Daily Archives: February 28, 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.