Clarence Larkin
Clarence Larkin (1850 – 1924), an American Baptist Pastor, published a book entitled Dispensational Truth containing over 115 intricate charts and other illustrations. It is considered a (perhaps the) classic on Dispensationalism and continues to be reprinted today.
In this book, Larkin acknowledged the three principal Premillennial schools of interpretation of end-time prophecy, Preterism, Historicism and Futurism (all Premillennialists believe the 1000 year reign of Jesus over the earth – commonly referred to as ‘the Millennium’ – prophesied in Revelation 20, occurs only after He returns):
“Premillennialists are divided into three different “Schools of Interpretation,” which are fundamentally antagonistic, known as the “Preterist,” “Historical” and “Futurist” Schools.
The “Preterist School” originated with the Jesuit Alcazar. His view was first put forth as a complete scheme in his work on the Apocalypse, published in A.D. 1614. It limits the scope of the Apocalypse to the events of the Apostle John’s life, and affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the subsequent fall of the persecuting Roman Empire, thus making the Emperor Nero the “Antichrist.” The purpose of the scheme was transparent, it was to relieve the Papal Church from the stigma of being called the “Harlot Church” and the Pope from being called the “Antichrist.” It is a view that is now but little advocated.
The “Historical School,” sometimes spoken of as the “Presentist” scheme, interprets the Apocalypse as a series of prophecies predicting the events that were to happen in the world and in the Church from John’s day to the end of time. The advocates of this School interpret the symbols of the Book of Revelation as referring to certain historical events that have and are happening in the world. They claim that “Antichrist” is a “System” rather than a “Person,” and is represented by the Harlot Church of Rome. They interpret the “Time Element” in the Book on the “Year Day Scale.” This School has had some very able and ingenious advocates. This view, like the preceding was unknown to the early church. It appeared about the middle of the Twelfth Century, and was systematized in the beginning of the Thirteenth Century by the Abbot Joachim. Subsequently it was adopted and applied to the Pope by the forerunners and leaders of the Reformation, and may be said to have reached its zenith in Mr. Ellicott’s “Horae Apocalypticae.” It is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards Popery as exhausting all that has been predicted of the Antichristian power. It was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation, and the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to “love not their lives unto the death.” It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the Sixteenth Century.
The “Futurist School” interprets the language of the Apocalypse “literally,” except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet “future” and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks.” This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views…. The “Futurist” interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.”
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/larkin/dt/02.cfm
This is an extraordinary open admission by Larkin that Dispensationalism employs a deceitful ploy created by a Jesuit to redirect the church’s historical understanding of the identity of the antichrist as the papacy – indeed acknowledging “(Historicism) was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation … It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the Sixteenth Century.” It is wholly incredulous that Larkin – a Baptist minister – advocated Futurism. Futurism is not the “most ancient of the three” nor was “it held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church”. These claims by Larkin are wholly unsubstantiated by him; he provides absolutely no justification nor proof for these assertions. The fact is that an examination of the writings of the early Church Fathers in no way comes anywhere near to supporting the veracity of these claims.
One of the most important of the early Church Fathers, Origen of Alexandria (184 – 253), clearly stated a Historicist view of Daniel’s seventy weeks: “The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ, have been fulfilled” (Principles, 4:1:5). Moreover, the “antichrist” prophesied by John (1John 2:18) was understood by another early Church Father Irenaeus (130 – 202) to be synonymous with Paul’s “man of sin” (2Thessalonians 2:3) and Daniel’s “little horn” (Daniel 7:8).
Of all the Church Fathers only Hippolytus of Rome (170 -235) separated Daniel’s seventieth week chronologically placing its fulfilment at “the end of the whole world” (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V.). Nevertheless, his writings cannot be construed as presenting a formal presentation of the Futurist view, as Larkin and others believed.
On the basis of Daniel’s four kingdom visions (Daniel 2 & 7) the early church in general (including Hippolytus), was expecting the ruling Roman Empire (feet of iron and clay; dragon) – under which they were suffering terrible persecution – to end and be divided up into ten kingdoms (ten horns) and the antichrist (the little horn) to rise up out of the fractured empire. Being in the future to the early church, there was naturally speculation as to the fulfilment of prophecy concerning the overthrow of the Roman Empire, and the identity of the antichrist.
The first person who is recorded as having identified the papacy as the antichrist was Eberhard II, Archbishop of Salzburg (1200 – 1246). What is most significant is that this understanding of the papacy as being the fulfilment of the antichrist prophecies (within the whole schema of the Historicist view) was to be virtually unanimously held by all the Reformers; and subsequently by all church scholars for six centuries right up until the inception of Dispensationalism. All of the elements pertaining to the “little horn” match perfectly with the papacy. And all the content of Daniel’s seventieth week is readily understood as being fulfilled at the time of Christ – not the antichrist. It is a human invention to break off Daniel’s seventieth week and impose upon it an indeterminate future fulfilment. And we know historically the very human hand which penned the false interpretation – as acknowledged by Larkin himself – was Catholic and Jesuit; and it was presented in order to advance the religious and political claims of the Papacy, and destroy the gospel message of Protestants. (See WHO IS THE ANTICHRIST? which explains the Historicist’s interpretation of Daniel’s seventieth week.)
(Note: The reason perhaps why Larkin rejected Historicism in favour of Futurism is that he regarded the Baptist church as not being a Protestant church! Larkin writes in his book Why I am a Baptist:
“Almost all the Anti-papist denominations date, either directly or indirectly, from the Reformation of the sixteenth century. The Protestant Episcopal, Lutheran, and Presbyterian Churches, came from the Roman Catholic Church, and the Methodist Episcopal Church came from the Protestant Episcopal Church. The Baptists, however, do not date from the Reformation. Though Anti-papists, they are not, in the technical and historical sense of the word, “Protestants,” though they have ever protested, and do now protest, against the heresies and abominations of the Romish Church…. (Baptists) have also suffered by themselves for their peculiar views as Baptists, at the hands of Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists.”
Thus, Larkin regarded the Baptist church to have found its descent directly from the Apostles! – a view still held by a few and called “Apostolic Succession”. Contrary to Larkin’s belief, church historians in general trace the earliest (Ana) Baptist church back to the 17th Century Radical Reformers and, in particular, John Smyth in 1609 in Amsterdam. It is always a seductive idea to place one’s church in the position of being the one and only true and authentic church (c.f. the Roman Catholic Church which makes exactly the same claim citing its own “Apostolic Succession”). Indeed, it is a hallmark of every cult.
And, as he defined Historicism to be the “Protestant interpretation” (in Dispensational Truth), he was thus free to entertain otherwise; because he didn’t regard Baptists to be Protestants. He was even now jubilant that Futurism “has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants.”)