I am familiar enough from Protestant Historicism to reject it even though I am a Protestant and admirer of Martin Luther. Your view has been proven false on several occasions by your earlier leaders predicting the end of the world, which never happened.
True Protestants protest Papal falsehoods - they don't defend Jesuit nonsense as you so passionately defend 16th century Jesuit Luis Alcazar's Preterist ideas. Miller was never my leader nor a prophet, but a pioneer who fought to awaken a reluctant "post-millennium return of Jesus" Christian world to the reality of His soon coming, which it didn't even begin to accept until Billy Graham began preaching it. Miller confused the "sanctuary" of Daniel 8 with the Earth, as many around the world did - a logical mistake for those who do not understand that Daniel was referring to the Heavenly Sanctuary in which is our High Priest.
An example of this comes from post-reformation Britain in the works of Charles Wesley, who predicted that the end of the world would occur in 1794. He based this date on his analysis of the Book of Revelation. How did that turn out? Then you have Adam Clarke, whose commentary was published in 1831, proposed a possible date of 2015 for the end of the papal power. Guess what? We still have a pope.
None of the Reformers claimed to be prophets, just sincere Bible believers. Will you throw out Matthew, Mark, and John - men who remained in the bosom of Jesus for 3 1/2 years and STILL got stuff wrong? No, you'll promote them as prophets, but condemn the Reformers who had only the Word constructed of leather and paper and vellum to embrace.
In 19th-century America, William Miller, a renown Historicist, proposed that the end of the world would occur on October 22, 1844, based on a historicist model used with Daniel 8:14. Of course the idiot didn't realize that this passage dealt with the cleansing of the temple following Antiochus IV Epiphanes abominable sacrifice of a pig on the alter in the 160s BC.
I could shred your argument six ways to Sunday about "Antiochus the Chump" as being the Little Horn of Daniel 8, but that's another discussion. Again, Miller was no prophet nor was he an "idiot", just someone who got a little ahead of God in his eschatology.
Had Miller recognized history, he would have saved himself a great deal of embarrassment, don't you think Gapper?
It was a mistake in hermenuetics, not a misunderstandings about Antiochus the Chump which led to the Millerite disappointment, and the only gaps I recognize are the gaps in Jesuit Preterist logic.
Miller's historicist approach to the Book of Daniel spawned a national movement in the United States known as Millerism. After the Great Disappointment some of the Millerites eventually organized the Seventh-Day Adventist Church which is where we find you Mr. Gapper. The SDA continues to maintain a historicist reading of biblical prophecy as essential to its eschatology. Millerites also formed other Adventist bodies, including the one that spawned the Watch Tower movement, better known as Jehovah's Witnesses, who hold to their own unique historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy. Since the spawning of the SDA church was ill-informed, why should we trust your views now?
Again, the only gaps I see are gaps in you Jesuit Preterist logic. Peter was a racist. Paul was a murderous zealot. And NONE of the disciples believed Jesus rose on the third day. A person should be judged on the truth they carry now, not the mistakes abandoned after learning from them. Doctrines stands or fall based on Biblical scrutiny, and your Jesuit Preterism falls on its face like a worn out Hemi with fouled plugs and bad gas.
While I admire Luther and the reformers in general because of my German heritage and because my forefathers came from the Protestant camp which was greatly persecuted by the Catholics of that day, I have to reject their historicist belief system. My ancestors were Lutheran (who are largely preterists today), and Quakers as William Penn is my 2nd cousin (10X removed). My 10X GGF was one of the Original 13 founders of Germantown/Pennsylvania, so I come from that camp, but I digress.
It's no secret that Protestantism is going home to mother, and has been marching there for some time. Having a knowledge of Antichrist doctrine and corrupted Protestant doctrine does not amount to a knowledge of Protestant Historicism.
Luther, and many of the other reformers were in life and death struggles with the Catholics thus this greatly influenced their thinking that the RCC was the Beast and the AC would be a pope. It is natural to internalize things when you are enduring great suffering and to assign bogyman status to your tormentors, so I get it.
At least they had the wherewithal to not succumb to the eschatological Stockholm Syndrome with which Jesuit Preterists suffer. You guys are so naive to think a religious system that can't even gain a proper position on something so elementary as "sola Scriptura" was somehow able to get end times prophecy right (well, not really, since fellow Jesuit Ribera authored Futurism).
Bottom line is this, historicism and futurism deny Christ's prediction that He would return to His generation to repay them for crucifying Him. Both deny the comfort and vengeance promised the Thessalonians and take this for themselves. Both keep the OT saints in Hades apart from God even though Christ restored their connection to God. Both see a future return of Christ to punish some future wicked generation without being able to tell us how this future wickedness could be worst than the greatest sin ever committed, that being the Murder of God's only Son. As I said, the Jesuits did not invent Preterism, Christ and His disciples did and many of the wiser early church leaders held this view. Sadly, as the church aged, many lost this early belief system rooted in the Gospels and went off following modern traditions of man.
Protestant Historicism denies nothing while Jesuit Preterism denies both Biblical truth and common sense.