Monthly Archives: February 2013

Why is Current Prophecy Teaching About Antichrist Unbiblical – Part 2

Apologetics, ,

Why is Current Prophecy Teaching About Antichrist Unbiblical – Part 2

“Rome’s answer to the Protestant Reformation was twofold, though actually conflicting and contradictory. Through the Jesuits Ribera, of Salamanca, Spain, and Bellarmine, of Rome, the Papacy put forth her futurist interpretation. Almost simultaneously Alcazar, Spanish Jesuit of Seville, advanced the conflicting preterist interpretation.” (1)

Both of these interpretations were intended to counter the historical interpretation of the Reformers. Although they were actually opposite and conflicting, they were both designed to take the attention away from applying prophecy to the papacy and placing the fulfilment of prophecy either in the past (preterism), stopping short of Papal Rome’s career, or in the distant future (futurism) so that it leaps over papal dominance and squeezes Antichrist into a short period of time, just before the consummation of the ages – therefore often called the ‘gap theory’.

The Reformers’ interpretation of the vision of Babylon and the Beast of Revelation 17 rested clearly on the Roman Church – “the apostate woman, the Roman Church; the city – seven-hilled Rome; the many waters, the many peoples; the Beast, the fourth, or Roman beast of Daniel 7:7; the sixth head, the Caesars and the seventh, the popes”. (2)

“Roman Catholics as well as Protestants agree as to the origin of these interpretations. The Roman Catholic writer G.S. Hitchcock says:
• “The Futurist School, founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591, looks for Antichrist, Babylon, and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, at the end of the Christian dispensation.
• “The Praeterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains the Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem, or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D.” (G.S. Hitchcock, The Beasts and the Little Horn, p. 7.)” (3)

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591)
“About 1590 Ribera published a 500-page commentary on the Apocalypse, denying the Protestant application of Antichrist to the Church of Rome. Ribera’s death at fifty-four halted the preparation of further commentaries. Those that were printed passed through several revised editions—at Salamanca about 1590, Lyons and Antwerp in 1593, Douay in 1612, and Antwerp in 1603 and 1623.

“Since its inception his basic thesis has been virtually unchanged. He assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John’s own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half year’s reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the Second Advent. He taught that antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world—all in this brief space of three and one half years!

• Places Antichrist’s coming at the close of the seals
• Places trumpets under the seventh seal
• Death of the witness in literal time
• Antichrist’s persecutions last three and one half years
• Judgements upon Rome for ultimate apostasy—in Revelation 17

Ribera admits the woman to be not only pagan Rome but also Rome Christian after a future falling away from the pope. (Francisco Ribera, Sacram Beati Ioannis … Apocalypsin Commentarij, chap. 14, pp. 282, 283).

• Repudiates Augustinian earthly millennium
• Antichrist’s reign counted by literal days
• Babylon is Rome past and future, not present” (4)

Alcazar’s preterist interpretation fell into disrepute and is not therefore relevant for this discussion.

What is the relevance of this information for the Church today?
1. The motive for Ribera’s interpretation of prophecy was not to interpret Scripture accurately but to take the attention away from the Reformers’ identification of the Papacy and the Roman Catholic system as the Antichrist and the Scarlet Women of Revelation 17 and place it on some fictional character far in the future.

2. The Reformers suffered and paid a high price for believing and propagating the truth of salvation by grace through faith alone and for making the Scriptures available to the man in the street.

3. The Roman Catholic Church spilt the blood of millions of Protestant Christian martyrs during the Inquisition – in the name of the Church!

4. The Protestant Church has now joined hands with the Roman Catholic system in propagating the same lies Rome used to turn the attention of the Christian world away from their apostasy, lies and wickedness with which they control the consciences of millions of devotees.

5. In the name of unity – the large part of the Church of the Lord Jesus has climbed into bed with the great prostitute of Revelation 17:3-6. This what Jesus has warned: “Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes.” Revelation 18:4,5.

(Quotes 1-4 taken from the website http://gospel-herald.com/futurism_history.htm, (captured 01/10/2102), (LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic faith of Our Fathers, The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, Vol. 2, Review and Herald, Washington, D.C., 1948, excerpted, pp. 464-532.)
(Please refer to the article “Who is the Man Doomed to Destruction?” for a brief examination of this interpretation).

Why is Current Prophecy Teaching About Antichrist Unbiblical – Part 1

Apologetics, , ,

Why is Current Prophecy Teaching About  Antichrist Unbiblical – Part 1

Before we can understand what the Bible teaches about the end times, it would be of value to look at a summary of the history of current popular interpretation so that we can understand its origin. How did this way of understanding the events surrounding the second coming of Jesus come about? Has this any bearing on the accuracy of this interpretation?

“The papacy suffered a major setback through the Reformation. The help of the monastic orders was sought, but they were so decadent that they had lost the respect of the people. The Dominicans and Franciscans, peddling relics and indulgences, had become the butt of ridicule and mockery.

At this crisis Loyola and his companions offered their services, to go wherever the pope should designate, as preachers, missionaries, teachers, counsellors, and reformers. A new order was created, authorized in 1540, which infused a new spirit and spread rapidly in Europe. Like a wounded giant, Romanism arose in desperation to recover her lost prestige and shrunken territory.” (1)

This movement grew in power and influence across Europe. Its representatives preached in streets and market places like the Protestants did and thousands flocked to hear them. They became eloquent preachers. They were among the best teachers of the land and became entrenched in the universities of Europe. Even Protestants sent their children to them “because of the scholastic progress they could make.”

There was irreconcilable conflict between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. “The two systems stood forth in absolute and irreconcilable opposition at the Council of Trent, where the council expressly condemned what the Reformation taught.” (2)

“The Council of Trent—beginning in 1545 under Paul III and ending in 1563 under Pius IV—crystallized its actions into decrees that became permanent law of the Catholic Church. Reformation truths were there rejected and stigmatized as pestilential heresy. In one sense Trent became the culmination of the Counter-Reformation. It was Rome’s definitive answer to the Reformation.” (3)

For a time after the Reformation, Catholic leadership, mindful of the Reformer’s views of the papacy as Antichrist, avoided preaching on the books of Daniel and Revelation. They were not ready to take on the Reformers damning interpretation of Antichrist which was undermining the foundation of the papacy and the Catholic Church. The Reformers, with pulpit and pen, were forcefully proclaiming that the papacy was the Antichrist of prophecy. Their influence was so great that Rome had to counter attack or lose the battle.
“From the ranks of the Jesuits two stalwarts arose, determined to lift the stigma from the Papacy by locating Antichrist at some point where he could not be applied to the Roman church. It was clearly a crisis of major proportions.” (4)

(Quotes 1-4 taken from the website http://gospel-herald.com/futurism_history.htm, (captured 01/10/2102), (LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic faith of Our Fathers, The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, Vol. 2, Review and Herald, Washington, D.C., 1948, excerpted, pp. 464-532.)
To be continued…

How to Deal With Enemies – Part 1

Christian Life, ,

How to Deal With Enemies – Part 1

“To you who are ready for the truth, I say this: Love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst.” Luke 6:27 (The Message)

Here it comes, the part of the disposition of kingdom people that cuts deep into the soul and exposes the self-centredness that is the operating system of the human heart. How is it possible to treat an “enemy” with kindness and to turn a potentially explosive situation into an opportunity to put God’s splendour on display (Isaiah 61:3)? Jesus outlines the steps to turn conflict into compassion and to defuse hatred and enmity. Retaliation fuels the fire. What will extinguish it?

The first thing is prayer – changing my awareness from myself to God and placing Him in the centre of the situation. We have no natural capacity to love our enemies, but our Father’s disposition is compassion. As we become aware of Him in these circumstances, we step aside and give Him space to do His work in our hearts, both in our enemy’s and ours, to remove the heat and turn on the light! The most important thing is that we do not elevate ourselves above our enemy in our hearts, thinking we are better than he. To hold an attitude of contempt is to place ourselves outside of God’s grace.

Step two is to bring our enemy and us onto level ground. As much as our attitude of contempt must be changed, so must our enemy’s. How do we do that? By turning the other cheek and by giving away our “tunic”, i.e., by teaching our enemy to treat us with dignity. “To turn the other cheek” is to force our opponent to slap us with his “clean” right hand, on our left cheek, making him acknowledge that we are his equal. It is not about become someone’s doormat. Jesus never condones that attitude. If we humble ourselves, it must be our choice, not someone else’s force.

Thirdly, we must hold our possessions lightly. They must never become a source of conflict. They are on loan from God to be used to help others, not to be enslaved by them. How we handle our “stuff” is an exposure of what we regard as our source. If we willingly give and share, we are bearing witness to our trust in God, not in what we own. Our “stuff” is there to create and enhance our connectedness with people and our recognition of their need. Our attitude to others must never be dictated by their attitude toward us but by the generosity of God’s attitude to all people.

How different the outcome of our conflicts would be if we applied Jesus’ simple, but not easy, principles. The instruction is clear, but our proud hearts block the way to living like Jesus did.

The Final Nail in Antichrist’s Coffin – Part 2

Apologetics,

THE FINAL NAIL IN ANTICHRIST’S COFFIN – PART TWO

We need to examine the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the humanity of Jesus to determines whether or not it is consistent with the teaching of Scripture and how it stands up to John’s “antichrist test”.

The Church was faced with a problem. How could Jesus be born with stained flesh? To solve the problem, they developed the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This does not refer to Jesus being born as a sinless baby but to Mary, the mother of Jesus. How could Mary, the “mother of God’ be sinful? So they taught that she was miraculously preserved from sin by having a sinless nature, different from us. And so it follows according to this doctrine, that Jesus took His mother’s nature, not ours.

This is a serious deviation from the clear teaching of Scripture and the main criterion by which the spirit of antichrist is identifiable.

But this also poses a problem. If Mary had a sinless nature, why did she confess the need for a Saviour? In her song, when she met Elizabeth after the angel Gabriel’s visit, she said, “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour…” Luke 2:46b, 47 (NIV). This, in itself, nullifies their claim that she was immaculately conceived.

“In 1854, with the Bull Ineffabilis, (Pope) Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, ‘…We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and, for this reason, must be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful.” (www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm23.htm).

Said Cardinal James Gibbons, (1834-1921) an American Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church: “We affirm that the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, by being born of a virgin, took to Himself, from her maternal womb, a human nature of the same substance as hers. She had been immaculately conceived.”

Mariology progressed to the point where the Church taught that she takes the place of Jesus as the only mediator between man and God, (but the apostle Paul taught: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” 1 Timothy 2:5 (NIV)), and becomes responsible for man’s salvation, (but, according to the writer to the Hebrews “Although He was a son, He learned obedience from what He suffered and, once made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him.” Hebrews 5:8 (NIV)).

“Through Mary’s manifold intercession she is now our advocate, helper benefactress and mediatrix who can bring us the gifts of eternal salvation and deliver our souls from death.” (The Catechism of the Catholic Church, page 252).

Without a doubt, the Reformers had a watertight case for the identity of the fourth beast of Daniel 7:7; 23-25 — the Roman Catholic Church; and the antichrist — the Papacy. In their arrogant claim to be the Vicar of Christ, the popes have taken the place of God in His temple, the church, have claimed revelation which contradicts His Word and have caused the deaths of millions both through vicious persecution of the saints and by the false doctrines which have deceived “the faithful” and led them to put their faith in Mary and not in Jesus Christ, who is the only Saviour of sinners and the only way to the Father.

The Apostle Paul had this to say about anyone who preached a gospel different from the one he preached: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.” Galatians 1:8 (NIV).

What does the Bible have to say about the final end of the antichrist?

“Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness (antichrist – writer’s comment) is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.

“…And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so until he is taken out of the way.

“And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of His mouth and destroy by the splendour of His coming…They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.” 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; 6-8; 10b (NIV).

To conclude this short examination of the Bible’s identification of antichrist, this is not intended to throw stones at any individual, but rather to expose the errors of a system than has deceived millions of people. God’s mercy extends to every person who trusts in Jesus alone for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life, but He shares His glory with no-one else, regardless of who says otherwise.

However plausible the reasoning may be, it is nothing more than human reason and cannot stand against the indestructible Word of God. God’s word calls us to be noble, like the Bereans, who “received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Acts 17:11b (NIV).

An interesting observation: The official title of the Pope in Latin is Vicarius Filii Dei. When we add up the numerical value of the Roman numerals, this is what we get:
V=5; I=1; C=100; A=0; R=0; I=1; V=5; S=0; Total =112
F=0; I=1; L=50; I=1; I=1; Total = 53
D=500; E=0; I=1; Total = 601
Grand total: 666!

The Final Nail in Antichrist’s Coffin – Part 1

Apologetics,

ANTICHRIST – THE FINAL NAIL IN ANTICHRIST’S COFFIN – PART ONE

The Apostle John gives us the criterion for the ultimate test for the spirit of antichrist.

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognise the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” 1 John 4:1-3 (NIV).

“Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” 2 John 7 (NIV).

We have to determine what John meant by “has come in the flesh”. In his prologue to the fourth gospel, having placed Jesus squarely in the Godhead as the Word who was with God and was God, John makes this statement: “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” John 1:14 (NIV).

This is the wonder and the mystery of the gospel, that God Himself, the divine Logos, took on human flesh and became one of us, God with us, Emmanuel. What God would leave the glories and privileges of heaven to enter a fallen world and live among His people as one of them? But Jesus did!

Why did He do it? “Since the children have flesh and blood, He too shared in their humanity so that by His death He might destroy him who holds the power of death — that is, the devil — and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.” Hebrews 2:14,15 (NIV). The King James Version states it this way — “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same…”

He had to have the same flesh as we have in order to identify with us. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, fused with the natural ovum of Mary, and was nurtured in her womb as a human baby. Scripture makes it clear that this is a mystery: “Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body…” 1 Timothy 3:16 (NIV) – (God was manifest in the flesh – KJV).

What does the Bible mean by “flesh” and “same flesh”? Paul said, in Romans 7:18, speaking of his struggle with his sinful nature, “I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature (“flesh” – KJV), for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out.” He was aware of a power within him that warred against his higher desires and won, which he called his “flesh” or “sinful nature.”

Now the Bible expressly states that Jesus was born with the “same flesh” as we have. He had to in order to be an appropriate sacrifice for sin. Any other nature would have disqualified Him from taking our place in death as a punishment for sin.

“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are — yet was without sin.” Hebrews 4:14, 15 (NIV). The mystery of godliness is great, that Jesus was both fully God and fully man, sharing our human nature, susceptible to every temptation we face, and yet He was without sin.

“For this reason He had to be made like His brothers in every way, in order that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that He might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because He Himself suffered when He was tempted, He is able to help those who are being tempted.” Hebrews 2:17,18 (NIV). Our faith stands or falls on this truth.

(To be concluded…)