Refuting The Lies Of Historicist

By Pastor G. Reckart
Copyright All Rights Reserved

Protestant historicist and Protestant preterist have been spreading lies about Francisco Ribera and why he wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation. They do so in an attempt to destroy any futuristic interpretation but theirs on the following 8 subjects:

1.) One day is a symbol for one year in prophecy; (which is false)
2.) The time, times, and half of time, 3 1/2 years, forty two months, and 1,260 days are fulfilled over 1,260 years beginning in 528AD and lasting until 1798 and the French Revolution; (
which is false)
3.) The pope is the little horn, the antichrist, the man of sin, and the son of perdition; (
which is false)
4.) Revelation 9 speaks of the Muslim and Turkish scourge in 528AD; (
which is false)
5.) The book of Revelation after chapter 3 covers the whole church age and not the last 7 or 3 1/2 years; (
which is false)
6.) The historicist interpretation began with Wycliffe and became the standard interpretation of all Protestant reformers: (
which is true)
7.) Preterism and Futurism were invented by Rome via the Jesuit order to create a counter-reformation against the historicist Protestant reformation (
which is false).
8.) All prophecy was fulfilled by 70AD up to Revelation chapter 20 (preterism)( which is false).

Every one of the 8 points of doctrine are false except for #6. That is true.

The preterist doctrine on fulfilled eschatology is false. Anyone who even gives this theory any consideration is dabbling in spiritualizing and esoteric speculation which will lead to going down into the garden of nuts.

The origin of the historicist interpretation was originated by John Wycliffe around 1366 after his appeal to his "holy and beloved father" the pope, was denied. He became angry and bitter, and decided to begin preaching the pope was the antichrist and Rome was the great whore of Babylon. This became the mantra of all those who departed from the Catholic church.

Over the decades and centuries the historicist interpretation was invented. It was invented by monks and priests who left the Catholic church and called themselves reformers and protestants. Reformers of what? Why the Catholic church. They had no desire to leave the papacy. They just wanted to reform that office. When they could not they called the pope the anitchrist. They wanted to reform the Catholic church, and when they could not, they called it the great whore of Babylon. Now if the papacy was the antichrist as they eventually preached, why try to reform it? And if Catholicism was the great whore of Babylon, why try to reform her? And if they were real protesters within Catholicism, why did they not admit the Catholic church was the true church, it had just gone into Babylonian captivity? Wait, didn't they do that? Didn't the historicist Protestant reformers actually compare Rome as Babylon with Israel in Babylon? Why yes they did. My point in bringing this out, is that historicist are great at fabrication of lies in prophecy interpretation, they now lie about their own history. A Protestant will always be a "protesting Catholic." And a Reformer will always be a "reformed Catholic."

Historisist claim futurism was invented by Rome. According to teachers of historicism, a secret command was passed to the Jesuit order to begin a counter reformation against the Protestants. According to the historicist, the Jesuit order then looked for a man to invent a futurist doctrine on the tribulation and the rapture. The purpose of this papal-Jesuit plot was to counter the protestant historicist interpretation of prophecy. Reformers were claiming Rome was the great whore Babylon and the pope was the antichrist. The theory spread by the historicist is that a plot was formed among the Jesuits to invent and spread a new futuristic interpretation of prophecy and thereby over time destroy the rants of the historicist against Rome and the pope.

It is claimed that Francisci Riberae Villacasti (known as Ribera), a Jesuit, volunteered to write a new prophetic interpretation that would be futuristic and prove the pope was not the antichrist and Rome was not the great whore of Babylon. His book was entitled: In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij (A Sacred Blessed John Apostle, & Evangelist Revelation Commentary).

According to present Protestant historicist who hated Rome and the pope, they also must hate a futuristic interpretation of prophecy because it takes away their accusations against the Catholic church. It makes all the claims of the Protestant reformers against Rome invalid regardless of how many railed against Rome in their disgust, passion, and anger.

Historicist claim the book by Ribera was the origin of the futuristic interpretation of prophecy. They claim it did not exist before Ribera and the Jesuits invented it. They feel very threatened by a futuristic interpretation of the book of Revelation because it proves some of their claims about Rome and the pope have been false.

Ribera’s book did not create futurism. Even if it did contain claims Rome was not the great whore and the pope was not the antichrist, such information never reached the eyes of the Protestant reformers. There is not a single Protestant reformer who cites Ribera and his doctrine. None! His name does not even appear in the writings of Manuel Lacunza, Edward Irving, or John Darby. None of them speak of Ribera and his book. Yet we know futurism as developed by Irving and Darby played a big role in making historicism more and more an unacceptable interpretation of prophecy. This, in spite of the fact that dispensationalism retained the historicist rants that the pope was the antichrist and Rome was the great whore of Babylon.

According to scholars who are closer to the old manuscripts related to the Ribera book, they say Ribera’s book was not translated into any other language. It was not published and spread throughout Europe. There were no copies of it in any of the major religious universities. And not a single preacher in Spain, Portugal, France, England, Germany; had a copy of Ribera’s book. No Catholic or Protestant church had a copy. There is no report that Jesuits printed, produced, or distributed this book to anyone. There is not a single witness that this book was given to any preacher by any man or another preacher. I have asked for proofs where this book was circulated. I have asked for proof this book influenced early dispensational writers. I have asked for proof this book influenced any dispensational writer from 1830-1910. I have yet to get one valid proof from any of the thousands or those reporting lies and falsehoods. These men feed on each other. One writes a falsehood and they copy and paste his falsehood on their web sites. They write them in their books. They never cite any facts they report. Dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture doctrine did not come from Ribera. And if they got futurism from him, why are they agreeing with the historicist that Rome is the great whore and the pope is the antichrist? What’s up with that?

If the name Jesuit does not mean futurism came from that secret order but only from a man who was a member, then use of Jesuit to trash Ribera is not valid. Let me express my self another way.

Martin Luther was a member of the Augustinian order. Was his Protestantism a plot from the Augustinian order. Many in the order helped him when he was excomunicated. Remember the Jesuit order and the Augustinian order are of similar purposes. In them both are monks. Many of their vows are similar. They both swear allegiance to Rome and the pope. If futurism came from a Catholic monk, so did historicist Wycliffeism and Lutheranism.

John Knox was a monk. He was at first a preterist.

John Calvin was a monk. He was at first a preterist.

John Wycliffe was a monk and a priest. He also was first a preterist.

Wycliffe even appealed to Rome in the matter of a monk being placed over Canterbury hall and he was replaced. His appeal was denied. It was after he appealed to his “holy and beloved Father” in Rome was denied, that he became a Protestant and invented the historicist theory of prophecy. A monk invented historicism! It was then Wycliffe began to call the pope the antichrist, saying Christ was the pope of the Church. Did he get his "the pope is the antichrist" from the writings of Catholic monk Bishop Arnuf in the 10th century? Did he borrow it from monk Joachim of Flores who wrote this in 1190? Did he get the idea from monk Archbishop Eberhard in 1240 who said the same thing? If he did not, and does not cite them as the genealogy of his historicism invention, then historicism was born around 1366 and is not the HISTORICAL interpretation of prophecy handed down by prior monks, priests, or preachers. After Wycliffe was denied his appeal to the pope, he then began to call his new Church group the “Church Of The Saved.” It was because of his influence Wycliffe led the Lolloards to write twenty five articles of their doctrines. The first article was that “the pope was the son of the antichrist.”

It appears in the cases of the reformers they wanted a rant against Rome and the pope because it suited their purpose of gathering public support. Now remember, these monk reformers once believed the Catholic church was the millennial kingdom of Christ. They once believed the pope as the Vicar of Christ had the right and duty to rule the world with a rod of iron. None of them protested about the deaths or murders of those slain by Rome in the past centuries. They all believed the Catholic church was within her rights to liquidate heritics and rid the world of those who disagreed with Rome's creeds, dogmas, rituals, and doctrines. Why in all of their monk years did they accept this shedding of blood? Now, when they are the ones disagreeing, they felt justified in these accusations because Rome with the consent of the pope was slaughtering thousands of new protesters. In every city blood was being shed. Soldiers of Rome were seeking out those who were speaking against the Catholic church and the pope. All of us can sympathize with the grieving of those who lost loved ones. We all believe having a different religion or opinion should not be the death penalty. But these same monks accepted the death penalty for those who opposed Catholicism in prior centuries. We can easily see how they could envision the pope as the antichrist and Rome as the great whore of Babylon with the new bloodshed. But still, this is no excuse to misrepresent the interpretation of prophecy.

Ribera invented futurism? That is false. He went back to the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus and took from what they wrote about the antichrist. He believed they were accurate. They believed the antichrist was future. And they did not believe the bishop of Rome was the antichrist. There is nothing in their writings that says Rome was the great whore of Babylon or the pope was the antichrist. These men say the antichrist was to come. Ribera rejected the preterist doctrine of the Catholic church. He rejected the historicist interpretations the pope was the antichrist. Was he right or wrong? Well did Luther's pope Leo turn out to be the antichrist? No. What about the pope of Wycliffe, pope Clement VI, did he turn out to be the antichrist? No! We could continue this on and on. No pope from 325AD to the present, 233 of them has ever proven to be the one (1) antichrist of prophecy. So was Ribera right that the present pope was not the antichrist? That he was still future and would come in the future? Obviously Ribera was more right than the historicist.

Now, what of historicism? Was it indeed the historical doctrine of the Church all the way back to the Apostles? No. It was developed in the minds of Catholic priests and monks. The first man to apply the man of sin to the pope was Catholic bishop Arnuf in the tenth century. Then two hundred years later, totally unconnected, Joachim of Flores in 1190 wrote of the pope as the antichrist. Then in 1240 Archbishop Eberhard made the same declaration. All of these are Catholics. They are priests and monks. Wycliffe, himself a priest and a monk, the star of the reformation, took up the chant Rome was the great whore of Babylon and the pope was the antichrist. He is the one we can credit for the beginning of the historicist claim about Rome and the pope among the reformers. No one has produced a man before him who directly influenced the reformers in the historicism philosophy.

As other men departed from the Catholic Church: John Knox, John Calvin, Martin Luther, they found company among the historicist.

Wycliffe actually believed the devil was bound in the bottomless pit from 70AD until 1000 AD and was then out and deceiving the world. In order for him to hold this doctrine of the millennial, he had to believe in the 70AD rapture and resurrection of the Church. He had to be a preterist. Only when Wycliffe lost his appeal to Rome did he become disgruntled and became a Protestant protester.

The Historicist have many strange doctrines that are now clearly seen to be false. The day year doctrine that 1,260 days means 1,260 years is no longer consider true by any man who has credible understanding in prophecy. They believe this time started in 538AD and ends in 1798AD is no longer considered credible. Here is a chart so you can see their doctrine..To see the larger chart click the image.You can see by this chart that the historicist are fabricators. Who lived in 1798 among the historicist to make this chart or teach this stuff? Wycliffe was not alive. Nor was Luther, Calvin, Knox, or any other of the Protestant reformers. This stuff is fabricated by historicist today.

They believe the great tribulation is already past. They believe the rapture can be any moment because there is no future tribulation or antichrist. They believe some seals were opened in 538AD and the last one popped in 1844. They have the false doctrine of one day equals a year. Thus in Revelation 13, 1,260 days means 1,260 years. This is how they can have 233 pope antichrists and each of them be accused of being the one (1) antichrist. How many antichrist are there in the Scriptures: 233 or 1? It is totally a false doctrine that every pope can be the one antichrist.

Futurism was the doctrine of Jesus and the Apostles. It was not invented by Ribera. It is time for those men and women who are honest to stop all the lies. To interpret prophecy correctly.

Now what of Rome and the pope? Are they evil? Why of course. They are a false religion. They are not the religion of the Church. Why? Because even Rome and her monks and priests clearly claim they are in the millennial. That the Church was raptured in 70AD. That the first Church is already in heaven. That we are now in the millennial. That Rome is the kingdom of God for the millennial. Rome by its own doctrine is not even a part of the real New Testament Church. Being a millennial religion since the Church is already in heaven, Rome is not the Church of the New Testament. It is a false church. It is a false millennial kingdom before the millennial kingdom comes. It is a bloody church. The pope is a false prophet. all of them, all 234 of them since Nicaea have been false prophets. All their monks and priests, have been false prophets.

Now in the real endtime to come, the false prophet will play a vital role in the regime of the antichrist. While we cannot say for certain, there is no reason the pope will not be that man. He fits all the requirements as being a great false prophet. We will wait on this to see. But Rome is a false kingdom of God. It is not the millennial kingdom of God.

Historicism was invented by monks and priests of Rome who left the Catholic church.


I am not a dispensationalist. I am not a pre-trib futurist.

I am a post-trib futurist. And no man has proved me wrong yet!

Pastor Reckart
July 8, 2010