George Ladd / Historic Premil

[Scott]

Are historic premils historicists? What about George Eldon Ladd? I had thought that they were historicists, but from looking over some historic premil resources, it looks to me like they are not. "Historic" in the title evidently does not refer to historicism, but rather to a form of premillenialism older than dispensational premillenialism. Is that right?

 

[KMK]

Are historic premils historicists? What about George Eldon Ladd? I had thought that they were historicists, but from looking over some historic premil resources, it looks to me like they are not. "Historic" in the title evidently does not refer to historicism, but rather to a form of premillenialism older than dispensational premillenialism. Is that right?

I believe you are correct in that the term 'historic' is used by those who are premil but want to distinguish themselves from dispensationalism.

 

[AV1611]

Are historic premils historicists? What about George Eldon Ladd? I had thought that they were historicists, but from looking over some historic premil resources, it looks to me like they are not. "Historic" in the title evidently does not refer to historicism, but rather to a form of premillenialism older than dispensational premillenialism. Is that right?

Do not confuse historicism with historic premillennialism. The former is an interpretive eapproach to revelation which seeks to understand revelation as seen in history (as distinct from preterism, idealism and futurism) whilst the latter is a way of differentiating dispensational premillennialism from a form of premillennialism heldby non-dispensationalists such as Spurgeon, Gill (who was also an historicist), Toplady, Ladd (who is a futurist), Justin Martyr and some of the Early Church fathers.

ii. The historicist: that it is a chart of the whole of history from Christ's first coming to his second, and beyond. In this method people will try to make sections of Revelation fit in with specific historical events.

(http://www.apocalipsis.org/rev-int.htm#schools)

 

[Scott]

Thanks, Richard. That is what I needed. I found this online work by Ladd, in which he says this about historicism:

Historical. This method views the Revelation as a symbolic prophecy of the entire history of the church down to the return of Christ and the end of the age. The numerous symbols of the book designate various historical movements and events in the western world. and the Christian church. Obviously, such an interpretation could lead to confusion, for there are no fixed guidelines as to what historical events are meant. One of the most prevailing features of this interpretation has been the view that the beast is the Roman papacy and the false prophet the Roman Church. This view was so widely held that for a long time it was called the Protestant view. This view has little to commend it, for the Revelation would in that case have little to say to the churches of Asia to which it was addressed.

As you said, he was clearly not a historicist and he later goes on in the same work to describe why futurism is the view he thinks is best.

 

[KMK]

Uh-oh... This could be a

 

[Scott]

For what it's worth, I am not saying that about historicism. I was just wondering what Ladd and Historic Premils were (not that I approve of their views).

 

[AV1611]

For what it's worth, I am not saying that about historicism. I was just wondering what Ladd and Historic Premils were (not that I approve of their views).

I had to recall where I went for info when I was a Plymouth Brethrener so here are some more which you may find helpful.

I personally remain neutral on the Millennium at the moment. I would affirm a partial-preterist eschaology.

Historic Pre-Millennialism: http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Last Things/hispremil.html

The Last Things: http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/Last Things/eschat_ladd.html

Historicist:
http://www.historicist.com/
http://www.historicism.com/

 

[Andrew P.C.]

"Historic premillennialism draws its name from the fact that many of the early Church Fathers (i.e. Ireneaus [140-203], who as a disciple of Polycarp, who had been an disciple of the apostle of John, Justin Martyr [100-165], and Papias [80-155]), apparently believed and taught that there would be a visible kingdom of God upon the earth, after the return of Christ. "

http://www.reformedreader.org/mchart.htm

 

[G.Wetmore]

one of the inherent problems with the historicist position is that every so often the whole system has to be reworked to account for new "history." Every age of historicists finds themselves living at the end of revelation, so that is why a historicism today looks different than it did 200 years ago, because now all of a sudden you have 200 more years that you have to fit into the system, so the whole system has to be reworked. In 200 years from now, the position will have to be reworked again. so on and so on.

 

[javajedi]

I do not want to hi-jack this thread but are there any prominent people that hold to Historicism today?

I does seem like a very untenable position.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I have ladd's book "the blessed hope" and have never read it. I may try to read it this weekend.

 

[AV1611]

I have ladd's book "the blessed hope" and have never read it. I may try to read it this weekend.

It is OK but nothing special.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

It is OK but nothing special.

it is premill afterall.