Perilous times in the last days

[RamistThomist]

began in earnest shortly after the fall of the Roman Empire. In my book that counts as early in church history, does that make me a proponent of this Trail of Blood theory?

Not exactly. The problem with saying it apostasized is that you cannot reform an apostate church. You have to start over. That's Campbellitism.

That's pretty close to saying it's wrong because of it's origin, or at least because of who else holds it.

Not at all. I said nothing about historicism being logically wrong. It is exegetically wrong for the reasons Steve and I have given.

not sure why that should make you think it's wrong.

Not saying it is wrong on that point. That's just a hard selling point. Historicism can get around it by spiritualizing the whole thing. That solves the problem of Pope Francis riding a tank into Jerusalem. It raises other questions about arbitrariness.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Not exactly. The problem with saying it apostasized is that you cannot reform an apostate church. You have to start over. That's Campbellitism.


Not at all. I said nothing about historicism being logically wrong. It is exegetically wrong for the reasons Steve and I have given.


Not saying it is wrong on that point. That's just a hard selling point. Historicism can get around it by spiritualizing the whole thing. That solves the problem of Pope Francis riding a tank into Jerusalem. It raises other questions about arbitrariness.

(Apologies for labelling my replies with numbers, I'm not good at doing multiple quotes in 1 post)

1. Again, you assert it's a problem, but don't explain why. Do you deny that the Church of Rome is apostate? In fact, although the early reformers may have thought for a while it could be reformed, they quickly realised it couldn't, and they did in fact start over - you will notice that Protestantism today is not a faction within the Church of Rome, but a separate religion. And of course it's not Campbellitism, what could possibly make you think that? Besides, the point is about the Papacy specifically, rather than the Church of Rome more generally - how would you propose to reform the papacy?

2. OK, your argument to which I was responding was making a logical point, not an exegetical one. We'll let that one slide - I did notice you made some exegetical arguments earlier, though I didn't find them very convincing (also it's now led to you claiming (anachronistically) that the Reformation was Campbellitism, so there's that), so it's a bit much to say that historicism is exegetically wrong (and a little humility in this discussion would be no bad thing - the position Jeremy is arguing is that of the WCF, and the majority of the Reformed from the time of the Reformation until about 100 years ago. Of course that itself doesn't make it right, but on a notoriously difficult subject, it should give pause before saying it is exegetically wrong because you interpret scripture in a way which disagrees with it).

3. I hardly know where to begin with your third paragraph. Historicism is not the viewpoint which "spiritualises the whole thing" (that's idealism). The historicist view is that the prophecies of the New Testament are being fulfilled throughout history, from the time they were given, or shortly thereafter, until the end of time. As a branch of the historical-grammatical hermeneutical principle, it recognises that although much of scripture is simply literal, there are also parts of it which cannot possibly be, and other parts which potentially could be, but in their context should not be so interpreted. There is nothing arbitrary about that, it's standard hermeneutics. Revelation, which contains the bulk of NT prophecy, is replete with imagery, I'm not understanding the problem you have with recognising that, unless its simply that you disagree with the resulting view (which is not in itself an argument against it).

The irony is that your criticism applies much more readily to your own position. Presumably you allow that the beasts from the sea and land are not literally beasts with seven heads, ten horns and a mouth like a dragon, but speaking like a lamb (how does a lamb speak anyway?). Clearly that's figurative and has a non-literal significance. When it comes to Revelation 19 & 20 - presumably you don't believe that the Saviour will literally ride into battle on a literal white horse, with a literal sword coming out of his mouth? So why do you believe that it must be describing a literal battle, with the Antichrist literally leading literal armies against a literal camp of the saints? That's arbitrary!

One could go on, (e.g. why would it have to be Francis? Where are the tanks referred to in Scripture - in an account you otherwise take to be woodenly literal, mind? Why is this taking place at Jerusalem - hangover from Dispensationalism?)

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I thought you were historical premil?

As I have said before, Jacob has had more positions on eschatology than Melania Trump has had pairs of shoes.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

As I have said before, Jacob has had more positions on eschatology than Melania Trump has had pairs of shoes.

I do admit it is hard to keep up with your humour. I am often "left behind"

 

[RamistThomist]

Do you deny that the Church of Rome is apostate?

Currently yes. Back then, especially before Trent, no.

though I didn't find them very convincing (also it's now led to you claiming (anachronistically) that the Reformation was Campbellitism, so there's that),

I never said that. I specifically said that if you saw the earlier medieval church as apostate, which I do not, then you are led to Campbellitism.

The irony is that your criticism applies much more readily to your own position. Presumably you allow that the beasts from the sea and land are not literally beasts with seven heads, ten horns and a mouth like a dragon, but speaking like a lamb (how does a lamb speak anyway?).

I never said that spiritualizing a passage is wrong. Only that it is hard to prove the assertion.

You can say that you don't find my exegetical arguments convincing. You haven't shown why they are wrong.

The tanks comment was tongue-in-cheek. I got the idea from Steve's good point that historicism has the Papacy leading the armies at Armaggedon. Also, I was never a dispensationalist.

 

[Taylor]

Currently yes. Back then, especially before Trent, no.

Just to clarify for my understanding, you currently deny that Rome is apostate? Or do you currently affirm Rome is apostate, but only after Trent? I think you meant the latter, but because the question was asked by means of a negation, I wonder if there was some confusion.

 

[RamistThomist]

Just to clarify for my understanding, you currently deny that Rome is apostate? Or do you currently affirm Rome is apostate, but only after Trent? I think you meant the latter, but because the question was asked by means of a negation, I wonder if there was some confusion.

That's correct. The latter.

 

[ZackF]

As I have said before, Jacob has had more positions on eschatology than Melania Trump has had pairs of shoes.

He’s a young man too! Lord willing he’ll have time to get to the level of Imelda Marcos.

 

[Pergamum]

As I have said before, Jacob has had more positions on eschatology than Melania Trump has had pairs of shoes.

PB STEEL CAGE MATCH! TWO MEN ENTER; ONE MAN LEAVES! (all proceeds to be sent to Perg's "The Human Fund").

 

[RamistThomist]

PB STEEL CAGE MATCH! TWO MEN ENTER; ONE MAN LEAVES! (all proceeds to be sent to Perg's "The Human Fund").

If anyone is actually interested, here is my eschatological development from my earliest blogs until now. I actually haven't changed that much. I was historic premil, until I realized that Alan Kurschner (and the rest of you can be grateful you don't have to debate him) had a better analysis of Matthew 24 and Revelation. Steve R. @Jerusalem Blade convinced me that premillennialism's multiple Armaggedon's are simply untenable, so I am now an amil futurist.

Eschatology – The Lecture Hall of Tyrannus

Posts about Eschatology written by J. B. Aitken

bayouhuguenot.wordpress.com

Eschatology – Outlaw Huguenot

Posts about Eschatology written by J. B. Aitken

negatingthevoid.wordpress.com

Eschatology – I am the King's Man

Posts about Eschatology written by J. B. Aitken

cocceius.wordpress.com

Eschatology – The Idea of a Patriot King

Posts about Eschatology written by J. B. Aitken

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I would be interested in how you Historicists see our current situation in light of your hermeneutic, and what you see coming.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Currently yes. Back then, especially before Trent, no.


I never said that. I specifically said that if you saw the earlier medieval church as apostate, which I do not, then you are led to Campbellitism.


I never said that spiritualizing a passage is wrong. Only that it is hard to prove the assertion.

You can say that you don't find my exegetical arguments convincing. You haven't shown why they are wrong.

The tanks comment was tongue-in-cheek. I got the idea from Steve's good point that historicism has the Papacy leading the armies at Armaggedon. Also, I was never a dispensationalist.

Ok, we can leave it at that, I disagree regarding Rome, it was apostatising well before Trent, but even if we took it as being apostate only since Trent, that doesn't prevent the Papacy being Antichrist, or overthrow the historicist view, it simply changes at what point in history one would believe the man of sin was revealed.

You've still made no attempt to defend your (now thrice stated) charge of Campbellitism - as I understand it you now level that at those who believe the Church of Rome apostacised prior to Trent.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I would be interested in how you Historicists see our current situation in light of your hermeneutic, and what you see coming.

As an historicist, I might attempt an answer if the question were more specific. What is meant by our current situation? If the second part of the question is an invitation to make a prophecy then I'll decline that part.

 

[RamistThomist]

Ok, we can leave it at that, I disagree regarding Rome, it was apostatising well before Trent, but even if we took it as being apostate only since Trent, that doesn't prevent the Papacy being Antichrist, or overthrow the historicist view, it simply changes at what point in history one would believe the man of sin was revealed.

You've still made no attempt to defend your (now thrice stated) charge of Campbellitism - as I understand it you now level that at those who believe the Church of Rome apostacised prior to Trent.

I did make the argument. You can't reform an apostasized church. It's already dead. You would have to start over.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I did make the argument. You can't reform an apostasized church. It's already dead. You would have to start over.

Ok, but I granted that (at least in relation to a church which is fully apostate - I think there is nuance there as apostasy, especially of a church, is more a process than a one time act, which you don't seem to be allowing for). You still didn't explain why that's Campbellitism.

Edit: I'm not granting the "have to start over" part as I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. I'd state it differently, as, "you cannot reform a fully apostacised church, it's already dead, you would have to separate from it".

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

As an historicist, I might attempt an answer if the question were more specific. What is meant by our current situation? If the second part of the question is an invitation to make a prophecy then I'll decline that part.

Hello Neil,

What I am seeking to understand is which approach to the Historicist hermeneutic do you take? So far you have mostly spoken of general principles (as in post # 92), and referred primarily to the Reformation era and Rome. By current situation I mean the 20th and 21st centuries. As Historicism involves interpreting images, events, and persons in Scripture – and I have Revelation in mind – my question pertains to how your school of Historicism sees what is going on in the world now in these two centuries, and what it sees (not you personally), if anything, prophetically as regards the future.

I also subscribe to the Historical-Grammatical method, so we do have common ground.

By the way, when you said, 'Historicism is not the viewpoint which "spiritualises the whole thing" (that's idealism).' – in that you are correct. William Milligan in the 1800s championed that school, but he has been superseded by the "modified idealist" position, which does allow literal (actual) historical events to be referred to by the symbols in the Apocalypse. I have even been called an Historicist by a follower of Milligan's view for my positing an historical event in the symbolism of the 5th trumpet vision of Rev 9:1,2,3 and following!

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Hello Neil,

What I am seeking to understand is which approach to the Historicist hermeneutic do you take? So far you have mostly spoken of general principles (as in post # 92), and referred primarily to the Reformation era and Rome. By current situation I mean the 20th and 21st centuries. As Historicism involves interpreting images, events, and persons in Scripture – and I have Revelation in mind – my question pertains to how your school of Historicism sees what is going on in the world now in these two centuries, and what it sees (not you personally), if anything, prophetically as regards the future.

I also subscribe to the Historical-Grammatical method, so we do have common ground.

By the way, when you said, 'Historicism is not the viewpoint which "spiritualises the whole thing" (that's idealism).' – in that you are correct. William Milligan in the 1800s championed that school, but he has been superseded by the "modified idealist" position, which does allow literal (actual) historical events to be referred to by the symbols in the Apocalypse. I have even been called an Historicist by a follower of Milligan's view for my positing an historical event in the symbolism of the 5th trumpet vision of Rev 9:1,2,3 and following!

Hi Steve,

I certainly wouldn't claim to be particularly well read in the various views of the matter, but for what it's worth, since I said I would answer your question, I would say the following. The current situation is characterised by the papal antichrist still being in existence, (i.e. not yet destroyed) and Satan still deceiving the nations, though as always, only to the extent he is allowed to by God. Rome now pulls strings on the global stage more subtly than before, from behind the scenes, but her involvement in and backing for the various schemes for One World Government, from Nazism to the EU, Club of Rome, WEF, etc, is quite certain.

Still future, and not necessarily in this order, (and not necessarily soon), would be: the downfall of the papal antichrist, the general conversion of the Jews, the binding of Satan that he may deceive the nations no more, the success of the gospel globally such that the majority of mankind would be within the visible church, the elimination of open/public practice of all false religions. Thereafter, the losing of Satan and a brief final falling away, the second coming of Christ, and the Day of Judgment.

Of course this is postmillennial Historicism, and not at all comprehensive, and not all historicists hold to that, but I think there is probably a strong correlation.

 

[RamistThomist]

Steve might mean something along the lines of a specific event. Revelation 9 = Muslim Armies. Cocceius saw King Gustavus Adolphus, that champion of Protestantism, as fulfilling biblical prophecy.

Gottlob Schrenk's Gottesreich und Bund im alteren Protestantismus: vornehmlich bei Johannes Cocceius (Gutersloh: Bertlesmann, 1923), p. 29.

Opera Johannis Coccei Dum Viveret In Academia Lugduno-Batava S.S. Theologiae ... - Johannes Coccejus - Google Books

Here's a piece of it: "Hic sine dubio notabilis aliquis eventus significatur pertinens ad illud tempus, quo Deus voluit Ecclesiam suam tentare per Antichristianum bellum." Doubtless here is signified a notable event pertaining to our time, by which God willed to try his church in the midst of the Antichrist War. And later: "Tale quid vidimus, cum in ultimo conflictu Rex Sueciae occubuisset & Caesariani caesi essent." This is just what we've seen, when in the most recent conflict the king of Sweden fell dead and Caesar's men [the Holy Roman Emperor's men?] were slain.

One could say that Covid is one of the four horsemen, though since Revelation 9 applied to the rise of Islam, that wouldn't work.

 

[Brian T]

Rome now pulls strings on the global stage more subtly than before, from behind the scenes, but her involvement in and backing for the various schemes for One World Government, from Nazism to the EU, Club of Rome, WEF, etc, is quite certain.

Back when this thread started, I posted a video from some Sedevacantists, who argue that Rome apostatized with Vatican II (which is why they now consider the Chair of St. Peter to be "empty"). In that video, they point out that the Vatican II Popes, especially John Paul II and the current "Pope", have routinely hosted pagan worship services with literal wiccan priestesses, voodoo shamans, witch doctors, Muslim imams, Pachamama statues, you name it!

JP2 and the current Pope have spoken of individual men becoming their own Gods, and they have also claimed to be starting a new religion for "a new global age", and global government and Gaia-worship (i.e., "environmentalism" as defined by the Globalists) are the central planks of this new global religious order that they seek to initiate. This is all pure paganism through and through and it is now being openly preached and practiced in the very heart of the Vatican.

Stuff like this would have been unthinkable pre-Vatican II.

If Rome does in fact play some role in all of this, then we cannot ignore these drastic changes in the behavior of what's been coming out of the Vatican since Vatican II. Because when we now have Popes saying it is a mortal sin to try to convert people to the Gospel (as Frankie recently did), while also saying that all religions are fine and that we should implement a new world religion based on globalism and Gaia-worship, that practically screams ANTI-Christ.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Did the reformers claim that the historic papacy (i.e. going back 1000 years) was the Man of Sin, or only the papacy as it was in their day? If the latter, that seems to discount all the developments in EO, which surely was as much of an idolatrous harlot married to the beastly state as Rome (they just flipped the order of who ruled whom).

 

[Eyedoc84]

Although as Rev Winzer pointed out in old threads, the WCF statement was an ecclesiological, not an eschatological one

 

[Charles Johnson]

I did make the argument. You can't reform an apostasized church. It's already dead. You would have to start over.

My issue with this is that ther are different degrees of apostasy. Rutherford does a good job of distinguishing these in Examen Arminianismi. Other authors have similar views. But basically, according to the reformers, one may commit heresy either by the immediate denial of fundamental doctrine, which is those doctrines stated in the apostles Creed, which is what Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Arians, JWs, etc do, or by confessing the fundamental doctrines but undermining them with superadded error, which is what Rome does. Rome at the time of the reformation explicitly held to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The situation was, in the view of the reformers, categorically different from that of heathens with whom one would have to "start from scratch" because the situation of Rome meant they had valid (but irregular) baptisms and ordinations.

 

[RamistThomist]

My issue with this is that ther are different degrees of apostasy. Rutherford does a good job of distinguishing these in Examen Arminianismi. Other authors have similar views. But basically, according to the reformers, one may commit heresy either by the immediate denial of fundamental doctrine, which is those doctrines stated in the apostles Creed, which is what Muslims, Jews, Mormons, Arians, JWs, etc do, or by confessing the fundamental doctrines but undermining them with superadded error, which is what Rome does. Rome at the time of the reformation explicitly held to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. The situation was, in the view of the reformers, categorically different from that of heathens with whom one would have to "start from scratch" because the situation of Rome meant they had valid (but irregular) baptisms and ordinations.

Fair enough

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks for your response, Neil. That you have hitched your wagon to the postmil horse will land you in the ditch. The postmil adds a third age, beyond the NT's two, that being a relatively "golden" age of peace, prosperity, and at least outward conformity to God's law, whereas the NT only holds to two ages, the first of them – our present one – intractably evil:

Only two ages [aiōn], also translated world [the KJV which I use usually translates aiōn as world instead of age]​

​

Matt 12:32 whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world [age], neither in the world [age] to come.​

​

Luke 18:29, 30 There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.​

​

Luke 20:34, 35 The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage​

​

Eph 1:20-21 [God set Christ] at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come​

​

Gal 1:4 […our Lord Jesus Christ,] Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father​

Also, 1 John 5:19 declares this world evil, without a good age added to it (as also Gal 1:4 does), "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."