Tag Archives: Preterism

Partial Preterism and Historicist Postmillennialism

Briton Rivière - Una and the Lion

Reformed Theonomy outlines 7 differences between Partial Preterism and Historicist Postmillennialism:

https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/7-differences-between-partial-preterist-and-historist-postmillennialism/

Advertisements

Preterism Refuted

Feileadh Mor

Strong words from Bishop Elliott and although you may not agree with his writings or his conclusion you will find his work historically accurate and worth your time.

Who was E. B. Elliott?

“Edward Bishop Elliott (1793-1875), scholarly prophetic expositor, received his education at Trinity College, Cambridge, graduating in 1816. After traveling in Italy and Greece he was given the vicarage of Tuxford, Nottingham, in 1824, and later was made prebendary of NPG x132252; Edward Bishop Elliott by James HolroydHeytesbury, Wiltshire. In 1849 he became incumbent of St. Mark’s Church, Brighton. A member of the Evangelical school, he was an earnest promoter of missionary enterprise and an ardent advocate of premillenialism. Elliott was thoroughly equipped as a scholar and was deeply interested in prophecy, spending a lifetime in investigation and seeking to understand God’s mind thereon.
His Horae Apocalypticae (Hours with the Apocalypse) [literally ‘time with the Apocalypse’] is doubtless the most elaborate word ever produced on…

View original post 156 more words

Dispensationalism and Preterism

Feileadh Mor

Dispensationalism teaches that key portions of scripture like Daniel 9, Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation take place at some at sometime in the future. Preterism teaches that much of prophecy took place before the end of the first century.

H. Grattan Guinness explains the origin of Futurism; Henry Grattan Guinness

The third or FUTURIST view, is that which teaches that the prophetic visions of Revelation, from chapters iv to xix, prefigure events still wholly future and not to take place, till just at the close of this dispensation. . . .

In its present form however it may be said to have originated at the end of the sixteenth century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, moved like Alcazar, to relieve the Papacy from the terrible stigma cast upon it by the Protestant interpretation, tried to do so, by referring those prophecies to the distant future, instead of like Alcazar to the…

View original post 555 more words

“The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism”

510px-Ignatius_von_Loyola

In this the “Historical” interpretation, the antichrist was clearly not merely a single individual, it was a system of apostasy and persecution that would hold sway for over twelve centuries. The inevitable conclusion of those who studied these prophesies in scripture, before and during the Protestant Reformation, was that there was only one entity that fit all the above characteristics: the papal dynasty of the Roman Catholic Church. Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church was so violently opposed to the scriptures being available for everyone to read for themselves? There was such a stir created during the reformation that the  Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17 A.D.) resorted to strictly forbidding anyone to publish a book without prior censorship, and also prohibited anyone from preaching on the subject of antichrist:

Read the rest:  The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism

What is Preterism?

From L’Avenir:

II. THE ANTI-PROTESTANT PRATERITE (PRETERIST-ed.)THEORY.

This was originated by a Spanish Jesuit also, Alcasar of Seville, who, A.D. 1615, published a work having in view the same end as Ribera, viz., to set aside the Protestant application of the Apocalyptic prophecies and symbols. Ribera endeavored to throw everything forward into the future. Alcasar endeavoured to throw every thing backward into the past. He stops short in the course of history, and makes all the Apocalyptic symbols to have been fulfilled within the first five six centuries. The Germanic Neronic Form; so called because it dates the Apocalypse (an essential point for interpreters) about the end of Nero’s reign, A.D. 67 and because it is thus regarded by the critical, rationalistic school of German expositors, and by Professor Stuart in America. According to this view, the Apocalypse can only refer to the overthrow of Judaism and Heathenism, and the triumph of Christianity, but not to the Papacy. The early date, viz., A.D. 67, makes room for supposing a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70; and the six centuries, for the overthrow of heathenism, and the prevalence of Christianity, but not for the demolition of the Roman Catholic Church! The Papal Domitianic Form; so called because it fixes the date of the Apocalypse about the end of Domitian’s reign, A.D. 96; and in this form prevails with the Papacy. Of course, this form of the theory excludes application of the symbols of the Apocalypse to the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred twenty-five years previous to this date, inasmuch as the events recorded were to come into being after the time John wrote.-(Rev. 4:1). The fall of Judaism and the doom of the Roman Catholic Church are not referred to at all, but only the overthrow of Heathenism and the triumph of Christianity. Such is the loose and wholesale mode of generalising in these two forms of Praeterism (the latter of which has yet some truth), that any upstart has a precedent before him for applying the Apocalyptic symbols to the destruction of any enemy he please.

Learn more at Still Waters Revival Books, www.swrb.com.