LET'S TALK ABOUT IT.
For centuries, the dominant Protestant understanding of prophecy was Historicism.

This was the prophetic lens used by the Reformers — men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, William Tyndale, and many others.

Historicism teaches that Daniel and Revelation unfold progressively across the course of Christian history. The kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome are not isolated symbols — they form a continuous prophetic timeline that stretches into the Christian era.

Through this framework, the Reformers identified the Papal system as the prophetic “little horn” of Daniel 7 and the sea beast of Revelation 13 — the Antichrist power operating within history.

This was not a marginal opinion. It was the mainstream Protestant position.

And it was precisely this identification that placed the Papacy under intense prophetic scrutiny during the Reformation.

In response, alternative interpretive models emerged during the Counter-Reformation — pushing the Antichrist either into the distant future (Futurism) or entirely into the distant past (Preterism).

Both approaches remove the Papacy from the prophetic spotlight.

Historicism does not.

It presents prophecy as God’s unfolding warning through history — identifying powers clearly and preparing believers for what lies ahead.

The question is simple:

Will we interpret prophecy through the lens of the Reformers — or through systems developed after they had already identified Rome as the Antichrist?