|
|
Post by Josh on May 5, 2015 20:34:41 GMT -8
Elsewhere, asaph, you argued that you have no need to thoroughly research Futurism and Preterism because you are convinced they were created by Catholics to undermine the Historicist perspective:
As I have some time, I'd like to investigate both the logic of this argument and its premises, and also discuss the origins of the historicist view as well. |
|
|
|
Post by asaph on May 7, 2015 4:08:16 GMT -8
"Elsewhere, asaph, you argued that you have no need to thoroughly research Futurism and Preterism because you are convinced they were created by Catholics to undermine the Historicist perspective:" Josh
Where did I state that? Not in the quotes you gave.
I stated the works of Alcazar and Ribera were produced to undo the Reformation's stand against the RCC and papacy fulfilling what Scripture placed as antichrist. Whether or not the Reformers were all Historicists was not the issue, then or now, really.
The Jesuit order was founded by Ignacius Loyola for the purpose of derailing and stopping the Protestant Reformation and establishment of the papacy throughout the world. It exists for that reason now. Lucius Alcazar and Francisco de Ribera were both Jesuits. Reading their materials would be, for me, investigation into enemy literature to see things in history but, not for understanding the truth of God.
I am no longer a Roman Catholic. I have no burden to see what its authors have to say in regards to the truth of God, even if it may contain some truth. I know it also contains error and is designed to lead away from the whole counsel of God.
Alcazar's work, like the footnotes in many Catholic Bibles, place 666 upon emperor Nero. I reject that interpretation, in particular, and Preterism in general, as well as Futrism, even if I did not know their basic source - Jesuits of the 16th century. I do not believe facets of prophesy designed to warn the world and prepare people for Christ's return, were fulfilled 2000 years ago. Especially would that be the case with the book of Daniel. Revelation began in the days of John, and moves forward, though not necessarily chronologically. It deals with past, present, and yet future issues.
I have no real burden to get into partial/full Preterism or various shades of Futurism. I reject them, in principle, whether in part or whole, and specifically, in part or in whole.
For that matter, as a principle of interpretation I defend Historicism but, in part I might reject specific interpretations and comments any particular writer expounds on, based on the weight of evidence.
This is really an important subject. I am impressed to see it posted. It can lead some serious 'flaming' as I have beheld on other forums but, is it not important to know what one believes and why?
BTW, I forget his name but a guy wearing sunglasses in his picture posted some large entries using Preterist interpretation and in reading them, yes, I saw many things which I must reject as being true, and yes, it IS very difficult to "discuss" the subject of prophecy (prophetic interpretation) on a forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 3, 2015 22:46:21 GMT -8
One can find preterist, futurist, and historist proof texts in the church fathers, well before Alcazar. We also know that there was a wide variety of opinions about eschatology pretty early on (Justin acknowledges this if I recall).
Granted, for the most part, the early fathers seem to anticipate a yet future antichrist, so the preterist position has to posit that the knowledge of the fulfillment of certain passages was lost. I have always considered this a weak point for the preterist argument, but this is counterbalanced in my mind by the tight logic of the preterist claims about fulfillment in the 1st century and the insistence of the New Testament that these things would be fulfilled within the first generation of believers.
But the bottom line is that I think Alcazar's (or anyone's) arguments should be judged primarily on their logic not their motivations.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jul 4, 2015 5:03:29 GMT -8
One can find preterist, futurist, and historist proof texts in the church fathers, well before Alcazar. We also know that there was a wide variety of opinions about eschatology pretty early on (Justin acknowledges this if I recall).
Granted, for the most part, the early fathers seem to anticipate a yet future antichrist, so the preterist position has to posit that the knowledge of the fulfillment of certain passages was lost. I have always considered this a weak point for the preterist argument, but this is counterbalanced in my mind by the tight logic of the preterist claims about fulfillment in the 1st century and the insistence of the New Testament that these things would be fulfilled within the first generation of believers.
But the bottom line is that I think Alcazar's (or anyone's) arguments should be judged primarily on their logic not their motivations.
I see. The end justifies the means. Another Jesuit tenet. I find that very naive. In a desperate attempt to stop the influence of the printing presses publishing Bibles and commentaries containing biblical information exposing the RCC as antichrist, the Papacy endorses the works of the newly formed Jesuit order, who come up with totally opposite interpretations of Revelation for a distinct purpose. Both claiming to be truth, they portray events as already happening, or happening way off in the future. Protestants saw it then as Babylonian confusion, from the Whore of Revelation 17. Today, because of either the Oxford apostasy, or other rejections of the Reformation, professed Christians from all camps see these opposing ideas from the same source, as truth from God. You claim Preterist proof texts can be found in the writings of the "Fathers." Everywhere I have researched in the past, in books, or just typing Luis Alcazar into a search engine, I get all these hits with historic info that he was the father of Preterism. So, unless you can show these "proof texts" in the writings of the "Fathers" (who have little to no influence upon my faith because of their own backgrounds and theological positions as I have read them) I must believe you are clutching at straws here. There were no "Preterists" among the early writers of Christian faith. If any offered proof texts to that extent, I would be most interested to see them. The history of the Jesuits is extreme. They have been kicked out of every nation, at times more than once, except one nation - the USA. Let me give you another extreme scenario. I am deliberately attempting to destroy your forum. That is my motive. I write posts delineating your personal history, some of it true, much of it false, to leave negative impressions upon you and others here. I concoct theological concepts which I don't even believe, but state I do, and which you believe, which have no real basis in truth, just picking around to build a case to derail your audience from believing anything they read here. My motives are exposed. Based on this, you would tell your forum members to judge what I have written on the basis of my logic, rather than my exposed motives? In criminal court, any court, really, the presentation of motives are half a case. Yet you would place them aside as unworthy of attention? Indeed. I see that as naive. 2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. Jud 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Jud 1:4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. The Jesuits are nothing new. They are just the best at what they do. Christian acceptance of their concepts, regardless of their motives, whether covetousness or lasciviousness, or any other ungodly motive, is proof of how well they do what they do. |
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jul 4, 2015 5:23:33 GMT -8
"Next we come to consider the time of the rise of the Futurist system as we now have it, and the occasion which led to it.
"So great a hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men, that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.
Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men's minds from perceiving the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system. The Jesuit Alcasar devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method of interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus endeavoured to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled in Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy. On the other hand the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the Papal Power by bringing out the Futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and to continue in power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the Founder of the Futurist system in modern times.
"It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that "Futurism tends to obliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon Popery." More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the Papal Antichrist seems to be making an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men's minds. Now once again, as at the Reformation, it is especially necessary that his true character should be recognized, by all who would be faithful to "the testimony of Jesus."
Joseph Tanner, 'Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation,' pp 16,17, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1898.
I find it interesting Tanner just gave a brief exposure of Preterism's history because it really made no inroads in the Protestant positions on antichrist. It was soundly rejected. Futurism has been the greatest problem to preparation of Christ's return, by the sheer numbers who claim it as guiding truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 4, 2015 8:57:32 GMT -8
To want to judge an idea primarily on the strength of its internal logic is decisively not a case of "the end justifies the means". That phrase works well when discussing moral subjectivism, but we're not talking about morality, we're talking about logic.
I never said motivation shouldn't be considered at all. I said that an argument should be judged PRIMARILY on the strength of its logic.
At best, understanding motivations behind theological perspectives serves as a shorthand to anticipate likely ways in which the arguments will proceed. But we can, and should, be able to address individual claims of various theories.
If I were to dismiss you simply because I think you have an anti-Catholic agenda, I would be doing disservice to your arguments. Rather, we take and weigh individual claims and in so doing honor each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by asaph on Jul 4, 2015 11:10:06 GMT -8
If you were a Catholic, I would expect no less than for you to reject my posts, unless you were a Catholic dissatisfied with their religious faith, and were searching.
Besides, I am not anti-catholic. I am anti-papacy.
I must say, Alcazar had motives to write what he did. The end justified the means. If you endorse Alcazar's writings and conclusions, and see no real impact of addressing his motives, then yes, it is the same thing. For you, the end, Alcazar's writings, justifies the means, writing to destroy Protestantism. It may be ignorance on your part but, same thing.
And really, we are talking about morality. The Jesuits have none. They are dedicated slaves of oath to their superiors. They can lie, they can do anything, as long as the papacy gains in the end. That is why they have been kicked out of every country they have gone into, except America, which says a lot about current America.
It is one thing to weigh a position on the weight of evidence if you do not know the motives behind the position. If you do, and you know the position is nothing more than born of nefarious intentions, spending time weighing the merits of the argument is foolish.
I know Obama is a communist by virtue of members of his staff, his early and later associations, his actions with communist leaders as POTUS, and his own statements of wealth redistribution. Am I going to read a treatise of his on the Constitution and free markets to learn something true about it? I think not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 8, 2015 8:02:52 GMT -8
I'll just let this rest here, asaph. I think we have both communicating our differing thoughts.
|
|
