History from the Standpoint of Prophecy

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

Do you confess?

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


If you have spent anytime reading this blog there should be little doubt that I lean toward Historicism and I try to encourage my brothers and sisters to “seek the old paths” on prophetic understanding. Recently I was discussing biblical prophecy with a friend and the question was posed, “is there exegetical proof for the proclamations and confessions of the Reformed churches concerning Rome and Antichrist?” I have not been gifted the ability to teach and I recognize that, but I can encourage others to pray, read and study the scriptures to find the answers. Articulating the Historicist view better than I could ever do is H. G. Guinness. If you take the time to study Daniel and Revelation with the help of men such as Luther, Calvin, Knox, Elliott and Guinness you will find the clutter of modern futurist and preterist arguments convoluted and simply wrong. Below are a list of free eBooks in pdf, epub and other formats by E. B. Elliott and H.G. Guinness:

Titles by Elliott:

Horae Apocalypticae volume 1, volume 2, volume 3 and volume 4

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)

Yours in the Lord,




  1. irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert · January 11, 2014

    Surely the “Historical” view and position is useful, but it hardly stands with what is COMING to this old earth and creation! The futurist position of the Book of Revelation is alive and hot, like fire! (Rev. 1: 14-15)… looking back to Rev. 1: 2-3, and toward verse 19!

    Again, we ain’t seen nothing yet! Rev. 19: 7-21! (Note that verse 20 & 21)

    • jm · January 11, 2014

      Fr. Robert,

      It has been my personal experience that Amil and even Postmil is on the rise. Has that been your experience?

      I lean heavily toward the Protestant eschatology and do my best to promote it. If I am wrong, and I could be, may God have mercy on me.

      Yours in the Lord,


      • irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert · January 11, 2014

        JM: I believe that the Post-Mill position is quite dead! The A-Mill can indeed be somewhat orthodox, but only in places. These are of course my theological feelings now! Having been quite close to both in my theological past and life. And any increase? Only perhaps, but as the planet moves more and more into apostasy, and note especially Gentile apostasy, many so-called theologians “fiddle”! I am most adamant now in some form of the Historical Premillennialism, with a most definite Progressive Dispensationalism! WE shall surely see, one way or another! πŸ™‚

        *I have spent years on this subject! But my time in Gulf War I, and living and teaching in Israel (latter 90’s), surely helped cement my thinking and theology here! I will die a “Biblical” and Christian Zionist!

      • jm · January 11, 2014

        Hey brother, I understand your position. I understand a “Christian Zionist” to be a contradiction of terms believing the church has received the fulfillment of the promises made to the spiritual seed of Abraham.

        Peace brother. Have a good Lord’s Day tomorrow.


      • irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert · January 11, 2014

        Surely no “supersessionism” for me, look where this has taken NT Wright! The Covenants and Salvation History always belong first to Israel! As Paul writes: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Rom. 1: 16) And note too, Rom. 15: 8, etc. WE cannot escape that the Gospel is really Jewish first, as Jesus said, “We worship what we know, for salvation is of/from the Jews.” (John 4: 22) See too, Rom. 9: 3-5. But of course too, Romans 9: 11, when we come to apply God’s sovereign grace! Only a remnant, (Rom. 9: 27). But too, even Gentiles, but they come into the Covenant/covenants to Israel, Eph. 2: 12!

        This was quick! πŸ™‚

      • jm · January 11, 2014

        Just to make sure I understood your use of “supersessionism” I looked it up:

        “Supersessionism is the traditional Christian belief that Christianity is the fulfillment of Biblical Judaism, and therefore that Jews who deny that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah fall short of their calling as God’s Chosen people.”

        I have no problem with saying Jews who hate Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man, the image of the Father, God incarnate…are not God’s people and I’m actually offended someone would claim people are chosen for salvation based on ethnicity rather than faith. This of course does not exclude God from giving faith to unregenerate Jews just as He gives faith to unregenerate Gentiles but it is not based on ethnicity.

        For he is not a Jew,

        which is one outwardly

        neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

        But he is a Jew,

        which is one inwardly

        ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. (Rom 2:28-29)

        I am familiar with the scriptures you posted but believe your dispey goggles are interfering with a good, scriptural interprettion of them.


  2. irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert · January 11, 2014

    Sorry mate, but you just don’t want to look at this from the best vantage of the progressive sense, i.e. the Progressive Dispensationalist! I bet you have not read a line here, from either Robert Saucy’s book, or Bock and Blaising books (now classics in the PD, and both from 1993!) Again, the Bible simply makes no sense if we lose National Israel! And no to YOUR definition to Supersessionalism!

    • jm · January 11, 2014

      I have to admit I’m just not interested in any form of Dispensationalism. We could say Dispensationalism was Left Behind by me years ago. lol The whole scheme is forced upon scripture which is why it wasn’t a view held until the church had an (over)reaction to Liberalism and enforced a strict literalistic reading of the scriptures that had never been used before. I did read a few online articles a while ago when you suggested I look into PD but it’s just not “progressiveness” enough or progressing toward federal or covenant theology enough for me.

      the Bible simply makes no sense if we lose National Israel!

      It is actually the opposite, the Bible makes no sense if one employs the Dispensational hermeneutic for many reasons.



      • irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert · January 11, 2014

        Strange, I used to be perhaps even more anti-dispensational than you! Until I went to war in Gulf War I, and saw the whole Muslim and Radical Islamic hatred of Jews and Israel! And then re-visiting the whole basic Dispensational question, biblically and theologically! IT was simply a very great providence, and not an Ivory Tower theological read, alone!

        I am myself convinced too, that the Antichrist will be a Mideast man, and thus a Islamic Antichrist! HE is coming make no mistake either! I may not live to see it? But you surely might?

        *Btw, Walter Kaiser also agrees, noting too himself, so-called “Joel Richardson’s” book: Mideast Beast, The Scriptural Case For An Islamic Antichrist! (2012) He also wrote, in 2009, The Islamic Antichrist. Note these are WMD Books! Always radical politically, and willing to engage the tough questions and places!

      • jm · January 11, 2014

        The Ivory Tower theologians such as the Waldensians, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, etc. would disagree with Dispensationalism, as do I. πŸ˜‰

      • irishanglican ~ Fr. Robert · January 11, 2014

        Don’t get me going on John Calvin, who was hardly really any Ivory Tower theologian! Note his 9 year marriage with Idelette, whom he loved dearly, he suffered much when she died! I am a Calvin Calvinist, at least on some aspects! I read Calvin quite a lot! See Bruce Gordon’s book and bio: Calvin, (Yale University Press, 2009) it came out in paperback in 2011. But I have both, and a first edition hardback with dust-jacket! πŸ™‚ Note too, I have the only known in-depth work on Calvin’s Eschatology: ‘Calvin’s Doctrine of Last Things’, by Heinrich Quistorp, (1955 James Clarke & Co.) 200 pages, T.F. Torrance wrote the foreword to the English edition. It is really close to general Catholic Eschatology, but has better work and study as to Christ as Mediator!

        I have got years on you for reading mate! Just a point for me at 64! πŸ˜‰

  3. Meg · January 17, 2014

    Reblogged this on The Antipas Chronicles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s