Trappings of Popery (Part Nine): Praeterism and Futurism

Trappings of Popery (Part Nine): Praeterism and Futurism, PDF

“And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people…” (Rev. 18:4)

by Shaun Willcock

(From the Introduction at the beginning of Part One)

  Many Christians and Christian churches have retained various trappings of Popery, either out of ignorance, or because they view them as mere trifling matters, or because they simply cannot bear to part with them.  Christian man, Christian woman: you ought never to play the part of ungodly Achan, hiding any “goodly Babylonish garment” in the midst of your tent (Jos. 7:21)!  The embellishments of Popery should never be retained by those who, by sovereign grace, have clean escaped the clutches of the mystical harlot.  Rev. 18:4 says that the Lord’s people must fully “come out” of Popery; but alas! many flee from this “Babylon” like Rachel fleeing from her father’s house – with her father’s gods hidden amongst her possessions (Gen. 31:19,34,35).

  We must examine these trappings of Popery.  Come out – truly out – of Babylon, have nothing to do with the harlot or her ways!

  There are, essentially, three main systems of biblical prophetic interpretation:

 1. The Historicist system.  This system of prophetical interpretation holds the prophecies of Daniel, Revelation, and elsewhere, to be “history divinely written beforehand”.  In other words, history fulfils Bible prophecy.  History is but the outworking, in time, of divine prophecy.  The Lord, in His prophetic Word, told His Church beforehand what would come to pass in time.  The book of Revelation, in particular, describes events which have occurred from the beginning of the Christian era until now, and which will yet occur until the second coming of Christ and the judgment day.

  2. The Praeterist system.  According to the advocates of this system, all the prophecies relating to the second coming of Christ, etc., were fulfilled in the first century AD.

  3.  The Futurist system.  According to the advocates of this system, the prophecies of Revelation, etc., are still to be fulfilled at some unknown point in the future, and all within the space of a very short time, consisting of just a few years.

  The most popularised, and probably the most popular, system of prophetic interpretation today is the Futurist system.  But this was not always so.  For centuries, the vast majority of Protestants were committed to the Historicist system.  

  So what happened to bring about this huge shift?  In a word: Jesuitism!  Protestants today have swallowed this Popish, Jesuit trapping of Futurism, hook, line, and sinker: a prophetic interpretation that was designed by the Jesuits of Rome to deflect the Protestant world away from the Historicist interpretation of Bible prophecy!

  Let us see how this was accomplished.  Of necessity this can only be a very brief examination of this subject.

  At the time of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, it was the firm conviction of Protestants, steeped as they were in the biblically-sound Historicist system of prophetic interpretation, that the Roman Papacy was the prophesied Antichrist (2 Thess. 2), and that the Roman Catholic religion was the Great Whore (Rev. 17).  In sermons and literature, the pope of Rome was declared to be the Antichrist of God’s Word.  And Protestants everywhere were firmly convinced of it.  The works and the doctrines of Rome left them in no doubt.  The evidence fitted the scriptural picture perfectly.  And this firmly-held, scriptural conviction greatly nerved Protestants to resist the evils of Romanism, even amidst much persecution and suffering.

  The diabolical Jesuit Order was created in the sixteenth century, its purpose being to halt, drive back, and conquer the forces of Protestantism.  And the Jesuits realised that there was simply no way for Rome to regain the ground she had lost, unless they were able to deflect Protestants away from the conviction that the pope of Rome was the Antichrist, and the “church” of Rome was the Great Whore of Revelation.  As long as that conviction persisted, Rome could make no headway.

  The Jesuits, therefore, came up with two alternatives to the Historicist system of prophetic interpretation: Praeterism and Futurism.  The two theories conflicted – deliberately.  This was designed to create confusion, and it succeeded.  Two Jesuits, Alcazar and Ribera, were commissioned by their Order to produce two opposing theories of prophetic interpretation, in order to confuse the Protestants and deflect them away from the truth that the Roman Papacy is the prophesied Antichrist.  In the words of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, vol.23: “Under the stress of the Protestant attack there arose new methods on the Papal side and their authors were Alcazar and Ribera.”

  First, the Praeterist view, which is far less popular than Futurism.  Praeterism was devised by a Spanish Jesuit priest named Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613).  He put forward the teaching that John the apostle wrote about events which occurred in his own time, in the first century AD, and that therefore the book of Revelation dealt with events in the old Roman Empire, which was of course long past; and thus all those prophecies were fulfilled.  It was incorrect, then, according to this view, to see the pope of Rome as the prophesied Antichrist: Revelation was fulfilled centuries before in the past.  The word “Praeterism” is derived from the Latin, and means that the events in Revelation are “before” (i.e. fulfilled).

  Praeterism has been adopted by many liberal “Protestants”, as well as, sadly, by many Protestants who are by no means liberals, but who hold to a “post-millennial” interpretation of prophecy – which is another error.

  Now to examine the Futurist view, which tragically has attained immense popularity among Protestants today.

  The Spanish Jesuit priest, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), devised this system, and published it in a very large commentary on the book of Revelation. He taught the very opposite of Praeterism!  He taught that the entire book of Revelation dealt with future events, to occur just prior to Christ’s return.  He taught that Antichrist was someone who would only appear in the far-distant future, at the very end of the world – so there was no need for anyone to either view the pope of Rome as the Antichrist, or to be at all concerned about who he would be.

  His theory essentially went like this:

 The first few chapters of Revelation deal with Rome at the time of John the apostle in the first century AD, but the rest deal with the distant future;

 Antichrist will be a single individual at the end of the world; he will abolish Christianity, rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, and be welcomed by the Jews;

 His work will last for three and a half years;

 The Middle East will be the geographical location of the great conflict with Antichrist.

  Does all this sound familiar?  To anyone well-versed in the Futurist theory of prophetic interpretation, it should!  It is essentially the view that has been propagated by countless Protestant preachers and authors for many, many decades now!  It is doubtless the dominant view held by most professing Protestants today!

  Later, Ribera’s theory was expanded by other Roman Catholic scholars, becoming the dominant Roman Catholic view, long before it became the dominant Protestant view!  The cardinal Bellarmine (1542-1621), the great Roman Catholic controversialist and the foremost apologist of the Counter-Reformation, declared that the biblical prophecies about Antichrist in the writings of Daniel, Paul and John had nothing to do with the Papacy.  He published a defence of the Papal religion, and in it he sought to “prove” that the Antichrist, far from being the pope of Rome, was a single individual at the end of time.

  Significantly, it was admitted by the Roman Catholic author, G.S. Hitchcock, that both Futurism and Praeterism were inventions of the Jesuits!  This is what he wrote in his book, The Beasts and the Little Horn, pg.7: “The Futuristic school, founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591, looks for Antichrist, Babylon, and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, at the end of the Christian dispensation.  The Praeterist school, founded by the Jesuit Alcazar, explains the Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 AD.”

  The Jesuit Futurist theory was to receive some new twists in the early 19th century, through the writing of yet another Jesuit, Emmanuel Lacunza (1731-1801).  He was to add to the theory the germ of the idea of a “rapture” before the second coming of Christ, which was progressively developed by others into the “pre-trib rapture” doctrine within Futurism.

  Lacunza taught this theory in a book, which was published in 1812, entitled The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty.  The book was written in Spanish, and Lacunza, a Chilean of Spanish descent, wrote under the assumed name of “Rabbi Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra”!  As a good Jesuit agent, working to undermine Protestantism, Lacunza concealed his true identity and pretended to be a converted Jewish rabbi, so as to deceive the Protestant world.  He succeeded.

  It was the perfect disguise, because the Jesuits had so persecuted the Jews in Spain that none would suspect anything.  It would also guarantee that the Vatican would condemn Lacunza’s book, putting it on its index of forbidden books!  This of course made the book even more acceptable to Protestants – the fact that Rome had condemned it.

  In the book, Lacunza taught that there would be a gap between what is now referred to as the “rapture” and Christ’s second coming.  This was the origin, in embryonic form, of the immensely popular “pre-trib rapture” teaching within Protestantism today!  He did not teach a seven-year gap between the two events, as is popular today – but the doctrine itself was taught: the rapture would occur first, “much before” Christ’s second coming; and then Christ would return with the saints to earth, destroy Antichrist, and then establish His “millennial kingdom”.  At the time, the prevalent Roman Catholic view was that there would be a gap of only a few minutes between the “rapture” and the second coming; so when Lacunza wrote that the “catching up” would occur “much before” Christ’s return, he could have meant an hour, or a day – it is impossible to tell.  But regardless of how brief a period he had in mind, there was still a gap between the “rapture” and the second coming in his teaching.  And in time to come, the period of time between the two events was extended to seven years, with the “tribulation” supposedly occurring in between.  Lacunza had sown the seed which would grow and develop through the teaching of others, as shall be explained below.

  In addition, Lacunza taught that during the so-called “Millennium”, the Jewish animal sacrifices would be reinstituted.  This of course is now the belief of “pre-trib rapture, pre-millennial” Protestants today, even though it is a horrible doctrine, the denial of Christ’s all-sufficient atoning sacrifice for the sins of His people!

  In 1816 a complete edition of Lacunza’s book was published in London by the diplomatic agent of the Republic of Buenos Aires.  Copies of the book found their way into the library of the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, a library maintained for the use of the English people.  Thus it had now been published in the English metropolis, and could be accessed by learned Englishmen, although it was still in Spanish.

  The question of course arises: if Futurism was a Jesuit invention, how did it enter Protestantism?  The Jesuits wanted it to be accepted by the Protestant world, but how did Protestants, who were so utterly opposed to Roman Catholicism, come to accept this Popish trapping?

  The answer is, By deceit and treachery.  In the 19th century, within the Anglican institution (the falsely-named “Church of England”), a movement occurred which came to be known as the “Romeward movement.”  Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), an Anglican curate and later librarian to the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, was the first “Protestant” scholar to accept the Jesuit Ribera’s Futurist theory about Antichrist.  And remember – Lacunza’s book was now in the library of which Maitland was the librarian!  Maitland admitted openly that his prophetic views were the same as those of Romanism; and in 1826 he began to publish his views in a series of pamphlets on prophecy, in which he taught the Jesuit theory of Futurism.  Was this coincidence?  No.  Maitland got his ideas from Lacunza and Ribera.

  Following hard on the heels of Maitland’s first booklet, a man called Burgh, in Ireland, published a book teaching a similar theory of a future Antichrist, evidently copied from Lacunza as well; and between 1826 and 1828, Burgh’s lectures on Revelation, and Maitland’s The Prophecies of Antichrist and First and Second Enquiries into the Prophetic Periods of Daniel and the Revelation advanced the Jesuit Lacunza’s theory, and began to do great damage to the cause of Protestantism.

  Maitland’s views were accepted by James H. Todd (1805-69), professor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin, and this man strongly attacked the Historicist interpretation of prophecy.  His views, too, were published and widely circulated.

  Todd’s views were enthusiastically endorsed by John Henry Newman (1801-90), an Anglican priest who converted to Roman Catholicism, later becoming a cardinal.  He was a leader of what was known as the Oxford Movement, or Tractarian Movement, which was leading Anglicanism towards absorption by Rome.  Five years before he became a Romanist, Newman wrote a tract entitled The Protestant Idea of Antichrist, and in it he said: “We have pleasure in believing that in matters of Doctrine we entirely agree with Dr. Todd…. The prophecies concerning Antichrist are as yet unfulfilled”.

  The Oxford or Tractarian Movement was immensely influential in causing English Protestants to move away from the Historicist interpretation of prophecy, to which their forebears had so firmly held.

  But that was not all.  Another extremely influential leader, and a man who played a large part in moving many away from Historicism, was Edward Irving (1792-1834), a Scottish Presbyterian minister who was deposed on charges of heresy.  Irving moved away from the Historicism of Scottish Presbyterianism and embraced Futurism.  He later organised what became known as the Catholic Apostolic Church, in Britain.

  Irving was a forerunner of the Pentecostals of today, believing that the supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit would be restored, and in 1831 his followers began to (as they believed) “speak in tongues” and “prophesy” (they were deceived, of course).  And it was at this time that the Irvingites began to promote the idea that the saints would be “raptured” before the rise of the future Antichrist and before the second coming of Christ.  But how did the Irvingites get hold of such an idea?

  Remember that the Jesuit Lacunza’s book in Spanish had been published in London in 1816, and that he had written under an assumed name of a rabbi.  Well, Edward Irving stated that a friend of his, and another person, translated and revised portions of Lacunza’s book; and “we resolved that the two friends should proceed as before to complete the work, and that I should charge myself with the superintendence of its publication.”  Only Irving, however, is listed on the title page as the translator.  The English translation of Lacunza’s book was published by Irving in London in 1827. He knew that he was publishing a translation of a Jesuit’s book, for he revealed who the real author was; and his Scottish Presbyterian training ensured that he would have known of the Jesuits and of how dangerous they were; and yet he still went ahead!

  And ever since his time, many Protestant Futurists, who have never heard of the Jesuit Lacunza, have known of “Rabbi Ben-Ezra” – yet they have no idea that “Rabbi Ben-Ezra” did not exist, and that in fact when they quote from “Ben-Ezra” they are quoting the lies of a Jesuit priest named Lacunza!

  So Irving got the germ of the idea of a “rapture” before the second coming from the Jesuit Lacunza’s book.  And shortly after he published his English translation of Lacunza’s work, his followers began to proclaim the idea of a “two-stage” coming of Christ: a secret “rapture” first, followed by Christ’s return some time later.   Irving himself claimed to have heard a “voice” telling him to preach a “secret rapture” doctrine.  So, obeying this “voice”, he began to proclaim that Christ was to come twice: first, for His saints, and then later with His saints (after a seven year period).

  In truth, however, Irving got his more developed “secret pre-trib rapture” idea from a teenaged Scottish girl, Margaret MacDonald.  In 1830 this girl, who was very open to occultic influences, claimed to have had a vision of the end times; and she sent handwritten copies of her “revelation” to certain ministers – including Irving.  Her “revelation” included a version of the “pre-trib rapture”: essentially a “partial rapture” of some Christians but not others.  And Irving embraced her “vision” with enthusiasm.

  It would appear that Margaret MacDonald, who was bedridden and spent much of her time reading, had read a copy of Irving’s translation of Lacunza’s book, and had then taken Lacunza’s teachings a step further by developing on his idea of a “rapture” before the second coming.

  Other “spirit manifestations” began to occur in Irving’s church, led by Robert Baxter, who gave “prophecies” which the congregation accepted as truth.  It is significant that at a later time, Baxter renounced some of his own views as being of Satan!  If only the “pre-trib rapturists” of today would do the same thing.  Baxter admitted that he had obtained his views of a “two-stage” coming from Irving in 1831.

  Thus we can trace the development: Irving got the germ of the idea of a “rapture” before the second coming from Lacunza; Margaret MacDonald, who heard Irving preach and who in all likelihood had also read Irving’s translation of Lacunza’s book, developed it further into a secret “pre-trib” rapture; and Irving and later other Irvingites developed it even further, including adding the idea that the “tribulation” would last for seven years between the “rapture” and the second coming.

  In 1833 a cheaper, abridged edition of Irving’s translation of Lacunza’s book became available to the public.  And in that same year the “Oxford Movement” – also known as the “Anglo-Catholic Movement” – began.  The purpose of this movement was to destroy Protestantism and to advance Romanism in England.  Maitland’s theory of a future Antichrist was used, by the Anglo-Catholic apologists such as Newman, Pusey, etc., to defend the Papacy from Protestants’ attacks.

  Thus the Irvingites adopted the deceptive theories of the Jesuits Ribera and Lacunza, and of an occult-influenced teenaged girl with notions of being a “prophetess”; and the doctrine of the “secret pre-trib rapture” is an essential part of “Protestant” Futurism today.

  But how did it spread from the heretical Irvingites to so much of the Protestant world?

  From the Irvingites, the “secret pre-trib rapture” error was embraced by the Plymouth Brethren; and from them it spread throughout the world.

  This is what happened.  John Nelson Darby (1800-82) was one of the founders of the Brethren and a committed Futurist.  He had been an Anglican curate before he founded the Brethren, and an Anglo-Catholic in doctrine, and was very close to the brother of the Roman Catholic cardinal, John Henry Newman.  He was a believer in the “pre-trib rapture”, and admitted that he was knowledgeable about both the Jesuit Lacunza’s book and also Irving’s teachings by 1829.    The fact that Irving was a heretic did not appear to bother Darby.  Darby very obviously “imbibed the Irvingite theories about prophecy”, as one 19th-century journal put it.  He wanted to be known as the originator of the “pre-trib rapture” teaching, and many of his followers earnestly believe that he was; but this was simply not so.  He copied Irving extensively.

  He stated that he believed in the “pre-trib rapture” theory from 1827 – the very year that Lacunza’s book was published!  This was not coincidental.

  Just like the Roman Catholics, Darby wanted to keep his followers ignorant of Church history.  He supplied his own writings to take the place of the great Christian writings.  Ignorance of Church history means that men will not view the popes of Rome as the Antichrist; and Darby certainly did not believe this.  In his writings, he taught the “secret rapture” theory.  He also added yet another aspect to the Futurist theory: dispensationalism.

  Darby’s followers were teaching the “secret pre-trib rapture” error by 1831.  And then, the Brethren in Ireland developed the theory in their Powerscourt meetings in 1833. These meetings were attended by Darby, as well as by some Irvingites.  The condensed version of Lacunza’s book was published that same year.

  Thus did Jesuit Futurism enter the Irvingites, and then the Plymouth Brethren with a new addition – via the false Charismatic “prophecies” of the Irvingites!

  This was what the scholar S.P. Tregelles, who participated in the Powerscourt conferences, had to say: “I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there should be a Secret Rapture of the Church at a secret coming until this was given forth as an ‘utterance’ in Mr. Irving’s church from what was then received as being the voice of the Spirit.  But whether anyone ever asserted such a thing or not, it was from that supposed revelation that the modern doctrine and the modern phraseology respecting it arose” (The Hope of Christ’s Coming, pg.35).  Clearly, Tregelles believed that the Plymouth Brethren had received the teaching from the Irvingites.

  But the Plymouth Brethren are a comparatively tiny sect within Protestantism.  How is it that Futurism, through them, spread to so many other churches and denominations?   

  In 1878 a great conference was held, with another being held in Chicago in 1886, where the Futuristic doctrines were promoted.  And as many prominent men attended these, some of whom went on to found theological colleges, the teaching continued to spread.  Also, between 1883 and 1897, a series of meetings was held in Niagara, where Futurism was advocated.

  Most important of all, Darby had an immensely popular propagandist: C.H. Scofield.

  Cyrus Scofield (1843-1921) was a Congregational minister (and also a Mason!).  He thought very highly of Darby’s teaching, having studied Darby’s writings for a number of years.  And the entire Futurist theory, with the more recent additions as well, was added, by Scofield, to the Bible he produced in 1909, known as the Scofield Reference Bible.

  And it was via the Scofield Reference Bible, in particular, that Futurism came to be so widely accepted within Protestantism.  For this reference Bible promoted dispensational Futurism throughout Protestant America, and indeed the world, so that today, multitudes of Bible colleges, etc., teach it as Gospel truth.  The Scofield Reference Bible should be shunned by all true Christians, and not only for its promotion of Jesuit Futurism (but that is what is being examined here).

  And as these false teachings spread, so did confusion spread amongst Protestants – exactly what Rome had always wanted, and exactly why she had used the Jesuits Ribera, Alcazar and Lacunza to promote theories of prophetic interpretation directly at odds with the Protestant Historicist understanding which had served biblical Protestantism so well for so long.  As a result, instead of seeing in the Papacy the fulfilment of the prophetic Scriptures, much of Protestantism now looks for a “secret rapture”, a future Antichrist, etc., etc.  This has aided the diabolical Ecumenical Movement tremendously.

  Astounding, isn’t it?  Protestants have readily accepted a doctrine of the diabolical Jesuits of Rome as being the truth of Holy Scripture!

  The line can be traced: Ribera -Lacunza-Maitland-Irving-Darby-Scofield.  Futurism has a very corrupt lineage indeed!

  And let none say that none of this matters!  On the one hand, there are the many who passionately promote the false, Jesuit system known as Futurism, causing immense confusion and promoting false doctrine; on the other hand, there are those who say that the study of Bible prophecy is unimportant, and that we should not be concerned about all these things.  This is an error equally as bad as the first!  In fact, as Futurists have fallen for a Jesuit deception, so those who throw up their hands and say it is all too complicated, and prophecy should just be left alone, have fallen right into the trap the Jesuits sought to set when they promoted the two deliberately conflicting theories of Praeterism and Futurism – the trap of sowing such confusion in Protestant ranks that many would just give up and say the study of prophecy was not worth the effort.

  Bible prophecy speaks of danger and tribulation before the gathering together of the saints unto Christ, which occurs at His return – not after some secret “rapture” which whisks the saints away from all trouble on earth!  What would be the point of the book of Revelation, with all its warnings, being given by the blessed Spirit of God, if believers are to be “raptured” before all these things take place?

  The Jesuits cannot give us the true interpretation of Bible prophecy!  Nor can an occult-influenced Charismatic girl!  True Christians should never go to such corrupt sources for their understanding of prophecy!  Jesus said, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matt. 7:18).

  Bible prophecy should be studied, indeed must be studied, by every true Christian.  It is part of God’s holy Word, and should never, ever be neglected, or dismissed as unimportant.  In beginning his teaching on the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the gathering together unto Christ of the saints alive at the time, Paul writes, “But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning” these things (1 Thess. 4:13).  All believers are to know the truth about these things, and not be tossed to and fro by false doctrines, especially those which originated in the minds of the Jesuits, those greatest enemies of the true Church and the true Gospel in existence!

(This is the ninth in a series of nine pamphlets exposing various Romish trappings which many Christians and Christian churches have retained.  To obtain the other pamphlets in this series entitled “Trappings of Popery,” please write to the address below.  In addition, they have all been published together, slightly edited and enlarged, as a book entitled Trappings of Popery.  This book is available from the address below.)

Some sources:

The Rapture of the Saints, by Duncan McDougall.  Reprinted by Pilgrim Brethren Press, Petersburg, Ohio, 1990.

The Trinity Review, Number 116, October 1994.  John W. Robbins.

The Trinity Review, Number 117, November 1994.  John W. Robbins.

The Rapture Plot, by Dave MacPherson.  Millennium III Publishers, Simpsonville, South Carolina, 1995.

The Origin of Dispensational Futurism and Its Entry into Protestant Christianity, by H.C. Martin, Parkes, N.S.W., Australia, 1973.

Romanism and the Reformation, by H. Grattan Guinness.  Focus Christian Ministries Trust, Lewes, UK, 1987.

Shaun Willcock is a minister, author and researcher.  He runs Bible Based Ministries.  For other pamphlets (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, articles, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below.  If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, please send your details.

Bible Based Ministries
info@biblebasedministries.co.uk
www.biblebasedministries.co.uk

This pamphlet may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full

Worldwide Contact for Bible Based Ministries:
Contending for the Faith Ministries

695 Kentons Run Ave
Henderson, NV 89052
United States of America
BBMOrders@aol.com