Futurism an invention of the Jesuits?

I'm pointing out what I consider to be the core weakness of your position by using some similar methods you yourself have used with a little sting of my own.

You asked how to respond. To strengthen your position you must answer questions about passages which have been asked.

You won't respond, so I apply the goads.

Proverbs 27:6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.​

Buck up now and give your explanation of Acts 1:8-11.

Frankly, IMO, this passage is the Achilles Heel of full preterism.

Acts is an historical account of the Acts of Christ and His apostles.
and as an historical account of the Ascension, the language is just too precise to be any kind of imagery.

Luke also gave an historical account of the crucifixion, should we transform that account and say that it was not actually Christ who was crucified but some sort of imagery?

Just what possible alternative meaning can "this same Jesus" have?

Acts 1
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;​

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus,
which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.


HankD

 

The reformation is wrapped in quite a bit of popish grave clothes for my taste.

Pado-baptism, consubstantiation, church hierarchy, ministerial and even sacerdotal priesthood, centralized denominational authority, Liturgy, etc, etc...

Personally, as a former Catholic, I call myself a separatist, not a Protestant.


HankD

 

Logos and TF on the "Apostasy" (Not Apostacy):

I notice you pay closer attention to the spelling of words than TF is able to muster.
This is a very small matter, but it shows who pays closer attention to "inspiration".
I wonder if TF can stand against you from the get-go when his mirror is cracked.

The reason I am addressing you is that the problems of TF are greater than yours.
He is handicapped by the theory of the Day of God's wrath taking 7 years to finish.
Since 100 verses in Revelation are fulfilled in a single day, his arguments are empty.
Mel

 

deleted comments

 

Well, you are seeing something that is not there, and you are ignoring something that is there.

Yes, the book of Acts is historical. But that does not mean that all the terminology in all of the passages in the book are historical, any more than all the terms in the Gospels are all historical. Christ said, in a very historical, straightforward setting, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees". Likewise here, the angel announces how Christ will return. In both cases it helps tremendously to be familiar with the rest of the Bible.

Let's look closer at the passage.

9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up,

One thing that is overlooked is just what happens, and just what the angel is announcing. Notice the order of events:
1. He was taken up.
2. A cloud hides Him out of their view.
3. They look steadfastly as He went up - now hidden in a cloud.

Now notice that it is this scene that the angels are referring to when they say the following:

"“Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

People read this passage and imagine that it refers to Christ coming on a cloud, visible to all. But they overlook the important gist of what was actually described. The cloud hid Christ from their sight. And then the angel announced that this is how He will return.

He was not seen going up into heaven - only at the the beginning stage. The promise of the angel had to do with what they had just seen - the cloud obscuring their view of Christ as He went into heaven.

We have added proof that this is the correct interpretation when we consult the other passages that are similar. Each one mentions clouds. If need be I can list those passages.

So, to sum up: The manner of Christ's coming is to be hidden in the clouds. Because the clouds used elsewhere in scripture are figurative - here to show that Christ (just like His Kingdom) "comes not with observation".

Next: "This same Jesus"

 

OK, at least that's a start.

I'm sure that some, including myself, would not agree and say that "in like manner" refers to a bodily return through the atmosphere that can be seen with the eyes in the same manner as did the disciples who were there at the Ascension.

As do also other scripture which indicate a visible return.

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.​

But at least you have given a somewhat reasonable answer.

HankD

 

,

Why did the angels ask this question? Seems if your interpretation was correct, gazing up into heaven would be a reasonable thing to do.


As far as Rev 1:7 as I have posted earlier even a non full preterist such as Adam Clarke sees it already fulfilled:

Rev 1:7
Behold, he cometh with clouds - This relates to his coming to execute judgment on the enemies of his religion; perhaps to his coming to destroy Jerusalem, as he was to be particularly manifested to them that pierced him, which must mean the incredulous and rebellious Jews.
And all kindreds of the earth - Πασαι αἱ φυλαι της γης· All the tribes of the land. By this the Jewish people are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state.
Even so, Amen - Ναι, αμην· Yea, Amen. It is true, so be it. Our Lord will come and execute judgment on the Jews and Gentiles. This the Jews and Romans particularly felt.

 

I know.

But obviously I disagree that this refers to the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

HankD

 

It is of note that for the first 400 years of the church, futurism was the main and orthodox view of it. According to the writings we have it was a nearly uncontested view for the first 200, in the 300's we have only about 3 to 5 writers that mention a different view.. and then in the early to mid 400's (I forget specifically off hand) the other view rose up during a time when spiritualizing more and more of scripture grew more accepted.

It wasn't until the Church and State merged that the Church took on the early view of Covenant Theology and purposely overthrew what was considered historically - the orthodox view of the Church.

What is interesting is that the Futurism view would have castrated the Newly forming Roman Catholic church of much of it's power. However the new view was cannon which helped to propel it to it's new found power.

 

No.
For one..
Unless something transpired at or near the 400 year mark of church history.. not sure how that is even plausible.

Another point is that, what you are calling 'futurism' was more commonly called Pre-millenniallism or Chiliastism (back then).

A few more interesting points in relation to Jesuits your OP asks of:
1. The early Montanists held to a futurist view and that was as early as 150-200 A.D. long before any Jesuits came on the scene.

2. As I stated previously there is futurists view among the so-called Ante-Nicene Church Father's as well long before any Jesuit priest came along.

3. It appears to me from secular church history that the historic pre-mill was one of the earliest recorded views (epistle of Barnabas, etc.) as revealed by Church Historians

Thus Futurism was around long before Darby though Darby is accredited for popularizing it much like Augustine did with Covenant. In fact it is the Reformers who should get the credit for bringing futurism back to the fore-front of theology. Not as an entire group mind you, that is not what I'm saying.

A segment from from Church Historian Philip Schaff

For those who will ask.. well were are the other Apostles, like Paul?
If one would read closer one would note that these apostles given are 'cited by another', namely Papias who was said to be a disciple of the apostle John (the Revelator)

Then we have:
Justin Martyr (100-150) is noted for stating "But I and whatsoever Christians are orthodox in all things do know that there will be a resurrection of the flesh, and a thousand years in the city of Jerusalem, built, adorned and enlarged, according as Ezekiel, Isaiah, and other prophets have promised."

and can be seen here in another post of mine.. in fact you can find much of this stuff from many of my earlier posts on this subject.

There is no question on this my friend. If they looked forward to a literal 7 year Tribulation, abodily resurrection, a literal 1000 year reign with Christ physically here, and doing so from Jerusalem.. there is no other answer but that they were futurist.

Even my own views aside.. I can't find any good church historian (even those of the Covenant view) who doesn't say otherwise either.

Well, one can try.. but they will have a hard time with 7 main points of historic Pre-mil or futurism - which can be found here in another old post of mine.

Hope it helps somewhat..

 

What you have given me here, Hank, is the "elsewhere exegesis" that futurists are famous for; you cannot deal with the point I brought up from this very passage - the passage that you announced was the "Achilles' Heel of Preterism" - and now you want to turn elsewhere to flesh out the meaning of this passage.

Yes, I agree that "some, including [your]self, would not agree", opting instead for a visible coming. But these things are not decided on by consensus; we are bound to what the text says.

I am not leaving this Achilles' heel until we have dealt properly with what I brought up. I even went to the trouble of color-coding this to underline the point I presented. You cannot just "other-people" it away.

Notice also the last part of the verse:

"This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven.”

How did they see Him go into Heaven? He was already hidden in the cloud.

He left hidden.
He will return - from our perspective, he did return - hidden.
In like manner.

I still want to deal with "this same Jesus, what it means and doesn't mean, but first we must do up the first part properly.

 

But Tom, we have had some good teachers of this technique from full preterism concerning "elsewhere exegesis".

Passages are cited especially from OT "apocalyptic" passages, post after post by preterist especially concerning the Olivet Discourse to make their points, why are we now suddenly not allowed the same privilege?

I shall continue in the same methods which we both use. Actually it's called comparing Scripture with Scripture (apparently until futurists use it).

First of all the word "hidden" is not used in the passage. The normal language of the text shows that He was taken up "out of their sight" (Granted a small but IMO, a significant difference).

The fact is that as He "went up" He was not 'hidden" from their sight.

The portion where He became unseen (and admittedly then was "hidden" from their sight) as He is now and will be until He returns was post "while they beheld he was taken up"

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

The cloud was in the direction of "up" and when He had spoken to them while they beheld him He was taken "up" and then a cloud received Him.

The words of this passage are all verbs and nouns normally used of physical sight with ones eyes. Yes Koine as in English may have a dual meaning for "sight", however at least one in this passage is used of physical sight exclusively (looking steadfastlly - pp of atenidzo).

beheld, sight, looked, gazing, seen.

The weight of this passage is visible sight.

Now, yes after being taken out of their sight He is "hidden' but the scripture uses the phrase apo - from, out
not "hidden" lanthano which I believe is the "hidden" you speak of which Luke knew of and used (Acts 26:26).

The word "hidden" is not used but "out of their sight" which again focuses upon visible sight as they were "looking steadfastly".

You chastised me for the use of "other-people" and that consensus was not an option but then again you use these very methods:

"He will return - from our perspective, he did return - hidden"
Just thought I would point that out.

Indeed, preterist have even been known for an appeal to this world's wisdom here on the BB with their quoting of extra-biblical secular historians to reinforce their allegorizing of the sun being blocked out by the AD70 battle fire and smoke, etc, etc...

Then when we meet them on that debate platform we are criticized.

So, from our perspective, He Himself (Jesus, the person Himself) will return, - visibly.

Also in that same vein of your complaints, I, like everyone else, including preterists will compare Scripture with Scripture to reinforce my views RE: - one more time the "visible" return of Christ:

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

So it distills down to this, plain and simple - literal or imagery?

Again as an historical record did Luke mean a literal virgin birth of Christ?
A literal and visible crucifixion?
A literal and visible death?
A literal and visible resurrection?
A literal and visible ascension?
But not a literal and visible Return which is the normal sense of Acts 1:8-11?

Let the readers decide the method of interpretation which God intended for the scriptural doctrine of the Return of Christ.

HankD

 

There is a difference between going elsewhere to show how Scripture uses terms in general and going elsewhere in order to avoid a main point in the passage. If I remember correctly, you are referring to the Preterists' appeals to apocalyptic imagery in the OT: The fact that the OT uses such imagery in the OT means it allowable to interpret similar NT passages the same way.

By contrast, you are using other verses to actually go counter to the verse we were discussing. Acts 1 speaks of Christ no longer being seen, and then the angels' announcement keying off of that. You, not wanting to focus on an invisble Christ being the basis of the angelic promise, turn to other passages in the NT that referring to "seeing" Christ in His coming - albeit in a metaphorical way.

This is called reaching.

But don't you see that the hiddenness was part of what the angels were referring to. As if to underscore this we also have this:
"This same Jesus...will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

How did they see Him go into heaven? In a cloud.

All of this is beside the point. I am not arguing what direction He went.

Oh please. As if Scripture does not also use these verbs of seeing in metaphorical sense.

Not the weight, the wish. You wish it to be visible, you see visible.

There is no need to even go into this detail when the plain terms already state the case. It is purely beside the point to speak of Luke's word choice here. The words that he did use are quite sufficient. In the above sentence you seem to complicate what is actually quite clear in the text.

OK, thanks. Point noted.

"This world's wisdom" probably has that perjorative sting that you were looking for, eh? Of course, I would just say "outside sources". I say "outside" for two reasons:
1. Outside the canon of Scripture: Not biblical (thinking here,especially of Josephus, but also the ECF).
2. Outside of the time of inspiration. Here, especially referring to Josephus. Because Preterists place the end of the canon before AD 70 any historical or contemporary reference to the events of AD70 must necessarily be from a time after the canon of Scripture was already closed.

However I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with the sun being blocked out, etc. I don't know what you are talking about.

It is telling that there is no verse you can turn to find this "visible return of Christ". Christ's return was indeed visible in the same sense that, say, Nathanael "saw" the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man. Or on the sense that Christ meant when He warned the High Priest, Matt. 26:64:

“It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

BTW, there are those clouds again. Did you ever state just what they mean?


The futurist eschatology does not allow this high priest to have seen Christ coming visibly, but this is perfectly in line with Preterist eschatology/christology.

If it distills down to that - and just that - then you have already distilled down further than is warranted. You need to distinguish between things that differ.

Well, then, what you have constructed here is an argument against all metaphorical usage in Scripture. Where do you stop? Is it all literal? I doubt you would say that. Is it all metaphorical? Of course not. Then your logical concatenation does not follow.

Consider: The things that are literal and physical are the very things that needed to have been literal and physical:

Incarnation: "Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil" Heb. 2:14
Crucifixion: "Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” Luke 24:26

Other verses can be found for other necessary physical requirements Christ fulfilled, but these will do.

But then we have the spiritual aspect, which is more important:
God is Spirit. Those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.
Flesh and blood cannot enter into the kingdom of God. This tells us just what kind of kingdom we are speaking of.
The things that are not seen are eternal.
The kingdom of God comes not with observation.

Once again, several verses could be appealed to, but I am running out of time for now.

Yes, let the reader decide. We'll leave it at that.

 

OK, I'll conditionally let you (by consensus of course) have the last word on this matter because to continue would just be a protraction of the same (unless others presently join in or it comes up again later).

The condition being that I am allowed to say the following:

1). I am, of course, not convinced of the full preterist view. I am however convinced that preterist can apologetically defend their position - so far.
I have other concerns.

2). IMO, the underlying issue is when, where and how to correctly interpret/discern the meaning of imagery vs. literal.

OK, we have your apologetic concerning the Ascension as related to It's visibilty and the Second Coming, etc.

But, in addition, futurists want to know:

What of sin and death, when will it end?
What of this material universe, how will it end?
Are these entities eternal?
Do you have Scripture for these events?

Futurism has scriptural answers to these questions does full preterism?

Thanks
HankD

 

I agree, though I am a "futurist" who is usually labeled as "dispensational", there are extremes to this component of a Systematic Theology such as presented in the Scofield Bible with which I don't agree.

Turning every prophetic sentence into an "end time" scripture is one of them.

I do agree that the bulk of prophecy does have its normal immediate fulfillment e.g. The Assyrian and Babylonian captivities and then more distant elements (from the original writing) such as the First coming of Christ, and then the "futristic" or "end time" elements such as His Second Coming and/or the Day of the Lord.

Also, In my own view, the Olivet Discourse combined and harmonized from the synoptic Gospels contains prophecies related to both the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem and events yet to come.

I don't like the label "partial preterist" for the same reason I don't like the "dispensational" label.

Each system has factions and flaws which are often assumed to be one's own. Also some of these factions have vocal abusers and sensationalists as you mentioned.

HankD

 

So you weren't actually asking if there was any REAL connection to the mythical assertion that the Jesuits created futurism. Hmmm..

Truth 1.. Proof for Jesuits creating it - there is none as it was around LONG before they were.
Truth 2.. No valid Church Historian would or has made any such assertions

Therefore the is NO MERIT to myth of Jesuits creating Futurism, only propagandists.

Let me clarify what I meant by Covenant because that was more what I was thinking when I wrote it.
I was refering to the Amil Covenant position. So yes.. one 'can' be covenant with a futurism bent.

Pre-mil speaks to certain end time events that must happen.. this can be viewed from different perspectives.
1. Dispy
2. Covenant.

If either of the two groups above agree with at least 6 of the dominant view of Pre-mil.. they stand in futurism.
1. The Anti-christ (a person) would both arise and reign
2. Christ's return physically to earth and the overthrow of the anti-christ.
3. Christ establishing His physical Kingdom on the earth.
4. He would reign from Jerusalem both over and with His saints of all ages.
5. His reign would last a literal 1000 years.
6. There were distinct resurrections. That of the saints before the 1000 year reign from Jerusalem and the general - those who would be raised up for Judgment.

However one can not be is Dispy and Amil
I will state these two thins however, Covenant Pre-mil is a rather new hybrid on the scene just slightly older than Dipsy.
Historic pre-millennialism should not be considered as one on one the same thing as dispensationalism. You can be a Pre-mil and not be a dispensationalist but you cannot be a dispensationalist and not be Pre-mil.



It appears you don't listen view well to the dispy's when they state it isn't that many weren't fulfilled, just not to the extent the prophesies describe and therefore.. like all duel prophesies will have a more complete fulfillment at the appropriate time, future.. just like many of the prophesies of the Messiah (ie..born of a virgin, not letting him stay in sheol, ect..) and others.


Another thing you seriously need to do is understand the variations of Dispensationallism, and as such note what is the most common or pervasive view. You pick a minor group and pretend they speak for the whole, funny but not correct. Nor does anyone really hold to Scofield's view or even has for decades now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Anyway - the above aside.. you asked if the Jesuits created the Futurism

The hard and historical facts state - No, the early church held the view for nearly 400 years.. which is about 200 years earlier than the proclaimed Jesuits.

 

One short point.. The Futurism view was around long before Darby or Scofield ever came on the scene. Scofield merely popularized the view but his particul view is not one that has been held for a long time. True 'some' still teach it, but on the whole they are a small minority