Ribera commentary on the Revelation

[jgr]

I gave it, and you dismissed it because it did not include a detail that you think is critical.

I obviously missed it, so please repost it.

 

[Biblewriter]

I obviously missed it, so please repost it.

Dispensationalist Only - The Dispensational Futurism of Theodore Beza

 

[jgr]

Dispensationalist Only - The Dispensational Futurism of Theodore Beza

Thanks, I didn't miss it.

Beza did not espouse a futurized antichrist.
Ribera did.

 

[Biblewriter]

Thanks, I didn't miss it.

Beza did not espouse a futurized antichrist.
Ribera did.

This is the detail that I commented about your using it as an excuse to deny Beza's unquestionable futurism.

Your claim that this detail comes to us through Ribera has been conclusively proven to be false. For it was clearly taught long before the time of Ribera.

Also, there is zero evidence that the eighteenth century futurists even knew about Ribera's book. But the early modern futurists clearly discussed he doctrines of these early teachers of a future INDIVIDUAL, not a future dynasty, called "the Antichrist."

 

[jgr]

This is the detail that I commented about your using it as an excuse to deny Beza's unquestionable futurism.

Depends on the definition of futurism and futurist.

If Beza did not espouse a futurized antichrist, does he qualify as a futurist?
If Ribera did, does he qualify?

 

[Biblewriter]

Depends on the definition of futurism and futurist.

If Beza did not espouse a futurized antichrist, does he qualify as a futurist?
If Ribera did, does he qualify?

IF the claims about what Ribera taught are true, an allegation for which you have produced exactly zero evidence, he was indeed a futurist. But Beza, who wrote earlier than Ribera, indeed taught the beginning germs of futurism, regardless of what you say.

And EVERY doctrine alleged to have been taught by Ribera was unquestionably taught in the very oldest Christian documents on the subject.

 

[jgr]

IF the claims about what Ribera taught are true, an allegation for which you have produced exactly zero evidence, he was indeed a futurist. But Beza, who wrote earlier than Ribera, indeed taught the beginning germs of futurism, regardless of what you say.

I've said nothing. I've asked two questions, only one of which you've answered. So:
1. If Beza taught the beginning germs of futurism, but did not teach a futurized antichrist, does he qualify as a futurist?

Regarding Ribera, Brightman qualifies as credible evidence. You're free to characterize it as "opinion". But in order to overturn it, you would need to produce an equal or superior counter-opinion, specifically, that Ribera did not espouse a futurized antichrist. So far you've produced nothing. That is unsurprising, because no known equal or superior counter-opinion exists. There is virtually unanimous agreement that he did espouse a futurized antichrist. Given Larkin's concurrence, I suspect that that unanimity exists even within dispensational circles. If not, I'd be interested to know who demurs, and what counter-opinion they use for support.

And EVERY doctrine alleged to have been taught by Ribera was unquestionably taught in the very oldest Christian documents on the subject.

I've never denied that futurism as it relates to antichrist was found in early literature. But I've also shown that such futurism disappeared entirely in the Reformation period as a result of the Reformers' recognition of its fulfillment in the apostate papacy. A futurized antichrist did not appear within Protestantism until the 19th century, and the source of that appearance was the content from Ribera's book, which had been published in the late 16th century.

From the late 16th century to the 19th century, a futurized antichrist was found only within the Roman Catholic church.

 

[Biblewriter]

I've said nothing. I've asked two questions, only one of which you've answered. So:
1. If Beza taught the beginning germs of futurism, but did not teach a futurized antichrist, does he qualify as a futurist?

Regarding Ribera, Brightman qualifies as credible evidence. You're free to characterize it as "opinion". But in order to overturn it, you would need to produce an equal or superior counter-opinion, specifically, that Ribera did not espouse a futurized antichrist. So far you've produced nothing. That is unsurprising, because no known equal or superior counter-opinion exists. There is virtually unanimous agreement that he did espouse a futurized antichrist. Given Larkin's concurrence, I suspect that that unanimity exists even within dispensational circles. If not, I'd be interested to know who demurs, and what counter-opinion they use for support.

This is nonsense. Opinion, regardless of who expresses it, or of how many people express it, is NOT evidence. Is is NOTHING but OPINION. And you have produced exactly zero actual evidence that what you have said is correct.

I've never denied that futurism as it relates to antichrist was found in early literature. But I've also shown that such futurism disappeared entirely in the Reformation period as a result of the Reformers' recognition of its fulfillment in the apostate papacy. A futurized antichrist did not appear within Protestantism until the 19th century, and the source of that appearance was the content from Ribera's book, which had been published in the late 16th century.

From the late 16th century to the 19th century, a futurized antichrist was found only within the Roman Catholic church.

This is demonstrably incorrect. I know about writers from much earlier that the nineteenth century who clearly taught a future Antichrist. But my research is not complete, and I do not yet have HARD PROOF of what I KNOW to be correct.

 

[jgr]

This is nonsense. Opinion, regardless of who expresses it, or of how many people express it, is NOT evidence. Is is NOTHING but OPINION. And you have produced exactly zero actual evidence that what you have said is correct.

So I've presented opinion. You've presented nothing. So my opinion prevails over your nothing. And, particularly regarding Brightman, it's very credible opinion.

This is demonstrably incorrect. I know about writers from much earlier that the nineteenth century who clearly taught a future Antichrist. But my research is not complete, and I do not yet have HARD PROOF of what I KNOW to be correct.

You've plainly misunderstood or ignored my explanations. Go back and reread. I've fully addressed what was, and was not, written, when, and by whom.

 

[Biblewriter]

So I've presented opinion. You've presented nothing. So my opinion prevails over your nothing. And, particularly regarding Brightman, it's very credible opinion.

Opinion does not even count, when we are speaking of proof. I have proved everything I have said, and you have proved absolutely nothing.

You've plainly misunderstood or ignored my explanations. Go back and reread. I've fully addressed what was, and was not, written, when, and by whom.

The evidence presented in this thread, so far, is that a single historicist, writing shortly after the publication of Ribera'a book, mentioned having chanced upon it. And then then NEXT piece of evidence anyone on your side has presented, is the discovery and re-publication of Ribera's book in 1826. Between these two events, not a single person on your side has produced a single scrap of evidence of any kind.

I have answered that I am aware of several distinctly futurist writers between these periods. The earliest one that I currently know about, that distinctly and explicitly rejected the concept that Popery was the Antichrist, was John Hildrop, who in the year 1713 published a paper titled "Gods Judgment Upon the Gentile Apostastized Church, Against the Modern Hypothesis." In this document, he said "I could never yet conceive what service it could do to the Reformed Cause, to assert that the Pope, or Church of Rome, to be the great Antichrist, in opposition to the constant doctrine of the early church." (cited by William Watson on pg. 306 of "Dispensationialism Before Darby.")

Here we see that the earliest known writer that meets YOUR definition of a futurist, other than your alleged but unproven Ribera, did not cite Ribera, but "the constant doctrine of the early church." He then went on, in defense of this statement, to cite "Irenaeus... Hippolytus... Cyprian, Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem."

This ONE quotation, in and by itself, TOTALLY DESTROYS your ENTIRE claim. The modern version of futurism is NOT based on the writings of Ribera, but upon "the constant doctrine of the early church," explicitly naming "Irenaeus... Hippolytus... Cyprian, Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem."

Further along in the same document, Hildrop cited several other relatively modern writers previous to himself, who had said similar things, but showed NO KNOWLEDGE of Ribera's book.

This notion was also explicitly denied by Grantham Killingworth, In a book with a very long title beginning "Paradise Regained... ," Which he published in 1772. Watson also gives extensive quotations from this writer, but I have not yet transcribed or checked them.

 

[jgr]

Opinion does not even count, when we are speaking of proof. I have proved everything I have said, and you have proved absolutely nothing.



The evidence presented in this thread, so far, is that a single historicist, writing shortly after the publication of Ribera'a book, mentioned having chanced upon it. And then then NEXT piece of evidence anyone on your side has presented, is the discovery and re-publication of Ribera's book in 1826. Between these two events, not a single person on your side has produced a single scrap of evidence of any kind.

I have answered that I am aware of several distinctly futurist writers between these periods. The earliest one that I currently know about, that distinctly and explicitly rejected the concept that Popery was the Antichrist, was John Hildrop, who in the year 1713 published a paper titled "Gods Judgment Upon the Gentile Apostastized Church, Against the Modern Hypothesis." In this document, he said "I could never yet conceive what service it could do to the Reformed Cause, to assert that the Pope, or Church of Rome, to be the great Antichrist, in opposition to the constant doctrine of the early church." (cited by William Watson on pg. 306 of "Dispensationialism Before Darby.")

Here we see that the earliest known writer that meets YOUR definition of a futurist, other than your alleged but unproven Ribera, did not cite Ribera, but "the constant doctrine of the early church." He then went on, in defense of this statement, to cite "Irenaeus... Hippolytus... Cyprian, Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem."

This ONE quotation, in and by itself, TOTALLY DESTROYS your ENTIRE claim. The modern version of futurism is NOT based on the writings of Ribera, but upon "the constant doctrine of the early church," explicitly naming "Irenaeus... Hippolytus... Cyprian, Origen and Cyril of Jerusalem."

Further along in the same document, Hildrop cited several other relatively modern writers previous to himself, who had said similar things, but showed NO KNOWLEDGE of Ribera's book.

This notion was also explicitly denied by Grantham Killingworth, In a book with a very long title beginning "Paradise Regained... ," Which he published in 1772. Watson also gives extensive quotations from this writer, but I have not yet transcribed or checked them.

Nothing about Ribera in the OPINIONS of Hildrop and Killingworth. Brightman's "opinion" continues to prevail.

I've searched in vain for any contribution that Hildrop and Killingworth made to the Reformation, or to Reformation thought. They do not appear in the list of recognized Reformers, nor are they acknowledged by any Reformer, nor does any of their commentary appear in Reformation literature, nor is any of their commentary acknowledged in Reformation literature.

Whether or not these or other individuals were aware of Ribera, in dismissing the Reformation doctrine of antichrist, their OPINIONS constitute tacit support of Ribera's futurism. In that regard they were essentially closet papists, forebears of Samuel Maitland. Their existence is not surprising.

I've acknowledged pre-Reformation futurist thought relating to antichrist numerous times, and have explained why it disappeared within the Reformation. But I doubt that you'll ever catch on.

Next.

 

[Biblewriter]

Nothing about Ribera in the OPINIONS of your two individuals. Brightman's "opinion" continues to prevail.

I've searched in vain for any contribution that Hildrop and Killingworth made to the Reformation, or to Reformation thought. They do not appear in the list of recognized Reformers, nor are they acknowledged by any Reformer, nor does any of their commentary appear in Reformation literature, nor is any of their commentary acknowledged in Reformation literature.

Whether or not these or other individuals were aware of Ribera, in dismissing the Reformation doctrine of antichrist, their OPINIONS constitute tacit support of Ribera's futurism. In that regard they were essentially closet papists, forebears of Samuel Maitland. Their existence is not surprising.

I've acknowledged pre-Reformation futurist thought relating to antichrist numerous times, and have explained why it disappeared within the Reformation. But I doubt that you'll ever catch on.

Next.

My point exactly. The writers I quoted EXPLICITLY denied that the Pope was the Antichrist, saying that this was a future individual, and they gave zero indication hat they even knew abut Ribera OR his book. Instead, THEY traced this doctrine all the way back to the early church.

Thus, they DID NOT base their opinions on Ribera. And THIS is the PROOF that your claim that all modern futurism s based on Ribera is GROUNDLESS.

And your observation that they were not reformers, or of repute among historicists, is meaningless. They were futurists. And they wrote LONG before Ribera's name was even know to futurists.

 

[jgr]

My point exactly. The writers I quoted EXPLICITLY denied that the Pope was the Antichrist, saying that this was a future individual, and they gave zero indication hat they even knew abut Ribera OR his book. Instead, THEY traced this doctrine all the way back to the early church.

Thus, they DID NOT base their opinions on Ribera. And THIS is the PROOF that your claim that all modern futurism s based on Ribera is GROUNDLESS.

And your observation that they were not reformers, or of repute among historicists, is meaningless. They were futurists. And they wrote LONG before Ribera's name was even know to futurists.

Clarence Larkin:

"The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

What prominent dispensationalists, past or present, disagree with Larkin's assertion about futurism?:

"In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera..."

And they wrote LONG before Ribera's name was even know to futurists.

Ribera's book was published about 1590.
John Hildrop was born 1682, died 1756.
Grantham Killingworth was born 1699, died 1778.

Correction: "And they wrote LONG AFTER Ribera's name was even known to futurists."

 

[Biblewriter]

Clarence Larkin:

"The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

What prominent dispensationalists, past or present, disagree with Larkin's assertion about futurism?:

"In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera..."



Ribera's book was published about 1590.
John Hildrop was born 1682, died 1756.
Grantham Killingworth was born 1699, died 1778.

Correction: "And they wrote LONG AFTER Ribera's name was even known to futurists."

As I said before, NO such statement, made by ANY person, is even significant. Opinions are NOT evidence, regardless of WHO expresses them, or HOW MANY express them. Period.

You have totally failed to demonstrate that even one of many the pre-1826 futurists even knew about either Ribrera's book, or what it said. And until you can produce EVIDENCE of this, as opposed to OPINION abut it, you have NOTHING to stand on.

Unless and until you manage to produce such EVIDENCE, I do not plan to even respond to any further posts from you about this.

 

[iamlamad]

Clarence Larkin:

"The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book."

What prominent dispensationalists, past or present, disagree with Larkin's assertion about futurism?:

"In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera..."



Ribera's book was published about 1590.
John Hildrop was born 1682, died 1756.
Grantham Killingworth was born 1699, died 1778.

Correction: "And they wrote LONG AFTER Ribera's name was even known to futurists."

Clarence Larkin was good, but he MISSED it on some things.

 

[jgr]

As I said before, NO such statement, made by ANY person, is even significant. Opinions are NOT evidence, regardless of WHO expresses them, or HOW MANY express them. Period.

You have totally failed to demonstrate that even one of many the pre-1826 futurists even knew about either Ribrera's book, or what it said. And until you can produce EVIDENCE of this, as opposed to OPINION abut it, you have NOTHING to stand on.

Unless and until you manage to produce such EVIDENCE, I do not plan to even respond to any further posts from you about this.

I thought we were debating whether Ribera was the father of futurism, the primary doctrine of which was a futurized antichrist.

His commentary futurizing antichrist was published about 1590.
It was rejected by the Reformation movement.
It was accepted by the papacy but remained confined to the Roman Catholic church.
A copy was discovered in library archives by Samuel Maitland in 1826.
Maitland republished and promoted its contents, which ultimately attracted a following including dispensationalism's founders.

Ergo, Ribera is regarded as the father of futurism.

 

[Douggg]

Ergo, Ribera is regarded as the father of futurism.

I have never ever heard any futurist say Ribera says this or that. Or refer to Ribera for anything.

 

[iamlamad]

I have never ever heard any futurist say Ribera says this or that. Or refer to Ribera for anything.

And no wonder, it is just another MYTH. We see many myths here.

 

[jgr]

I have never ever heard any futurist say Ribera says this or that. Or refer to Ribera for anything.

Wasn't Larkin a futurist?

 

[iamlamad]

I thought we were debating whether Ribera was the father of futurism, the primary doctrine of which was a futurized antichrist.

His commentary futurizing antichrist was published about 1590.
It was rejected by the Reformation movement.
It was accepted by the papacy but remained confined to the Roman Catholic church.
A copy was discovered in library archives by Samuel Maitland in 1826.
Maitland republished and promoted its contents, which ultimately attracted a following including dispensationalism's founders.

Ergo, Ribera is regarded as the father of futurism.

I would rather think GOD was, considering all the future prophesies in the bible!