8 Undeniable Errors of Futurism

Some Undeniable Arguments Against Futurism Futurism is guilty of the following charges:

1. GREAT INCONSISTENCY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF BIBLICAL SYMBOLS.

“Stars, candlesticks, the dragon or serpent, the three frogs, the seven ,heads of the Beast, the ten horns, the many waters, the woman, the lake of fire, the New Jerusalem, all these are divinely interpreted for us in the book itself, not in a literal sense, but as symbols having a distinct meaning. With regard to nearly all the rest of the figurative descriptions, we are able to find the key to their interpretation in other parts of Scripture. It has been well remarked that almost every symbol which is made use of in the Revelation has been already employed by the prophets of former days, and either interpreted by them or explained by the accomplishment of their predictions.”

“Were the candlesticks which St. John saw in vision, symbols of Churches, as explained by our Lord? Then why should not the altars, the temple, the courts, the holy city, the tribes, have also a symbolical meaning?”

— “Daniel and the Revelation,” by Rev. Joseph Tanner, p. 8.

Futurism invariably insists that any symbol is literal, when such an interpreta­tion favors its own theory, but admits the use of symbols in other cases.

2. THEIR MOST PROMINENT WRITERS ASSUME:

“A kind of sleight-of-hand exposition, which consists in adroitly substituting one thing for another, putting forward a paraphrase of their own instead of the words of Scripture, and arguing from it as if it were Scripture.”

—Joseph Tanner, p. 32.

Speaking of these sentences (Dan. 9:24), Sir Robert Anderson says: “But it may be asked, was not the Cross of Christ the fulfillment of these blessings? A careful study of the angel’s words will show that not so much as one of them has been thus accomplished. The sixty-ninth week was to end in Messiah’s death. (If the reader will refer to the words of the prophecy, he will see that the angel says no such thing.)” — Joseph Tanner, pp. 32, 33.

3. THEIR WRITERS OFTEN ASSUME A BOMBASTIC, HIGHLY ASSERTIVE, “POSITIVE STYLE OF WRITING”

for convincing the unin­formed reader, instead of the proper references, substantiated by facts. This of course, as is intended, leads to “falacious inferences.”

“In the pamphlet, ‘The Great Prophecies,’ the author thus sums up the futurist view of the Seventy Weeks which he has been setting forth: ‘Such seems to be the only fair way of interpreting this clue to all other prophecies of Israel or the Church: certainly it is the only one worth notice which has been yet proposed.’

“This is ‘an amazing statement, and, as an example of the dogmatic presump­tion of Futurist criticism, can scarcely be surpassed — as though learned and standard works, by such distinguished authors as Sir I. Newton, Professor Birk, Dr. Pusey, Mr. Elliott, Dr. Guinness, and others of the Historical school giving quite a different interpretation to the prophecy, on the lines we have followed in these pages, were not ‘worth notice’!”—Tanner, p. 261.

In other words, Futurists endeavor to make converts by means of “dogmatic assertions” instead of factual proofs.

4. MANY OF THE FOREMOST WRITERS ON FUTURISM ARE GUILTY OF “VERY GRAVE MISREPRESENTATIONS,” AS THE FOLLOWING ILLUSTRATION PROVES.

“Finally he (Elliott) drifts upon the rock on which every man who follows this false system (Protestant Historical) must inevitably be wrecked — the chronology of prophecy.”—“The Coming Prince,” by Sir Robert Anderson, p: 266.

“Many of the chronological periods in prophecy interpreted according to the historical system, so far from being wrecked, have been strikingly verified in the past.”—“Daniel and the Revelation,” by Joseph Tanner, p. 253.

I have discovered many hundreds of such periods. For illustration, see copies of my “Chronological Charts of Israel and Judah,” published by the Anglo-Saxon Federation. Also see the Works of Guinness.

5. FUTURISM TEACHES WHAT IS EVIDENTLY IMPOSSIBLE CONCERNING THE EVENTS IN THE ASSUMED LAST SEVEN YEARS.

It is quite generally known that Futurists hold the last “seven years” of Daniel’s “seventy weeks” are postponed to the end of this dispensation. For the moment let us note their extensive program for the said “seven years.” A fuller treatment than the above will soon be presented.

“We have definite grounds, therefore, for assigning the following order to the events of the last days:

1. The development of the ten Kingdoms.
2. The appearance within the territorial limits of these kingdoms of an eleventh “king,” who will subdue three of the ten, and will ultimately be accepted as Suzerain by all.
3. The making of a treaty by this king with, or in favour of the Jews. The Epoch of the Seventieth Week
4. The violation of the treaty by this king after three and a half years.*
5. “The great tribulation” of Scripture, the awful persecution of the last days, which shall continue three and a half years.
6. The deliverance of the Jews from their great enemy, to be followed by their final establishment in blesesing. The close of the seventieth week.
7. “The great and terrible day of the Lord,” the period of the seventh seal, beginning with a revelation of Christ to His people in Jerusalem, accom­panied by appalling manifestations of Divine power and ending with His last glorious advent.” — “The Coming Prince,” by Sir Robert Anderson, pp. 183-4.

We have quoted the detailed account by Anderson for the assumed last seven years of this age in order to place before you, as vividly as is possible, their claims regarding the events, which they say will occur, in said “seven years.” You will note they include the usual statements by the Futurists as to promised coming events.

6. FUTURISM GIVES STRONG AND UNDOUBTED SUPPORT TO ROMANISM AND WAS REALLY INVENTED FOR THIS PURPOSE.

Futurism does this in at least three different ways.

1. It directly advocates the same identical prophetic interpretation. Derived from the Jesuits, it could hardly be otherwise. Except the Futurist notes in Roman Catholic Bibles, your speaker never saw a bock on Futurism by a Romanist writer, save one. He owns Futurist works by some twenty (20) Protestant writers. Indeed, it is unnecessary for Romanist writers to publish such books, because Protestants are doing this work so thoroughly.
2. Futurism indirectly aids Rome by concealing from the people the fact that there exists a true Protestant interpretation of the Prophecies. This inter­pretation has existed for long centuries. Against it, the wild waves of Papal opposition have beaten in vain. The Futurists have been so active that, millions of Protestants throughout the world have never heard there is a Protestant interpretation.

(Note the formation of the ten kingdoms, the appearance of the eleventh king and his overthrow of the three kings together with his treaty with the Jews, are all made at the beginning of the said “seven years.” Such political or military changes usually require many years, but if the Futurists are right, is here accomplished immediately, because in no other way can it be three and a half years to the breaking of the supposed “treaty” with the Jews. Such quick action is contrary to history and experience.

“Rome was not born in a day” (does not seem to be believed by Futurists.)

In other words, Futurists hold that Rome at the farthest was born in a few days, yet as a fact, it took more than eight centuries for Rome to reach the summit of her power.

3. Through more than one hundred years Protestant Futurists have per­sisted in their propaganda until now they practically hold the prophetic field with no opposition. How wily and far-seeing is the Jesuit! After nearly three and one-half centuries we behold the entire Protestant world, not only acquiesc­ing in his false theory, but also spending millions of dollars in its propaganda. How long will it be before America is thoroughly Romanized?

7. FUTURISM CONCEALS THE TRUTHFUL ADMISSION FROM SAMUEL R. MAITLAND.

Heretofore we have proved that the doctrines of Futurism are derived from Papal Rome. The next quotation will be from S. R. Maitland, the man who introduced it from Romish writers into the Protestant Church.

“There is a third point on which, by your printing it in italics, I presume that you lay some stress; and by which, I suppose, you mean to raise a prejudice against the opinion which you combat.

“You say that we propose a scheme of interpretation in company with the whole host of Romish divines.

“Well, sir, as to the point in question, this is not far from the truth; and I see nothing in it to be ashamed of, though it may scare some inconsiderate reader. I apprehended that if your creed were stripped of all that you hold ‘in company with the whole host of Romish divines,’ you would cut but a poor figure as a Christian priest.” — Letter to Wm. Digby, London, MDCCCXXXI, p. 10. (Lacunza in his main authority.) Note the Following Points in This Confession and Quotation He admits he derived it from Rome. This is not far from the truth.” He boasts of this fact “I see nothing in it to be ashamed of.” He justifies his action on the ground that other things, as the “creed,” had been derived from Rome. He does not claim he accepted this teaching from the Jesuits, because it is the TRUTH, but because others had adopted their teachings, or possibly, because it is the CUSTOM. In other words, he maintains if others sin, we ought also to sin. This method of reasoning is often employed by the Jesuits.

8. SOMETHING THE FUTURISTS MUST HAVE FORGOTTEN.

Modern Futurists are usually notorious sticklers for the prophetic views of the Early Church. But there is one view which they studiously avoid and with good reason. Reference is made to the obstacle, “let” or hindrance of Paul in II Thess. 2:7.

What Was the “Let” or Hindrance?

THE VIEWS OF THE EARLY CHURCH

“If we may rely upon the concurrent testimony of the Fathers, it was the Ro­man Empire.”—Clarke’s Commentary note on 2d Thessalonians. “For nothing, they reasoned, prevented Antichrist’s development but the interven­tion of the Roman empire in its then existing state, which state they thought would pass away speedily; and that then Antichrist’s predicted short-lived reign, and his persecution of but three and a half years would follow, and be succeeded instantly by Christ’s second coming.” — Horae Apocalyptcae, Vol. 1, p. 216.

“Who is he that letteth? Who but the Roman Empire? The breaking up and dis­persion of which shall bring on Anti­christ? — Tertullian, 3d century. —Ecce Venit, by Gordon, p. 20, note.

This the predicted Antichrist, shall come when the time of the Roman Empire shall be fulfilled and the consummation of the world shall approach.” — Lactantius, 4th cent. — The Same.