Works") are four Latin volumes; his Institutes, translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr., make up the first three volumes. The fourth volume of his works remains in Latin, untranslated. The article in question is a translation of a selection from one of his works ("Concerning our Necessary Secession from the Church of Rome, and the Impossibility of Cooperation with Her") appearing in that fourth volume.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Feb 24, 2006)

Thanks Sean/Kaalvenist!


----------



## JM (Feb 25, 2006)

Did you notice how both the futurist and the preterist views could not acknowledge the rise of antichrist in their time? The futurist tells us the antichrist is coming and the preterist tells us the antichrist has come. 

Something to think about.


----------



## historyb (Feb 25, 2006)

If I may be so bold. The anti-Christ in the pretist view was Nero wwhen the great Tribulation happened.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 26, 2006)

Nero was the beast, not the antichrist. let's get the terms correct.


----------



## historyb (Feb 26, 2006)

Sorry trying to help. Still reading up on it all and leaning very heavyily to preterism.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 26, 2006)

I'm a partial preterist. studied it already, wasted money on Dispensational books


----------



## Kaalvenist (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> I'm a partial preterist. studied it already, wasted money on Dispensational books


And preterist books.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Slippery_
> ...


I never bought a preterist book  studied from online sources, and I borrowed Sproul's, "The Last Days according to Jesus" from the Library.

its amazing how less expensive the truth is when compared to error.


----------



## Kaalvenist (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Kaalvenist_
> ...


Whatever happened to "buy the truth, and sell it not"?


----------

