19 replies to this topic

[Fortigurn]

In the following review, prominent Futurist Thomas Ice attempts to repudiate the Historicist position by means of a number of logical fallacies, and by picking at a poorly written Historicist apologetic by one 'Steve Wohlberg'.

We shall see if Ice's criticism of Wohlberg gives him sufficient grounds on which to invalidate Historcism.

Ice opens with a tidy piece of well-poisoning:

Quote

WHEN TRUTH GETS LEFT BEHIND

Tom's Perspectives

by Thomas Ice

As sales and influence continues to grow in the Left Behind series, so does jealous opposition and criticism. Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, authors of the multi-million, number one bestsellers, do not attack anyone else’s views of Bible prophecy. They merely present their views in novel form. Opponents of this unprecedented series attempt to draw attention to their neglected views by hitching their wagons to the Left Behind series by writing critical books and articles against the novels.

That's right people, those who object to the Futurist position presented in the 'Left Behind' series are merely jealous of the success of LaHaye and Jenkins, and are hoping to cash in on that success by critizing it.

Ice introduces Wohlberg, and takes a swing at Historicism in the process:

Quote

One such critic is apparent Seventh Day Adventist Steve Wohlberg. He has come out with both guns blazing by producing at least two books, audio and video tapes, and a web site against the Left Behind series. I have a copy of his book The Left Behind Deception.1 All of this appears to be an effort to generate some kind of hearing for the faint voice known as historicism.

1  Steve Wohlberg, The Left Behind Deception: Revealing Dangerous Errors About The Rapture And The Antichrist
(Coldwater, MI: Remnant Publications, 2001).

There is no doubt that Historicism is far from the majority eschatological methodology today, but it is far more widely accepted than Ice would be aware, and its voice is far from faint.

[Fortigurn]

Quote

WHAT IS HISTORICISM?

Those who followed events surrounding David Koresh of Waco may be interested to know that he, along with Adventists, are some of the few historicists of contemporary times, even though this view enjoyed dominance from the time of the Reformation until the beginning of the twentieth century.

The first name which Ice wants to associate with Historicism is that of David Koresh, infamous nutcase of Waco. Ice wants reader to think 'cult' when they think 'Historcism'. It's an underhand trick.

Ice then goes on to provide a definition of Historicism which is a reasonable summary:

Quote

“The historicist view, sometimes called the continuous-historical view, contends that Revelation is a symbolic presentation of the entire course of the history of the church from the close of the first century to the end of time.”2

2  Merrill G. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 137.

But disappointingly, Ice will now abandon this definition, out of preference for a strawman:

Quote

This spiritualistic approach is built upon the day/year theory, whereby the 1260 days (literally 3 1/2 years) of Daniel and Revelation cover the time (1260 years) of the domination of anti-Christ over the church.  Another variation would be to apply the day/year theory to the 2300 days of Daniel 8.

Firstly, Historicism is not a 'spiritualist approach'. In fact, it is predicated on a hermeneutic which militates against allegory and spiritualism.

Secondly, Historicism is not 'built upon the day/year theory'. The principle of a day being used prophetically to represent a year is appealed to, but this is not the foundation of the methodology, and the time representation principles which Historicism employs are more complex than the simple transposition of years for days.

Thirdly, the Historicist method has never been 'built' simply as a polemic against the AntiChrist - Historicists from the earliest times have identified Daniel and Revelation as an eschatological description of the ongoing struggle between the Kingdom of God, and the kingdom of men, the obedient and the disobedient, the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.

In addition, Historicists have from the earliest times understood the typological foundation on which both Daniel and Revelation rest, a foundation well established in the Old Testament, and repeated in the New. This is the hermeneutic on which Historicism has been built.

[kabowdanan]

Historicism: A theory that stresses the significant influence of history as a criterion of value and that events are determined or influenced by conditions and inherent processes beyond the control of humans.

Futurism: A belief that the meaning of life and one's personal fulfillment lie in the future and not in the present or past.

[Fortigurn]

Not a bad observation there my friend.

[Fortigurn]

Ice continues:

Quote

Thus, the role of the historicist is to figure out when anti-Christ came to power (i.e., the Roman Church and the Papacy) and add 1260 or 2300 years and you have the time of the Second Coming and the defeat of anti- Christ. So if this time started some time during the reign of Constantine, say 350, then you add the two together and you would come out with 1610. American William Miller used a variation of the day/year theory by using the 2300 days of Daniel 8:4 as the basis for his scheme.

Firstly, Historicism does not see its role as simply addressing the time of the AntiChrist.

Secondly, many Historicists throughout the centuries have stated with the utmost clarity that the end of the times in Daniel and Revelation do not constitute the date of the second coming, or the complete destruction of the AntiChrist. Ice here demonstrates his unfamiliarity both with Historicism, and with Historicist material.

Ice then disparages the application of Historicist principles by connecting them inextricably from date setting.

Quote

Another feature of historicism is seen in their effort to correlate events of Revelation with events occurring in the present church age. As the historicist sees contemporary events creeping closer to the Second Coming of Christ in Revelation 19, this leads to further date-setting as to the precise year with their day/year scheme. Not only are Seventh Day Adventist historicists in their views of prophecy, but so are the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. This explains why Jehovah Witnesses have been such big date-setters. They have merely implemented the logic of the day/year theory.

Firstly, many Historicists have insisted that the time of Christ's return is both unrevealed and unknowable, and that the times given in Daniel and Revelation do not constitute a timeline which terminates at the return of Christ.

Secondly, not all Historicists have been date setters - many Historicists, even those who accepted the principle that the prophetic 'days' in Daniel and Revelation refer to years, have eschewed the setting of dates, even for the end of these times, on the basis that they were uncertain as to when these times commenced. Historicism therefore, does not automatically mean 'date setting', and still less does it mean 'setting dates for the return of Christ'.

Thus Ice's statement here:

Quote

This explains why Jehovah Witnesses have been such big date-setters. They have merely implemented the logic of the day/year theory.

...is less than half the truth. The application of what he calls 'the day/year theory' does not necessarily result in the setting of dates for the return of Christ.

[Fortigurn]

Another quote from Tenney follows, and Ice is quick to give it his own polemical spin:

Quote

“The historicist is constantly confronted with the dilemma of a far-fetched spiritualization in order to maintain the chain of historical events,” claims Dr. Tenney, “or else if he makes the events literal in accordance with the language of the text he is compelled to acknowledge that no comparable events in history have happened.”3

3  Tenney, Interpreting Revelation, p. 138.

The demise of historicism has resulted in less date-setting in our own day than had occurred during the era when historicism was popular.

Both of these statements are completely untrue.

Let's deal with Tenney first:

Quote

“The historicist is constantly confronted with the dilemma of a far-fetched spiritualization in order to maintain the chain of historical events,” claims Dr. Tenney...

It is a matter of confusion to me as to how Tenney can on the one hand insist that the Historicist is resorting to 'far-fetched spiritualization' of the text, and yet on the other insist that the application of this hermeneutic results in the Historicist arriving at a 'chain of historical events'.

Indeed, the spiritual/allegoricist methodology sees Revelation as communicating not a warning concerning literal historical events, but rather Divine truths concerning the Christian life, and the manner in which the Christian is to overcome the powers of spiritual evil.

An examination of the works of men such as Origen (3rd century), Eusebius (4th century), Tychonius (4th century), and Augustine (5th century), will reveal this.

Take the concept of the millennium as an example. The Historicist sees this as a literal event - a literal reign on the literal earth by Christ and his saints for a literal 1,000 years. The spiritualist/allegoricist sees this as a non-literal event - the Kingdom is a spiritual state into which the Church enters for an unspecified duration (the 1,000 years being interpreted simply as 'a very long time'). No reference is made to historical events.

A review of Eusebius' work 'History of the Church', and Augustine's work 'The City of God' (both of which interpret the Kingdom of God in terms of a new spiritual state into which the Church enters), will demonstrate this. Even Joachim of Floris (commonly - and erroneously - considered the founder of the Historicist methodology), was more spiritualist than Historicist, and accepted the same spiritualization of the Kingdom of God.

Eusebius makes it very clear that he firmly rejected a literal millennial reign by Christ, along with a literal resurrection of the dead, and insisted rather that the passages speaking of these events were to be understood in a mystical and symbolic sense:

Quote

‘Among these things, Papias says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth.’

Eusebius, citing Papias ( c. 120) ‘ Ecclesiastica Historia’,  1.154

’He [Papias] says that after the resurrection of the dead there will be a period of a thousand years, when Christ's kingdom will be set up on this earth in material form.

I suppose he got these notions by misinterpreting the apostolic accounts and failing to grasp what they had said in a mystic and symbolic language.

For he seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books. But it is partly due to him that the great majority of churchmen after him took the same view, relying on his early date; eg. Irenaeus and several others, who clearly held the same opinion.’

Eusebius, c. 330-339, 'Ecclesiastica Historia', 39.15.

Historicists, on the other hand, have been overwhelmingly pre-millennial and literal in their interpretation of these passages.

[Fortigurn]

Tenney goes on to say:

Quote

...“or else if he makes the events literal in accordance with the language of the text he is compelled to acknowledge that no comparable events in history have happened.”

Firstly, Historicists have correctly steered a middle course between the symbolical extremes of the 'spiritualist' methodology, and the literalist extremes of most modern Futurists, by coming to a robust hermeneutic which acknowledged that Divine prophecy contains both elements which are to be understood literally, and elements which are to be understood as symbolic. Historicists have never faced the false dilemma invented by Tenney.

Secondly, not only have Historicists insisted that 'comparable events in history have happened', they have predicted successfully these events, well ahead of time. This is a fact which both Ice and Tenney fail to mention, and one wonders if they are even aware of it.

Now back to Ice:

Quote

The demise of historicism has resulted in less date-setting in our own day than had occurred during the era when historicism was popular.

This is patently fase. Ironically, what Ice calls 'the demise of Historicism' has resulted in 'less date-setting in our own day' by Historicists, whereas date setting by Futurists has increased in leaps and bounds.

Here's Hal Lindsay, one of the most popular modern Futurists:

Quote

"What a way to live! With optimism, with anticipation, with excitement. We should be living like persons who don’t expect to be around much longer" (The Late Great Planet Earth [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970], p. 145).]

"Obstacle or no obstacle, it is certain that the Temple will be rebuilt. Prophecy demands it." (The Late Great Planet Earth [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970], p. 56).

"I don’t like cliches but I’ve heard it said, ‘God didn’t send me to clean the fish bowl, he sent me to fish.’ In a way there’s a truth to that" ("The Great Cosmic Countdown," Eternity, Jan. 1977, p. 21 )

"We are the generation that will see the end times... and the return of Jesus." (The 1980's: Countdown to Armageddon (New York, Bantam, 1980), back cover.

"The decade of the 1980’s could very well be the last decade of history as we know it." (The 1980’s: Countdown to Armageddon, p. 8 (emphasis is his); cf. pp. 12, 15.)

Each time he made these statements, he was utterly certain that 'This was it!'. He was convinced that the tribulation was about to start, or even that it had started.

Other Futurists have been convinced that it was equally obvious in their time:

Quote

Hal Lindsey (of Late Great Planet Earth fame) recently said, "The Battle of America has begun! So be it!"

Evangelist John Hagee told his congregation in San Antonio, Texas, "You can hear the Four Horsemen riding to Armageddon."

New York minister David Wilkerson preached on September 16, "One network anchor declared, "Think of it, our two symbols of power and prosperity have been smitten in one hour.' Little did he know, he was quoting Revelations 18:10: "Alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour is thy judgment come.'"

"By the year 2001, there will be global chaos. (It will) usher in international chaos such as we've never seen in our history.. drought, war, malaria, and hunger afflicting entire populations throughout the [African] continent..." ("On the Edge of Eternity")

Louis S. Bauman (1950), "A whole world in a very frenzy of preparation for the greatest of all wars! Such is the divine revelation of the days immediately preceding the Armageddon. No human being need be told that exactly that describes our day! (The King’s Business, 1950)

Dan Gilbert (1944), "A study of Soviet diplomacy indicates that Stalin is now in the process of building the very Empire outlined in Ezekiel 38-39." (Russia’s Next Move: In /he Light of Prophecy, pp. 9-10.)

Billy Graham (1984), "Anybody who's anybody believes that global war is imminent" (Charisma 4/84).

D. P. Holloway (1949), "That we are nearing the great battle of Armageddon there can be very little doubt." (The Pentecostal Evangel, 1949).

Dave Hunt (1990), "Somewhere, at this very moment, on planet Earth, the Antichrist is almost certainly alive - biding his time, awaiting his cue. That likelihood is based upon a sober evaluation of current events in relation to Bible prophecy. Already a mature man, he is probably active in politics, perhaps even an admired world leader whose name is almost daily on everyone's lips." [Global peace and the rise of the Antichrist, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1990), 5.]

William T. James (1997), "..the indicators strongly suggest than we stand at the very precipice of that horrific period that Jesus called the great tribulation.." [Foreshocks of Antichrist (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House, 1997).

Salem Kirban (1977), "We are already living in the AGE OF ANTICHRIST! The world is on the threshold of catastrophe. Scientific advances are really scientific tragedies that will spell chaos, confusion and terror. Within the next 5 years . . . DESIGN YOUR OWN CHILD by going to the "genetic supermarket." YOUR MIND WILL BE PROGRAMMED without your knowing it! Within the next 10 years . . . YOUR BRAIN WILL BE CONTROLLED by outside sources! YOUR MEMORY WILL BE TRANSFERRED into a live embryo. (The Rise of the Anti-Christ, Back Cover)

"Based on these observations, it is my considered opinion, that the time clock is now at 11:59. When is that Midnight hour . . . the hour of the Rapture? I do not know!" (Countdown to Rapture (1977). p. 188)

"if the coming of Jesus is as imminent as most of us think, it would seem reasonable to assume that the Anti-Christ is here.. It cannot be denied that a 'wild beast' has arisen up out of the sea of turbulent humanity and captured world attention and the admiration of revolutionaries. He is closer to the biblical pattern of the Antichrist than anyone who has appeared upon the world scene in the last decade. While we would not go so far as to call Kaddafi the Anti-Christ, he could well play some very important role in the windup of the ages." (Christ for the Nations, Oct. 1981)

Peter and Paul Lalonde, "The return of Christ is very near… this faith and this great hope are not built on a few random and isolated prophecies… It is built simply on readin the Word of God and then looking at all of the major news events of our day. You don’t need a handful of ph.D.s to do that." (The Mark of the Beast, 186)

David Allen Lewis (1966), "This is it! We are living in the final era of earth’s history. Soon will come the visible, manifest Kingdom of God" ("Creation and the End Times" Prophecy Watch International, 1996, 3)

"The Rapture will be a spiritual shock-quake producing almost unimaghinable trauma in the terrified minds of those who are left on earth. The fear of the great unwahsed massed will drive many to indanity, and many more to suicide" (Signs of his coming, ’97, 43)

Christabel Pankhurst (1923), "Current international events are assuredly finger posts to Armageddon." (The Lord Cometh, 1923)

Edgar Wheisnant (1988), on the rapture), "it’s going to be this September.. These events were never restricted from our knowledge, but only the day and hour of our Lord's return for the Church, and that event was limited only to the day and hour, and not the week, month or year." (88 Reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988, p. 2)

"Only if the bible is in error and I wrong, and I say that unequivocally. There is no way biblically that I can be wrong and I say that to every preacher in town." (88 Reasons why the Rapture will be in 1988, p. 2)

"I forgot about the extra year in zero A.D. It’s going to be in September, 1989."

The Weekly Evangel:

"We are not yet in the Armageddon struggle proper, but at its commencement, and it may be, if students of prophecy read the signs aright, that Christ will come before the present war closes, and before Armageddon ...The war preliminary to Armageddon, it seems, has commenced.’ (April 10, 1917)

"The Third Temple as outlined by Ezekiel will assuredly be rebuilt in our own generation." (Evangel, March 26, 1949, P. 10.)

"With so much military activity in and around Palestine it seems that the nations are hastening on to their last great conflict at Armageddon." (March 9, 1940, p. 11.)

"Nine countries of Eastern Europe are already united. The stage is setting for the great battle of Armageddon." ("God and the World Crisis," April, 1948)

"Atomic war will start on, before, or at least by January 1953." (Evangel, May 21, 1949, p. 2.)

Date setting continues, therefore, and it continues under the Futurist flag. There is no doubt that the greatest date setters of the 20th century have been the Futurists, and their date setting ways continue to this very day. Predictably, Ice says nothing of this.

[Fortigurn]

Now we come to Ice's treatment of the day/year principle - at least as presented by Wohlberg:

Quote

THE DAY/YEAR THEORY

Wohlberg made an amazingly errant statement about the seventy-weeks of Daniel 9:24, when he said the following: “Just about all Bible scholars accept this—that this period is actually a day for a year—representing 490 years.”4

4  Steve Wohlberg, The Antichrist Chronicles audio tape, side B.

No they don’t, because days are not mentioned in the text. For those aquatinted with Hebrew, they will notice that the same word appears twice at the beginning of verse 24. That word is “ sâbu‘îm,” meaning “seventy sevens.” This Hebrew word appears first as a plural noun, followed by the participle form, functioning as an adjective. That this Hebrew phrase should be rendered as “seventy sevens,” is unanimously agreed upon by representatives of all interpretative schools.

There is also great consensus that the “seventy sevens” refers to years, since this is what Daniel was contemplating in Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10-14, as evident in Daniel 9:2. Thus, our Lord has in mind seventy weeks of years, or 490 years.5

5 For an extensive discussion of the seventy-weeks of Daniel see Thomas Ice, “The 70 Weeks of Daniel,” in Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, editors, The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003), pp. 307–53.

It is true that the 70 weeks prophecy does not have directly in view the day/year principle. What Ice avoids, however, is that the 70 weeks prophecy is built very firmly on a time representation principle, specifically one in which long time durations are represented by shorter time durations. This 'short for long' principle, together with the broader principles of time representation as they are used in prophecy, is examined here.

What Ice fails completely to deal with is the fact that some hermeneutical principle must be applied to the 70 weeks prophecy in order for any Biblically consistent interpretation to be arrived at. That hermeneutical principle must involve the representation of long time durations with short time durations.

[Fortigurn]

In a paper written on the 70 weeks prophecy, Ice observes:

Quote

The first issue that needs to be dealt with was the meaning of the term "weeks," found at the beginning of verse 24.

For those aquatinted with Hebrew, they will notice that the same word appears twice at the beginning of verse 24. That twice used word is "sâbu‘îm," meaning "seventy sevens." This Hebrew word appears first as a plural noun, followed by the participle form, functioning as an adjective. That this Hebrew phrase should be rendered as "seventy sevens," is unanimously agreed upon by representatives of all interpretative schools. There is also great consensus that the "seventy sevens" refers to years, since this is what Daniel was contemplating in Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10-14, as evident in Daniel 9:2.

Thus, our Lord has in mind seventy weeks of years, or 490 years.

Emphasis mine. Source.

But despite the fact that Ice's paper on the 70 weeks prophecy consists of twelve articles (around 40 pages), not once does he actually explain why the 70 weeks are to be understood as 490 years. Not once does he actually identify the underlying time principle involved. Not once does he deal with the prophetic hermeneutic which actually makes sense of these 70 weeks as 490 years.

The closest Ice comes is in his fourth article (here), in which he identifies the relationship between the 70 weeks prophecy and the Sabbatical years of the Law. His analysis here, however, is not intended to identify the hermeneutic on which the 70 weeks are to be understood as 490 years, but rather to defend the Futurist argument that the 70th week is separated from the preceding 69 by an undetermined time duration of many years (many centuries in fact, more than 2,000 years).

Alas, Ice had the right tool in his hand, but used it for the wrong purpose. He never explains why in this place in Daniel he abandons the 'consistent literalism' which he elsewhere insists is the key to the correct understanding of Scripture:

Quote

Consistent literal interpretation is essential to properly understanding what God is saying in the Bible.

[...]

God's Word is to be understood through literal interpretation. It is an important foundation stone supporting the Pre-Trib Rapture, because when the Bible is consistently interpreted literally, from Genesis to Revelation, the Pre-Trib position is hard to avoid.

Source.

[Fortigurn]

In that article, Ice correctly states that certain phrases and expressions used in Scripture are to be used as referring to literal events, even when they are described using idioms or figurative/symbolic language.

The best we can say is that in Daniel 9 Ice has applied something like the hermeneutic he identifies here:

Quote

Literal interpretation recognizes that a word or phrase can be used either plainly (denotative) or figuratively (connotative). As in our own conversations today, the Bible may use plain speech, such as "He died yesterday" (denotative use of language). Or the same thing may be said in a more colorful way, "He kicked the bucket yesterday" (connotative use of language).

An important point to be noted is that even though we may use a figure of speech to refer to someone's death, we are using that figure to refer to an event that literally happened. Some interpreters are mistaken to think that just because a figure of speech may be used to describe an event (i.e., Jonah's experience in the belly of the great fish in Jonah 2), that the event was not literal. Such is not the case. A "Golden Rule of Interpretation" has been developed to help us discern whether or not a figure of speech was intended by an author:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.8

8 David L. Cooper, The World's Greatest Library: Graphically Illustrated, (Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1970), p. 11.

Literalists understand that a figure of speech is employed by Isaiah teaching that the Adamic curse upon nature will be reversed in the millennium when he says, "And all the trees of the field will clap their hands" (Isa. 55:12d). This figure is discerned by specific factors in the context in which it was written, all dealing with the removal of the curse upon nature at this future time. Even though figurative language is employed, it will literally happen in history.

Source.

What is disappointing about this is that this is exactly how Historicists have traditionally approached Revelation, and yet Ice writes them off as 'spiritualists' or 'inconsistent'. It appears that Ice has very little real familiarity with Historicist writings (revealed largely by his reliance on the comments of other Futurists concerning Historicism, rather than seeking primary Historicist sources).

But to identify the fact that he has applied this hermeneutic to the time duration given in Daniel 9, is to emphasise the fact that he has not applied the same hermeneutic to the time durations elsewhere in Daniel, as well as in Revelation (Daniel 7 and 12, Revelation 11, 12, and 13). This curious oversight is never explained.

What is also disappointing is that Ice - despite correctly identifying this hermeneutical principle - fails completely to apply it either to the 70 weeks prophecy, or to the time statements in Daniel and Revelation.

At the end of the day, Ice is prepared to accept the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 as referring to 490 years, without explaining in any way the hermeneutic by which he has come to this conclusion.

[Fortigurn]

Ice continues his objections to Wohlberg:

Quote

Wohlberg just declares that days are used for years in Daniel 9, when there is no such thing at all in that text. After having declared that, he says, “this is where we get the prophetic principle that days are to be understood as years.”

If it is to be gotten anywhere, it is pulled out of thin air, since nowhere does the text of Holy Scripture ever say what he says. Yet the whole theory of historicism, which he is eager to advance, is totally dependant upon a dictum that is found nowhere in the Bible. No wonder biblically knowledgeable Christians have totally given up on the historicist system.

Firstly, Wohlberg is wrong in identifying Daniel 9 as the source of 'the prophetic principle that days are to be understood as years'. For an examination of the time representation principles of which the representation of a year with a day is simply one small part, see here.

Secondly, Ice is just as wrong to say that the concept of the representation of a year with a day is 'pulled out of thin air, since nowhere does the text of Holy Scripture ever say what he says'. The familiar passages in Numbers and Ezekiel are cases in point here, as likewise the 'today, tomorrow and the next day' with which Christ refers to his earthly ministry.

Thirdly, Ice is also wrong to say that 'the whole theory of historicism... is totally dependent on a dictum to be found nowhere in the Bible'. Historicism rests fimly on the typological principles of Divine revelation which are found from Genesis to Revelation, and which - when applied consistently throughout Scripture to the key prophetic passages - result in the Historicist understanding of eschatology.

These typological principles include the time representation principle already mentioned, a hermeneutic applied consistently by Historicism, but avoided completely by Futurists such as Ice.

[Fortigurn]

Ice next takes gleeful aim at a bad slip by Wohlberg, with reference to the 70 weeks:

Quote

THE GAP

As if Wohlberg’s previous error was not enough, he then proceeds to heap factual error upon factual error, from which he builds his false arguments against the Left Behind theology. Wohlberg says the following:

Quote

Guess who was one of the very first scholars to slice Daniel’s 70th week away from the first 69 weeks, sliding it down to the end of time? It was the Evil Empire’s very own Francisco Ribera! Ribera’s primary apparatus was the seventy weeks. He taught that Daniel’s 70th week was still in the future. . . .

This is exactly the scenario used by Hal Lindsey and a multitude of other current prophecy teachers. . . . this GAP idea originated with the Jesuits.6

6 Wohlberg, The Left Behind Deception, p. 72.

His wild conspiracy theory is bad enough, but he should at least attempt to base it upon accurate historical facts. In fact, it is doubtful whether Jesuits ever held a gap view. What is not in doubt is that the pre-Catholic, early church held just such a view.7

7 For an extensive documentation of this see Ice, “The 70 Weeks of Daniel,” End Times Controversy, pp. 349-53.

This is even admitted by fellow Seventh Day Adventist, LeRoy Froom in his The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, that Hippolytus (c. A.D. 200) “ separates by a chronological gap from the preceding sixty-nine weeks, placing it just before the end of the world.”8

8 Le Roy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, 4 vols, (Washington: Review and Herald, 1950), vol. I, p. 277.

Again, both Wohlberg and Ice are in error here.

Firstly, Ice is correct to criticise Wohlberg's claim that the gap between the 69th and the 70th week was first introduced by Hippolytus. There is no doubt that Hippolytus did exactly this.

But secondly, Ice is just as wrong as Wohlberg. Ice fails to tell us exactly what Hippolytus actually said, and why he came to the conclusion that the final week was to be separated from the other 69. Ice also fails to identify the fact that this gap introduced by Hippolytus does not actually agree with the standard Futurist interpretation - Hippolytus was no Futurist as Ice would have him be.

What Ice fails to tell us (probably because he has absolutely no idea), is why Hippolytus separated the last week from the other 69.

The reason was that Hippolytus (like many of the early Fathers), believed in the 7,000 year plan idea, and that the time was coming to an end. Hippolytus actually believed that the world would end in 500 AD.

Now Hippolytus also believed that the 70 weeks prophecy ended at the return of Christ, and since he could see that the other 69 weeks had already been fulfilled in Christ's ministry, he had no way of accounting for the fact that the last week had not yet occurred, other than separating it from the others, and placing it some time in the future.

Modern Futurists do not believe that the world ended in 500 AD, and modern Futurists do not separate the last week from the first for this reason. Ice is on a hiding to nothing by trying to recruit Hippolytus to his cause.

[Fortigurn]

Next we come to AntiChrist:

Quote

ANTICHRIST

Wohlberg continues to compound error when he says, “The current wildly popular idea of a one-man Antichrist like Nicolae Carpathia who comes only after the Rapture is a new doctrine, at least when it comes to Protestants.”9

9 Wohlberg, The Left Behind Deception, p. 40.

He is technically correct, but his overall emphasis is not.

Ice has to admit that Wohlberg is 'technically correct', because Wolhberg is in fact entirely correct in saying that the 'idea of a one-man Antichrist like Nicolae Carpathia who comes only after the Rapture is a new doctrine' is new to Protestants.

Ice continues:

Quote

The idea of a “one-man Antichrist” is the oldest view recorded in church history. It was overwhelmingly the view of the early church. Bernard McGinn has written a book on the history of the church’s beliefs about antichrist.

This is true.

Quote

It is clear that the only kind of antichrist that the church believed in for the first 500 years was that of “a
one-man Antichrist like Nicolae Carpathia.”

This is not. The AntiChrist described by Ice and his fellow Futurists bears almost no resemblance to their mythical 'Nicolae Carpathia', save for the fact that he is a single man.

[Fortigurn]

Ice continues:

Quote

“Antichrist was identified with a final non- Christian World Conqueror,” notes McGinn, “who would be a mixture of persecuting tyrant and deceiver (false prophet and magician), while antichrists were conceived of as his predecessors and assistants—Roman officials, and later Jews as well.”1010 Bernard McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1994), p. 78.

A quick review of the Early Fathers on this issue will prove McGinn hopelessly astray here.

DATE (AD)	NAME	MAN OF SIN	FALLING AWAY	TEMPLE OF GOD	THAT WHICH RESTRAINS
180	Irenaeus	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Jewish Temple	Roman Empire
185	Tertullian	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire
200	Hippolytus	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Jewish Temple	Roman Empire
300	Victorinus	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire
306-373	Ephraem	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire
315-386	Cyril	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Jewish Temple	Roman Empire
389	Chrysotom	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire
340-397	Ambrose	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire
340-420	Jerome	Professedly a Jew	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire
354-430	Augustine	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire
393-457	Theodoretus	Apostate Christian	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire
438-533	Remigius	Unavailable	Unavailable	Unavailable	Roman Empire
500’s	Primasius	A single apostate	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire
520	Andreas	A single apostate	Christian apostasy	Christian Church	Roman Empire

[Fortigurn]

In the chart above (which deals with the exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2 by the Early Fathers), it is transparently obvious that although the Early Fathers believed that AntiChrist would be a single invidual, their beliefs on AntiChrist were vastly different to those alleged by McGinn.

McGinn says:

Quote

“Antichrist was identified with a final non- Christian...

But as you can see, the Early Fathers identified AntiChrist overwhelmingly as a Christian.

McGinn says:

Quote

a final non- Christian World Conqueror,”...

But as you can see, the Early Fathers said no such thing - indeed, they were certain that AntiChrist would come after the fall of the Roman empire. Of the Early Fathers, none of them said he would be a 'world conquerer' - the most any of them ever claimed was that he would over throw three kings, certainly not the entire world.

McGinn says:

Quote

...“who would be a mixture of persecuting tyrant and deceiver (false prophet and magician)...

This is more or less accurate, but fails to take into account the fact that the majority of the Early Fathers believed that the AntiChrist would emerge from within the Church, and that he would head a Christian apostasy - of which McGinn conveniently says nothing (and on which count modern Futurists are equally silent).

[Fortigurn]

Back to Ice:

Quote

In fact the view of a personal antichrist has been the dominate view throughout most of church history.11


11 See McGinn, Antichrist for documentation.

This is also inaccurate. The dominant view has most definitely been the view which sees the papacy as AntiChrist - a view which started at least as early as 991 AD, and was developed tremendously by the early Reformers. At this time the 'single apostate' view dwindled dramatically, and became restricted almost entirely to the Catholic Church.

Ice again:

Quote

The idea that antichrist is not a person, but successive popes is a late view in church history.

If you call 991 AD 'late', then I suppose so.

Quote

It is interesting to learn that historicism is generally thought to have first been developed, not by Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers as Wohlberg wants people to think, but by Catholic Joachim of Fiore in the later half of the twelfth century.12

12 Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), p. 18.

Because Ice defines Historicism merely as 'believing in the year/day principle', he errs dramatically here.

[Fortigurn]

It's definition time:

• Praeterist: One who believes that all or almost all prophecy has been fulfilled, that AD 70 was the date of the fulfillment of the majority of prophecy, and that there is an absence of prophetic guidance between AD 70 and the return of Christ.
  
  
  
• Futurist: One who believes that most of prophecy has yet to be fulfilled, and that there is an absence of prophetic guidance between AD 70 and the return of Christ.
  
  
  
• Historicist: One who believes that the Bible contains prophetic guidance for all ages from the first century up to the time of Christ’s return. The Historicist rejects the idea of any absence of prophetic guidance between the birth of Christ and the return of Christ.
  
  
  
• Allegoricist/Spiritualist: One who believes that prophecy contains allegories or spiritual lessons, the principles of which are applicable to the lives of Christians in all ages, but which do not reveal literal events.

Note the true definition of 'Historicism'. A number of the pre-Christian Jews, as well as all of the Early Fathers, were Historicists.

[Fortigurn]

Contrary to what Ice claims, Historicism was not first developed 'by Catholic Joachim of Fiore'. And even if Ice had restricted his definition of 'Historicism' to 'believing in the year/day principle', he would still have been astray, since he would necessarily have had to classify as Historicists men who lived long before Joachim.

Take the three and a half days in Revelation 11, for example - these days were interpreted as years at least as early as the fourth century.

For evidence of this, I quote now from Elliott's work ('Horae Apocalypticae', volume III, page 279, fifth edition, 1862). He provides a list of no fewer than nine expositors from the 4th to the 14th centuries who interpreted the passage in this way.

Quote

1. Tichonius. "Vident de populis, &c., corpus eorum per dies tres et dimidium; id est annos tres et menses sex." He adds: "Quomodo autem potuerunt habitantes terram de duorum nece gaudere, cum in una civitate morerentur, et munera invicemmittere, si tres dies sint: qui, antequam gaudeant de nece, contristabuntur de resurrectione." Hom. viii.

2. Prosper. Demidium Temporis, Cap. 16: "Tres et dimidius dies tribus annis et sex mensibus respondent, quibus potestas erit Antichristo; eiusque suppletis corum oculis inimicorum Helias et Enoch ascendentes in coelum ibunt." B.P.M. viii. 48. - Prosper was a Notary of Pope Leo the Great; and some say, Bishiop of Riez, or Rhegium. He too was an Augustinian; speaks of the contemporary Arians as antichristians; wrote against the Pelagians, and quotes Tichonius. c. 5, 13. See ibid. Prolegom. and Cave.

3. Primasius. "Tres dies et dimidium possumus intelligere tres annos et sex menses; quos in ultima hebdomada Danielis quoque prophetia praenuntiat affuturos. More Scripturae loquentis utentes, quod dictium legius de quadraginta diebus quibus exploratores terram Channan circuierunt, anus pro die reputabitur; ut hic, versa vice, dies pro anno positus agnoscatur." B.P.M. x. 314.

4. Ambrose Ansbert. "Hoc in loco, per trium dierum spatium ac dimidii, triennii et sex mensium summa describitur: more videlicet Scripturae loquentis; quae aliquando, sicut a toto partem, sic plreumque a parte totum oastendit." He then refers to the judgment on Israel, in connexion with the spies' report, Numb. xiv.; "Annus vobis pro die reputabitur," just like Primasius: and adds; "sicut ibi pro diebus anni, ita hic pro annis dies ponuntur." B.P.M. xiii. 525.

5.  Haymo, Bishop of Halberstadt; who died AD 853 (Cave.)  "Tribus diebus et dimidio; id est tribus annis et dimidio: quibus regnabit Antichristus.  Ita enim hic dies pro anno positus est, sicut et in V.T."  He refers to the case of Ezekiel, as well as to that of the Israelitish spies, in corroboration.

6.  Berengaud.  "Possumus per tres dies et dimidum tres annos et semis intelligere, quibus ii duo prophetae paedicaturi sunt."

7.  Bruno Astensis.  "Videntur per tres dies et dimidium; id est toto tempore regni Antichristi...  Quod autem dies pro anno ponantur, audi quid Ezechieli Dominus dicat; 'Et assumes iniquitatem domus Judae quadraginta diebus, diem pro anno'".  BPM  xx. 1695.

8.  To whom let me add the later authority of Albertus Magnus, Bishop of Ratisbonin the xiiith century, who died AD 1280.  "Et post dies tres et dimidium: id est post tres annos et dimidium, post mortem Antichristi.  Sic sumitiur dies pro anno."
He adds however, as an alternative, and more probable solution, that the resurrection of the Witnesses was to be on the fourth day from their death.  In Apoc. xi.

Also that of De Lyra in the xvith century; who speaks of the two slain Witnesses being raised up "post tres annos et dimidium, a morte civili, in medio civitatis magno; id est congregationis Antichristo adhaerentis."  A passage referred to by me, Vol. ii. 436, in my account of the Witnesses' death and resurrection.

Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume 3, page 280, fifth edition, 1862

According to the definition of Historicism invented by Ice, all of these men were Historicists, and at least six of them preceded Joachim. Ice needs to revise his definition - even a false definition of Historicism wins him no points.

[Fortigurn]

Says Ice:

Quote

In fact, it was the Catholic Joachim who taught that the pope would be the Antichrist.1313 R. H. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1913), p. 23.

What Ice does not mention (probably because he simply didn't know), was that Joachim was preceded in this interpretation by Arnulf:

Quote

991:  Arnulf:

‘Looking at the actual state of the papacy, what   do we behold?     John [XII] called Octavian, wallowing in the sty of filthy concupiscence,   conspiring against the sovereign whom he had himself recently crowned; then   Leo [VIII] the neophyte, chased from the city by this Octavian; and that   monster himself, after the commission of many murders and cruelties,   dying by the hand of an assassin.    …

    ‘If, holy fathers, we be bound to weigh in the balance the lives, the morals,   and the attainments of the meanest candidate for the sacerdotal office,   how much more ought we to look to the fitness of him who aspires to be the   lord and master of all priests!’    Arnulf, Bishop of Orleans, speech at the Gallican Synod, Council of Rheims,   991

‘Yet how would it fare with us, if it should happen   that the man the most deficient in all these virtues, one so abject as not to   be worthy of the lowest place among the priesthood, should be chosen to fill   the highest place of all?    What would you say of such a one, when you behold him sitting upon the throne   glittering in purple and gold?     Must he not be the “Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing   himself as God?’’    Verily such a one lacketh both wisdom and charity; he standeth in the temple   as an image, as an idol, from which as from dead marble you would seek counsel.’    Arnulf, Bishop of Orleans, speech at the Gallican Synod, Council of Rheims,   991

[Fortigurn]

Very likely, Ice is also ignorant of the incredibly telling words of Theodoretus, long before the event:

Quote

393-457:  Thedoretus:

‘What the Apostle calls the Temple of God are the churches   in which this impious wretch will occupy the first rank, the first place,   striving to get himself accepted as God.’

Theodoretus, note on 2 Thessalonians 2, chapter 2, 393-457

Was Theodoretus accurate or not? Did such a man appear?