Anyone else on this forum a fan of Bishop Elliott's work Horae Apocalypticae? I've been picking away at (online) for years and have found his insights to be helpful. Yours in the Lord, jay
What are the biggest values you are getting out of it, I am quite curious The only thing I know about it is its claim to support premillenialism, and premillenialism is a rocky ship to sail the waters of Scripture, at odds with the teaching of St. Augustine and others
I think most will see that premil is not the thrust of the work, just the portion made popular by Wiki and Seventh Day Adventists. It's a massive tome that pulls together sacred and profane history with scriptural doctrine. Essentially, it's a historist work of eschatology, the position that was once called "the Protestant Escathology." Futurism and Preterism were both interpretations of Daniel and Revelation created by Jesuits in response to the relentless attacks on the papacy by Protestants calling the office "antichrist." It was the universal position of all Protestants and even the Authorized Version of scripture, in the preface, refers to the papacy as "that man of sin...." Not only did Prots see the papacy as antichrist it seems to have been the historic (hense the name) position of all Christians. The first commentary on Revelation was historicist. For me it has been a big eye opener. Yours in the Lord, jay PS: I'm postmil.
I have a couple of shelves of books on the subject. I'm no expert but I was fooled into Dispensationalism and the Rapture when I first became a Christian 20 years ago so I thought I should educate myself.
I too would be interested in any recommendations you might have. Have you by any chance read William Hendriksen's More Than Conquerors or R.C. Sproul's The Last Days According to Jesus?
Yes Believer! I have read both titles and own the work by Sproul. The first is Amillennial and idealist, the second is Preterist. Sproul essentially wrote a summation for an older work titled, "The Parousia" by J. Stuart Russell. The Amil idealists claims the Revelation is a set of recapitulating events that demonstrate Christ is winning and conquering over and over again. The Preterist view places the events of Revelation and therefore Daniel in the past, to the first century and often around 70 a.d. Many Preterists believe Nero was antichrist but the Reformers did not: Calvin on 2 Thess. 2:3, “It was no better than an old wife’s fable that was contrived respecting Nero, that he was carried up from the world, destined to return again to harass the Church by his tyranny; and yet the minds of the ancients were so bewitched, that they imagined that Nero would be Antichrist. Paul, however, does not speak of one individual, but of a kingdom, that was to be taken possession of by Satan, that he might set up a seat of abomination in the midst of God’s temple–which we see accomplished in Popery.” Gill on 2 Thess. 2:3, “yet the man of sin is here distinguished from Satan, 2Ti_2:9 nor is any particular emperor of Rome intended, as Caius Caligula, or Nero, for though these were monsters of iniquity, and set up themselves as gods, yet they sat not in the temple of God” Polemics against the idea that Nero was antichrist: Francis Turretin’s 7th Disputation 18 Sermons on 2 Thessalonians The Papacy is the Antichrist Westminster and London Baptist Confessions After going solo scriptura I came back to the Reformed Confessions read what they stated and what was believed by our Protestant fathers and found all were Historicists and viewed the millennial period in a Post Mil / Amil mash up. They didn't separate those views into two camps before the 19th century. So, what did the ol' Prots teach? "The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner; neither can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof, but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God; whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) Chapter XXVI:4 Of the Church" Why would they say such things? "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff." – Pope Boniface, 1302 Early Dispensational teacher and writer Clarence Larkin wrote: The “Historical School, ” sometimes spoken of as the “Presentist” scheme, interprets the Apocalypse as a series of prophecies predicting the events that were to happen in the world and in the Church from john’s day to the end of time. The advocates of this School interpret the symbols of the Book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are happening in the world. They claim that “Antichrist” is a “System” rather than a “Person, ” and is represented by the Harlot Church of Rome. They interpret the “Time Element” in the Book on the “Year Day Scale.” This School has had some very able and ingenious advocates. This view, like the preceding was unknown to the early church. (end quote) Worth the read, check it out: Historicism teaches that much of prophetic revelation is being fulfilled throughout church history from the first advent to some undetermined time in the future. This is in contrast to partial preterism that sees much of prophetic revelation fulfilled in the first century and in contrast to futurism that sees much of prophetic revelation being fulfilled in some distant future. This is simply going to be an overview of Historicism and not a complete exhaustive work on Historicism. It is extremely hard to just give a brief overview of the system. It took Horae Apocalypticae by Edward Elliott 4000 pages to give a complete exhaustive detail of the Historicism system and it is very hard to condense 4000 pages into a brief overview. And; Historicist believe that we are currently in the Great Tribulation period. A time of darkness, of cruel tyranny and persecuting of the saints of God. A period where the antichristian forces of Papacy, Islam and Secularism rail against the church and kill the saints of God. And we will continue to see this time of injustice, cruelty, tyranny and blood until the time when the church is delivered and Christ has brought all His enemies under Him and when all nations will submit themselves to Christ as King. Historicists believe that mankind has been in the Tribulation since the destruction of the Temple and we point to the following passages which shows the “tribulation” that the saints continue to endure. Source: http://mintdill.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/the-first-rays-of-millennial-morning-light/ From Wiki: Prophetic commentaries in the early church were often partial or incomplete, usually interpreting individual passages rather than entire books. The earliest complete commentary on the Book of Revelation, considered to be one of the earliest Historicist commentators, was carried out by Victorinus of Pettau around 300 AD. An overview of the various prophetic expositions from the third century to the fifth centuries demonstrates that prophecies were uniformly interpreted within a Historicist framework by the Latin (later Catholic) writers. Looking to the future fulfillment of certain prophetic passages, Christian theologians concluded that the events of Biblical prophecy (especially as contained in the books of Daniel and Revelation) encompassed the entire Church Age from the Ascension of Jesus to his Second Coming. Throughout the medieval era the Historicist interpretation became increasingly modified and developed by the expositions of Andreas, Primasius (both 6th century), Bede (730 AD), Anspert, Arethas, Haymo, and Berengaud (all of the ninth century). [end quote] Bishop Elliott's work online: Horae Apocalypticae volume 1, volume 2, volume 3 and volume 4 I would also recommend titles by Guinness: – The Approaching End of the Age Viewed in the Light of History, Prophecy and Science. – Key to the Apocalypse or the Seven Interpretations of Symbolic Prophecy – Romanism and the Reformation: From the Standpoint of Prophecy (1887)
Thanks for the interesting posts about the historicist view and how it has been regarded in the past. It is striking to me how that chart you posted in your 9:48 Thursday post shows those pre-Reformation writers as lining up with the Reformers in their views on Antichrist. There seems to be some overlap between the partial preterist view and the historicist view... would make an interesting Venn diagram!
Yes sir, there is overlap between the two views. Matthew Henry, John Gill, the People's New Testament Commentary, Albert Barnes Commentary, Matthew Poole, etc. are all Historicist. The post below was something I saved a few years back and added it to my blog for future reference. ( https://feileadhmor.wordpress.com/ ) singlecandle writes: This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Arminius: “A leader was sure to rise from the Calvinistic ranks who should point out the baneful corollaries of the Genevan creed, and be listened to. Such a leader was Jacobus Arminius (Jakob Hermanzoon) professor at the University of Leyden.” Arminius also spent some time in Rome studying under the Roman Catholic monk de Molinas. According to Edward Hendrie’s book The Anti-Gospel, most Calvinists believe that it was this time that Arminius spent in Rome that the Jesuits recruited him to their point of view but that point cannot be proven. However, Luis de Molinas theology of “Molinism” was simply semi-pelagianism or just another form of pelaianism. The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Molinism: “Molinism is an influential system within Catholic theology for reconciling human free choice with God’s grace, providence, foreknowledge, and predestination. Originating within the Society of Jesus in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, it encountered stiff opposition from Bezian Thomists and from the self-styled Augustinian disciples of Michael Baius and Cornelius Jansen.” -Alfred J. Freddoso, Catholic professor at Notre Dame.” Lastly, Hendries reveals in his book that the Jesuits admitted to “using” Arminius to promote their doctrine of semi-pelagianism (aka: arminianism). William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was working secretly with the Jesuits to infect the Church of England (Anglican Church) with Roman Catholic doctrine, including Arminianism. In 1645, Laud was executed for treason against England. After his death, one of the papers found on his desk, as told by Augustus Toplady: “March, 1628. A Jesuit’s letter, sent to the Rector at Bruxels , about the ensuing Parliament. Father Rector, let not the damp of astonishment seize upon your ardent and zealous soul, in apprehending the sodaine and unexpected calling of a Parliament. We have now many strings to our bow. We have planted that soveraigne drugge Arminianisme, which we hope will purge the Protestants from their heresie; and it flourisheth and beares fruit in due season. For the better prevention of the Puritanes, the Arminians have already locked up the Duke’s(of Buckingham) eares; and we have those of our owne religion, which stand continually at the Duke’s chamber, to see who goes in and out: we cannot be too circumspect and careful in this regard. I am, at this time, transported with joy, to see how happily all instrument and means, as well great as lesser, co-operate unto our purposes. But, to return unto the maine fabricke OUR FOUNDATION IS ARMINIANISME. The Arminians and projectors, as it appeares in the premises, affect mutation. This we second and enforce by probable arguments.” That letter was written by a high Jesuit agent reporting to his superior at Brussels. You can read all this information that I gleaned from the book, The Anti-Gospel here. From Rev. J. A. WYLIE, LL.D. We shall not go far afield in this discussion: nor is it in the least necessary to do so. The materials for a right decision on the question before us lie close at hand. The Apostle John, speaking of the great apostacy to arise in Christendom, calls it the “Antichrist.” And the Pope has taken to himself, as the name that best describes his office, the title “Vicar of Christ.” All we shall ask as the basis of our argument are these two accepted facts, namely, that John styles the “apostacy,” “the Antichrist,” and that the head of the Roman system styles himself “Christ’s Vicar.” The Papacy holds in its name the key of its meaning. We shall make use of that key in unlocking its mystery and true character. The Papacy cannot complain though we adopt this line of interpretation. We do nothing more than use the key it has put into our hands. The Apostle John, we have said, speaking of the apostacy, the coming of which he predicts, styles it the Antichrist.” And we have also said that the Papacy, speaking through its representative and head, calls itself the “Vicar of Christ.” The first, “Antichrist,” is a Greek word, the second, “Vicar,” is an English word; but the two are in reality one, for both words have the same meaning. Antichrist translated into English is Vice-Christ, or Vicar of Christ; and Vicar of Christ, rendered into Greek is Antichrist –Antichristos. If we can establish this –and the ordinary use of the word by those to whom the Greek was a vernacular, is decisive on the point –we shall have no difficulty in showing that this is the meaning of the word “Antichrist,” –even a Vice-Christ. And if so, then every time the Pope claims to be the Vicar of Christ, he pleads at the bar of the world that he is the “Antichrist.” Moreover, this will clear our way and simplify our discussion. For, let it be noted, if Antichrist signifies a Vice-Christ –that is, one who comes in the room of Christ –deception, dissimulation, counterfeit, must be an essential element in his character. In whatever persons or systems that fundamental characteristic is lacking, we fail to find the “Antichrist,” whatever may be their general opposition to Christ and to Christianity, or whatever other features of the Antichrist they may bear. They may have every other characteristic by which prophecy had described this noted adversary of Christ and his gospel, yet, lacking this fundamental one, their claim to this pre-eminently evil distinction cannot be admitted. This enables us to dismiss summarily and at once a host of Antichrists which have been conjured up by persons who have drawn upon their imagination, rather than followed any sound principle of prophetic interpretation. The cause of the papacy is served by the false glosses and mistaken interpretations of Scripture which interpose a pseudo-antichrist betwixt it and Prophecy, which unfolds against it so black a record, and suspends above it so terrible a doom. We shall suppose that an atheist or an infidel has been put to the bar to answer to a charge of being the Antichrist. He has manifested a Satanic malignity against the Gospel, and has laboured to the utmost of his power to destroy it. He has blasphemed God, execrated Christ, and derided, vilified, and persecuted all who profess His name, and on these grounds he has been assumed to be the Antichrist. The case is no imaginary one. Atheists and scoffers in former ages, Voltaire and Paine in later times, Communists and Pantheists in our own day, have all been arraigned as the Antichrist. Well, let us suppose that one or other of these notoriously wicked personages or systems has been put to the bar, on the charge of being the “adversary” predicted by John. “Who are you?” says the judge. “Are you a Vice-Christ? So you make a profession of Christianity, and under that pretext seek to undermine and destroy it? “No,” replies the accused. “I am no counterfeit. Christ and His Gospel I hate; but I am an open enemy, I fight under no mask.” Turning to the likeness drawn by Paul and John of Christ’s great rival and opponent, and finding the outstanding and essential feature in the portrait absent in the accused, the judge would be constrained to say, “I do not find the charge proven. Go your way; you are not the Antichrist.” Mohammedanism comes nearer than any other of the opposing systems to the Antichrist of the Bible; yet it falls a long way short of it. Mohamet did not disavow the mission of Jesus; on the contrary, he professed to hold Him in honour as a prophet. And in much the same way do His followers still feel towards Christ. But Islam does not profess to be an imitation of Christianity. Any counterfeit that can be discovered in Mohammedanism is partial and shadowy when placed alongside the bold, sharp-cut counterfeit of Romanism. It requires a violent stretch of imagination to accept Mohammedanism, or, indeed, any other known ism, as a Vice-Christ. Of all systems that ever were on the earth, or are now upon it, Romanism alone meets all the requirements of prophecy, and exhibits all the features of the Vice-Christ; and it does so with a completeness and a truthfulness which enable the man who permits himself to be guided by the statements of the Word of God on the one hand, and the facts of history on the other, to say at once, “This is the Antichrist.” What we have said is meant to indicate the lines on which our demonstration will proceed. We must trace the parallelism betwixt their respective chiefs, Christ and the Pope, along the entire line of their career. In this parallelism lies the essence of Antichristianism, and of course the strength of our argument. It is this counterfeit, so exact and complete, which has misled the world into the belief that this is Christianity, to the waste of ages not a few, the unsettling and overthrow of kingdoms, the stunting of the human understanding, and the loss of millions of immortal souls. The Papacy Is The Antichrist A DEMONSTRATION Rev. J. A. WYLIE H. Grattan Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation “Rome herself admits, openly admits, that if she is not the very kingdom of Christ, she is that of Antichrist. Rome declares she is one or the other. She herself propounds and urges this solemn alternative. You shrink from it, do you? I accept it. Conscience constrains me. History compels me. The past, the awful past rises before me. I see the great apostasy, I see the desolation of Christendom, I see the smoking ruins, I see the reign of monsters;I see those vice-gods, that Gregory VIII, that Innocent III, that Boniface VIII, that Alexander VI, that Gregory XIII, that Pius IX; I see their long succession, I see their abominable lives; I see them worshipped by blinded generations, bestowing hollow benedictions, bartering lying indulgences, creating a paganised Christianity; I see their liveried slaves, their shaven priests, their celibate confessors; I see the infamous confessional, the ruined women, the murdered innocents; I hear the lying absolutions, the dying groans; I hear the cries of the victims; I hear the anathemas, the curses, the thunders of the interdicts; I see the racks, the dungeons, the stakes; I see that inhuman Inquisition, those fires of Smithfield, those butcheries of St. Bartholomew, that Spanish Armada, those unspeakable massacres. I see it all, and in the name of the ruin it has wrought in the Church and in the world, in the name of the truth it has denied, the temple it has defiled, the God it has blasphemed, the souls it has destroyed; in the name of the millions it has deluded, the millions it has slaughtered, the millions it has damned; with holy confessors, with noble reformers, with innumerable martyrs, with the saints of ages, I denounce it as the masterpiece of Satan as the body and soul and essence of Antichrist.”
Here’s something interesting…the Emperor Phocas made a decree claiming the Pope of Rome was the universal Bishop of the church in 606. John Gill notes (Robert Flemming agreed); “if to this we add 1,260 the expiration of his reigns will fall in the year 1866, so that he may have upwards of a hundred and twenty years yet to continue; but of this we cannot be certain; however, the conjecture is not improbable.” Gill might have it correct. Napoleon gave the death blow to political Rome but Rome took some time to fade away. The Pope lost secular authority in 1866. Wikipedia: “After defeating the papal army on 18 September 1860 at the Battle of Castelfidardo, and on 30 September at Ancona, Victor Emmanuel took all the Papal territories except Latium with Rome. In 1866 he granted Pius IX the Law of Guarantees (13 May 1871) which gave the Pope the use of the Vatican but denied him sovereignty over this territory, nevertheless granting him the right to send and receive ambassadors and a budget of 3.25 million liras annually. Pius IX officially rejected this offer (encyclical Ubi nos, 15 May 1871), retaining his claim to all the conquered territory.” Interesting. Gill seems to have used the book of Revelation to actually predict the last battle Papal Rome would have resulting in it’s loss of political power. Yours in the Lord, jay