Ribera commentary on the Revelation

[Biblewriter]

Your evidence of:
1. Way's futurism.
2. If 1. exists, that it was Way's and not Maitland's futurism that influenced Darby.

I posted it. If you do not bother to read it, that is your problem.

I am not going to bother to dig out the exact quotations this evening, but Darby clearly spoke of having read Irving's translation of Lacunza's book. And it was comments by Irving, in his introduction to that translation, which he called a "Preliminary Discourse," that led me to discover Way's books. So Darby unquestionably knew about Way's books.

And Darby's system of interpretation is highly similar to Way's, But is radically different from Amillennialism. These two interpretive schools are as different as night and day.

You keep concentrating on the detail of the Antichrist being a future individual, as if that was critical to Dispensationial futurism. That is indeed a part of Dispensationial doctrine. But it is a relatively minor part. The full details of a literal future millennium are a far great part, and are indeed the essence of Dispensationalism, while the Antichrist is not more than a detail along the way.

 

[jgr]

I posted it. If you do not bother to read it, that is your problem.

One cannot read what does not exist.

I am not going to bother to dig out the exact quotations this evening, but Darby clearly spoke of having read Irving's translation of Lacunza's book. And it was comments by Irving, in his introduction to that translation, which he called a "Preliminary Discourse," that led me to discover Way's books. So Darby unquestionably knew about Way's books.

OPINION.

And Darby's system of interpretation is highly similar to Way's, But is radically different from Amillennialism. These two interpretive schools are as different as night and day.

Amil does not preclude a futurized antichrist. Countless Catholics to this day believe both.

You keep concentrating on the detail of the Antichrist being a future individual, as if that was critical to Dispensationial futurism. That is indeed a part of Dispensationial doctrine. But it is a relatively minor part. The full details of a literal future millennium are a far great part, and are indeed the essence of Dispensationalism, while the Antichrist is not more than a detail along the way.

The context of this discussion has exclusively been a futurized antichrist. I've never included a millennium in it. Such an inclusion is irrelvant to this discussion.

 

[Biblewriter]

One cannot read what does not exist.



OPINION.



Amil does not preclude a futurized antichrist. Countless Catholics to this day believe both.



The context of this discussion has exclusively been a futurized antichrist. I've never included a millennium in it. Such an inclusion is irrelvant to this discussion.

Yes, what I stated was opinion, as fsr as you are conerned. but it is actual memory for me.

And the context of this entire discussion, on your part, has always been a futurized Antichrist, as you choose to all it. But you have consistently claimed that this concept is "dispenational futurism." The truth is that all futurists, dispensational or otherwise, believe the Antichrist is a future individual. And many of them are not even remotely dispensational.

But be that as it may, I have provided hard quotations of at least two futurists who clearly taught "a futurized Antichrist" before Maitland discovered Ribera's book. And you have been wholly unable to demonstrate even one futurist who even knew about Ribera's book previous to that discovery.

And you have admitted that the opinion that Ribera was amillennian was "highly likely." This, if correct, is hard proof that Darby's work was far more likely to be based on Way's work, than upon Ribera's.

 

[Biblewriter]

I have now taken the time to actually read the exchange between Darby and Maitland which you posted. And although I did not check the quotations for accuracy, my own memory of reading all this long before, tells me that they are at lest approximately correct. (Although I had not remembered the detail that MAitland was the person Darby was answering.)

But I would point out two things. First, that this was not, as you seemed to imply, an exchange of letters between Darby and Maitland, but was an open debate, being carried out in widely circulated publications of the day.

And you did not seem to notice that, rather than getting his ideas from Maitland, Darby was DEBATING Maitland. At this point in time, beginning four years after Maitland had published about Riberar's work, (And Darby flatly stated that he had read Maitland's two publications) Darby was still defending the historicist interpretation.

So Darby's conversion to futurism was not based on Ribera's work, but on a study of what the scriptures actually say. It is entirely possible that Ribera's work helped to prod him to that study. But the letters you have posted clearly prove that Darby did not simply read about Ribera's work and take that position for his own.

Thus, you have posted the proof that your entire thesis is flawed. For the most that can be derived from the information you have posted, is that Ribera's work may have influenced Darby to investigate this question. But his final conclusions waeresimply not based on Ribera's work. For, after examining it, he remained unconvinced for a significant period of time.

 

[jgr]

Yes, what I stated was opinion, as fsr as you are conerned. but it is actual memory for me.

"Actual memory" for you is opinion for everyone else.

And the context of this entire discussion, on your part, has always been a futurized Antichrist, as you choose to all it. But you have consistently claimed that this concept is "dispenational futurism." The truth is that all futurists, dispensational or otherwise, believe the Antichrist is a future individual. And many of them are not even remotely dispensational.

Every dispensationalist is a futurist who believes in a futurized antichrist. The expression
"dispensational futurist" is entirely legitimate.

I've never denied that belief in a futurized antichrist existed in early Church history up to the Reformation. But it is indisputable that such belief had disappeared within the Reformation during its era. Not a one of your quotations is from a recognized Reformer, nor are any of them acknowledged by a recognized Reformer, nor are any of your quotation authors acknowledged by a recognized Reformer. Any who wrote during the Reformation era, and espoused a futurized antichrist, would have been essentially closet papists, as was Samuel Maitland some two centuries later.

And you have admitted that the opinion that Ribera was amillennian was "highly likely." This, if correct, is hard proof that Darby's work was far more likely to be based on Way's work, than upon Ribera's.

"Way's work" is nonexistent, so Darby's work could not be based upon it.

But I would point out two things. First, that this was not, as you seemed to imply, an exchange of letters between Darby and Maitland, but was an open debate, being carried out in widely circulated publications of the day.

My words were "exchanging communications". Since when are letters to a publication not communications?

And you did not seem to notice that, rather than getting his ideas from Maitland, Darby was DEBATING Maitland. At this point in time, beginning four years after Maitland had published about Riberar's work, (And Darby flatly stated that he had read Maitland's two publications) Darby was still defending the historicist interpretation.

Where do you see that "Darby flatly stated that he had read Maitland's two publications"? I must have missed it.

Darby was historicist before embracing futurism. He was still historicist at that time.
Maitland authored a large number of publications. Ribera's is not mentioned in their communications exchanges. We have no idea what two publications he read.

So Darby's conversion to futurism was not based on Ribera's work, but on a study of what the scriptures actually say.

OPINION.

But the letters you have posted clearly prove that Darby did not simply read about Ribera's work and take that position for his own.

You're correct; he didn't that day.

But his final conclusions waeresimply not based on Ribera's work. For, after examining it, he remained unconvinced for a significant period of time.

In 1831 he began display evidence of his conversion to futurism. There is no evidence of exactly when he became aware of Ribera's work, so the period of time during which he remained unconvinced cannot be ascertained. But the change from unconvinced to convinced appears to have been relatively rapid, hardly an uncommon phenomenon.

 

[Biblewriter]

There are only two parts of your answer that even deserve an answer.

Not a one of your quotations is from a recognized Reformer, nor are any of them acknowledged by a recognized Reformer, nor are any of your quotation authors acknowledged by a recognized Reformer. Any who wrote during the Reformation era, and espoused a futurized antichrist, would have been essentially closet papists, as was Samuel Maitland some two centuries later.

Here, you are pretending, for that is all this is, that whether or not the people on YOUR SIDE respected what had been published is somehow significant. This is not a position that even deserves an answer, other that to point out its logical and moral bankruptcy.

"Way's work" is nonexistent, so Darby's work could not be based upon it.

In view of the fact that during this discussion I have posted extensive quotations from that work, and that these quotations have been discussed in this thread. This statement is not only demonstrable error, but a willful misrepresentation of the facts.

I see no reason to continue an exchange with someone who is being so obviously duplicitous.

 

[jgr]

In view of the fact that during this discussion I have posted extensive quotations from that work

Not in this thread, despite my request(s) to do so. If a quote is germane to a thread, there is no justification for not posting it within the thread, in closest proximity to its associated discussion. If it is not posted within the thread, it is for all intents and purposes of the thread, nonexistent.

I don't understand duplicitous. I don't think either of us has deceived or tried to deceive the other. It's been an aggressive discussion, nothing beyond that.

I concur that we've probably said all that we want to say.

 

[EschatologicalHistorian]

I keep seeing claims that Francisco Ribera "Invented" futurism, including that he taught a pre-tribulation rapture. But oddly enough, though I have devoted quite a lot of searching to it, I have thus far been wholly unable to find even one translation of Ribera's book into English, so these claims can even be evaluated.

Does anyone here know where to find this book in English? Without it, all claims about what it says are based on nothing but hearsay.

You can find it here:

Amazon.com

 

[DragonFox91]

I just heard about the priest inventing this the other night to counter the Reformation & it made so much sense to me. A lot of Futurist interpretations I just don't see reading the Bible myself & a lot of interpretations just seem quote-mining out-of-context verses,, & now it makes sense why: so we ignore Rome

Virtually all of the early Reformers came out of the papal system, and were well acquainted with the Scriptures. It was this acquaintance that permitted them to recognize the papal apostasy, and to establish the Reformation movement. One of the doctrinal pillars of that movement, and the reasons for its success, was the recognition of the apostate papacy as antichrist. It was this that Ribera set out to defeat, but was, by God's grace and mercy, unsuccessful at that time.

But he would ultimately succeed in the form of contemporary dispensational futurism.

Which is why it is time for another Reformation.

We always need to be reforming against Rome. It did not stop.