Hi I was recently sent a site URL, but I thought it might be best for my sake to look at it is concert with more knowledgeable people, since I am not all that familiar with the historicist position. Anyone willing to give their 2 cents?
Charles Spurgeon and Issac Newton held to this classic form of "historic-premillennialism". Today, Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses hold out this view as well. David Koresh’s Branch Davidian' use too.
This view tends to see the events in Revelation as actual events in history. They do not see them as primarily in the past or in the future however. The events of Revelation are a panoramic view of all of church history culminating in the return of Jesus to earth.
Of course, it is not A-Mil and thus incorrect [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]
The "historicist" view was the main method of prophetic interpretation of all the reformers and puritans and pre-20th century protestants. This is seen in the book, The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray and in Jonathan Edwards' famous work, A History of Redemption and in the writings of Charles Hodge and Patrick Fairbairn and Alexander Hislop's Two Babylons book.
Steve Gregg's book, Revelation: Four View: A Parrallel Comentary also has the Historicist view in it. However, this view has been since discredited by current scholars as seen in the book, Four Views of Revelation edited by Marvin Pate. He writes:
"This volume incorporates the current, prevailing interpretations of Revelation. Thus, while the Historicist approach once was widespread, today for all practical purposes, it has passed from the scene. Its failed attempts to locate the fulfillment of Revelation in the course of the cirmcumstances of history has doomed it to continual revision as time passed and, ultimately, to obscurity... . Moreover, the lack of concensus among interpreters as to the identification of historical details that supposedly fulfill the prophecies of the Apocalypse contributed to the school's demise." p.18" This is mainly seen in the Historicist use of the so called "Year Day theory" (1260 days=1260 years).
Dr Francis Nigel Lee of Australia, is the only scholar left who still maintains the Historicist method of prophetic interpretation. Dr. Ian Paisley of Northern Ireland is one of the few remaining protestants who vigorously maintains it in practice (as seen by his famous 1988 public protest against the Pope's visit[/u] to the European Parliament and his public denouncement of the Pope as "Antichrist"). [u]Dr. Paisley then went on radio[/u] and defended his historicist eschatology for justification of his protest. He later reprinted the historicist, J.A. Wylie's book, [u]The Papacy is the Antichrist.
Colin (a former Historicist turned orthodoxpreterist).
In reply to:Colin (a former Historicist turned preterist).
And just what kind of "Preterist" are you now?
BTW, I am quite familiar with Ian Paisley and know beyond question that he is Premil. Now he might hold to some form of "historicism", but he definitely cannot be grouped among the Postmillennialists you mentioned, e.g., Hodge, Edwards, etc.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]And just what kind of "Preterist" are you now?
I slightly altered my original post to clarify that I am an orthodox preterist (e.g. Jay Adams, Kenneth Gentry, B.B. Warfield, Greg Bahnsen, Keith Mathison, R.C Sproul, etc). And like these men, I strongly oppose the heretical version known as "full" preterist, "consistent" preterist, or hyper-preterist view or known as the Hymenaen heresy.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]I am quite familiar with Ian Paisley and know beyond question that he is Premil. Now he might hold to some form of "historicism", but he definitely cannot be grouped among the Postmillennialists you mentioned, e.g., Hodge, Edwards, etc.
Yes, Dr. Paisley is an historic premillennialist (though his 1984 sermon, The Crown Rights of King Jesus could easily lead someone to think that he was a postmillennialist). [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
But the issue with the Historicist method of interpretation is that it can and has been applied and used by all millennial schools of thought. Thus, a postmillennialist can and have been historicists (J. Edwards, Matthew Henry) and so have premills (Paisley, Bonar, Ladd) and so have Amillennialists (Vos, Berkhof). And preterists can be postmill (e.g. Ken Gentry), or Amill (e.g. Jay Adams) or even premill (e.g. Thomas Newton), though the latter is very rare. Some others have adopted the "Idealist" method such as the postmillennialist, R.J. Rushdoony and the Amillennialists, Sam Hamstra, William Milligan and G.K. Beale.
Thus, both Edwards and Paisley are equally Historicists despite their disagreement over the timing of Christ's return. Dr. Paisley is a big fan of the premillennial, historicist puritan, Thomas Goodwin (as well as that other historicist, premillennialist, C.H. Spurgeon).
And to clarify the differences between historicism, preterism and millennialism, preterist Kenneth Gentry wrote the Introduction to a 1990 reprint of David Brown's classic 1882 postmillennial work: Christ's Second Coming, Will It Be Premillennial?. He wrote the following:
"It is with great pleasure that I avail myself of the opportunity to write a forward to ....David Brown's "Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?"...this work is widely regarded as 'a classic'....
"Lest it be misunderstood by my endorsement of Brown, I would like to point out on major area of disagreement. This has very little to do with the millennial question, ironic as it may first appear. Brown's approach to Revelation is along the lines of historicism. That is, he sees the prophecies of Revelation as stretching out over the long ages of history. This, of course, helps explain his latter day view of the millennium mentioned above (in that Revelation 20 occurs after Revelation 6-19). My interpretive approach to Revelation, as is evident in each of my three most recent works is that of Preterism. That is, I believe that the judgement chapters of Revelation (Chs. 6-19) focus almost exclusively on the events associated with the first imperial persecution of Christianity (AD. 64-68), the Roman Civil Wars (AD 68-69), and the destruction of the Temple and Israel (AD. 67-70).
"Nevertheless, the differences between Brown's historicist approach to Revelation and my preteristic approach has absolutely no bearing on the postmillennial question. Either approach to Revelation could be rejected and postmillennialism would still remain. Postmillennialism is not dependent upon the book on Revelation, whereas premillennialism and dispensationalism very much are....
"Clearly Brown's historicism allows a postmillennial dominion for Christ in earth's history before His Second Advent. So does my preteristic view. Despite the confusion in the minds of some, the issues just mentioned are in two wholly different arenas of debate. The postmillennial question involves a locus of theology: eschatology; the preteristic verses the historicist approach to Revelation involves an interpretive methodology -- to one particular book of the Bible. In other words, I would have desired more access to preterism by Brown that he offers (he does approach a number of prophetic passages as preteristically relevant to the destruction of Jerusalem)."
You mentioned above that "Dr Francis Nigel Lee of Australia, is the only scholar left who still maintains the Historicist method of prophetic interpretation."
However, he is a postmillennialist. Is there no one still alive who writes from a premillennial historicist viewpoint?
You may enjoy this site: historicist.com. In addition, the IFB Reformation.org subscribes to the Historic Premillenial subdivision of Premillennialism.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
