Dispensationalism is not Biblical, it is a man-made doctrine.

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,992
The Rise and Spread of Futurism - The Effects of Futurism

Summary: Futurism has permeated Christian theology. What are the consequences of accepting such a doctrine?

When most Christians look at the last 1500 years, how much fulfilled prophecy do they see?

None. Because almost everything is now being applied to a future time period after the rapture.


As we have seen, this idea of separating the weeks originated with the Jesuits, and its insertion into the majority of 21st-century prophetic teaching is now blinding millions of hearts and eyes to what has happened and is happening in the Church.

It is this theory that permeates Futurism’s interpretation of all apocalyptic prophecy. Jesuit futurism has now become like a 300-pound boxer with spiked gloves. With an apparently all-powerful punch, it has almost knocked Protestant historicism entirely out of the ring:

"The proper eschatological term for the view most taught today is futurism…which fuels the confusion of dispensationalism. The futuristic school of Bible prophecy came from the Roman Catholic Church, specifically her Jesuit theologians…However the alternative has been believed for centuries. It is known as historicism." Robert Caringola, Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative (Abundant Life Ministries Reformed Press, 1991): 6.

"It is a matter of deep regret that those who hold and advocate the futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist." Joseph Tanner, Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898): 16.

Who had the right theology—those who were burned at the stake for Jesus Christ or those who lit the fires?

Who had the true Bible doctrine—the martyrs or their persecutors?

Who had the correct interpretation of the Antichrist—those who died trusting in the blood of Christ or those who shed the blood of God’s dear saints?

Jesuit futurism’s aim is to deny the Protestant Reformation’s application of prophecy, giving the Vatican an alternative doctrine:

"
The futurist school of Bible prophecy was created for one reason and one reason only: to counter the Protestant Reformation!" Robert Caringola, Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative (Abundant Life Ministries Reformed Press, 1991): 34.

In fact, Jesuit futurism is at war with the prophecies of the Word of God itself. And if that’s not enough, consider this: Jesuit futurism originated with the Roman Catholic Church, which makes it the very doctrine of the Antichrist. When Christian ministries and movies like A Thief in the Night, Apocalypse, Revelation, Tribulation, and Left Behind: The Movie proclaim an Antichrist who comes only after the rapture, what are they really doing? They are sincerely and unknowingly teaching the doctrine of the Antichrist.

We live in a time when obedience is characterized as legalism, prophecy is viewed as some sort of optional study because no one can accurately understand it, and the love of Jesus over rides any rational reasoning, essentially voiding the Word of God.

Along with the relativistic attitude so popular today, it is no wonder that, according to a Barna Group study, 55% of American pastors do not believe in the Bible anymore as the unerring Word of God. While the Bible has its good points, they say, it is not to be taken too literally.

The sad truth is, however, that rarely does a congregation rise much above the pastor or church leadership. Most people simply accept what comes from the pulpit without checking its accuracy in the Word of God.

We are no longer people of the Book. Instead we follow the majority. There is a perceived safety in numbers. The majority of Christians can’t be wrong, can they? Hasn’t God appointed these pastors to their positions? But sadly, church leadership throughout Bible history has often been wrong.

Although futurism may be a comforting doctrine, it demands a faith that has no justification or fulfilment in the Bible or any history book. The Bible must be its own expositor. Letting the Bible explain itself allows for no other private interpretation. The Bible calls itself a double-edged sword:

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword" (Hebrews 4:12).

God loves everyone and calls us to love everyone
It is never comfortable to have error exposed—not to the one having to say it nor to the one listening. It is always much easier to compromise or to say nothing. God has patience with each one us, and leads us to truth as we are able. All Christians are growing as God leads them.

God loves everyone and calls us to love everyone as well. Part of loving others is to speak the truth in love. We must accept the truth no matter what others may think, and no matter how deep it cuts us (2 Thessalonians 2:10).
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,992
Preterism

In the 1600s, Jesuit Luis De Alcasar founded the preterist school of prophetic interpretation–he explained Revelation by the fall of Jerusalem or by the fall of pagan Rome in 410 AD.

Today, preterists take the major prophecies that historicists have always understood to point to the future, and place them in the past. Some extreme preterists say that the Second Coming of Christ occurred in 70 AD, and see Nero as the Antichrist. Partial preterists still believe in a future Second Coming of Christ. Preterism, as opposed to historicism and futurism, has always been in the minority.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,992
Protestantism is dead.

Whether most protestants know it or not, a lot of their traditions and doctrine are actually Catholic or of Catholic origin including dispensationalism. This was done intentionally by Catholicism for centuries. It all started with the counter-reformation where the Roman Catholic leaders made efforts to suppress the truths of the Reformation that was bringing light to so many in that time. They are still doing it today.

The counter reformation has been very successful because the false teachings of Rome have permeated most Protestant churches. These false teachings have been and are taught in their seminaries and sanctuaries too.

Today, Protestantism as a whole is dead. Although individual Christians within each denomination may be walking according to all the light they have received and there are small denominations that teach the truth, Protestantism itself, as a whole, is no longer what it used to be. The lines have become blurred.

"The man who thinks he can be a Protestant and yet reject the Bible or some portion of it, is making a profound mistake…true Protestantism cannot only be anti-Catholic…it must also be anti-modernist, anti-evolutionist, and against every evil that is sapping the life of the Christian churches of today. At the same time it must be in favor of every good thing—prayer, Bible study, and all that is meant by Christian service. That is the Protestantism that is so sorely needed." Arthur S. Maxwell, Protestantism Imperiled (Warburton, Australia: SIGNS Publishing): 5.

In spite of the rejection of truth by the formal churches, God has a special invitation for His honest, sincere children. God does not want His children to remain in this fallen state of Babylon. He appeals to them in Revelation 18:4:

"Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
12,218
Protestantism is dead.

Whether most protestants know it or not, a lot of their traditions and doctrine are actually Catholic or of Catholic origin including dispensationalism. This was done intentionally by Catholicism for centuries. It all started with the counter-reformation where the Roman Catholic leaders made efforts to suppress the truths of the Reformation that was bringing light to so many in that time. They are still doing it today.

The counter reformation has been very successful because the false teachings of Rome have permeated most Protestant churches. These false teaching have been and are taught in their seminaries and sanctuaries too.

Today, Protestantism as a whole is dead. Although individual Christians within each denomination may be walking according to all the light they have received and there are small denominations that teach teach the truth, Protestantism itself, as a whole, is no longer what it used to be. The lines have become blurred.

"The man who thinks he can be a Protestant and yet reject the Bible or some portion of it, is making a profound mistake…true Protestantism cannot only be anti-Catholic…it must also be anti-modernist, anti-evolutionist, and against every evil that is sapping the life of the Christian churches of today. At the same time it must be in favor of every good thing—prayer, Bible study, and all that is meant by Christian service. That is the Protestantism that is so sorely needed." Arthur S. Maxwell, Protestantism Imperiled (Warburton, Australia: SIGNS Publishing): 5.

In spite of the rejection of truth by the formal churches, God has a special invitation for His honest, sincere children. God does not want His children to remain in this fallen state of Babylon. He appeals to them in Revelation 18:4:

"Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."
Protestantism has largely become Laodacean.

Dare I say that a futurist interpretation of Revelation suggests that this would be the climate of much of the Church prior to the events of the last days?
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
12,218
The Rise and Spread of Futurism - The Effects of Futurism

Summary: Futurism has permeated Christian theology. What are the consequences of accepting such a doctrine?

When most Christians look at the last 1500 years, how much fulfilled prophecy do they see?

None. Because almost everything is now being applied to a future time period after the rapture.


As we have seen, this idea of separating the weeks originated with the Jesuits, and its insertion into the majority of 21st-century prophetic teaching is now blinding millions of hearts and eyes to what has happened and is happening in the Church.

It is this theory that permeates Futurism’s interpretation of all apocalyptic prophecy. Jesuit futurism has now become like a 300-pound boxer with spiked gloves. With an apparently all-powerful punch, it has almost knocked Protestant historicism entirely out of the ring:

"The proper eschatological term for the view most taught today is futurism…which fuels the confusion of dispensationalism. The futuristic school of Bible prophecy came from the Roman Catholic Church, specifically her Jesuit theologians…However the alternative has been believed for centuries. It is known as historicism." Robert Caringola, Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative (Abundant Life Ministries Reformed Press, 1991): 6.

"It is a matter of deep regret that those who hold and advocate the futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist." Joseph Tanner, Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898): 16.

Who had the right theology—those who were burned at the stake for Jesus Christ or those who lit the fires?

Who had the true Bible doctrine—the martyrs or their persecutors?

Who had the correct interpretation of the Antichrist—those who died trusting in the blood of Christ or those who shed the blood of God’s dear saints?

Jesuit futurism’s aim is to deny the Protestant Reformation’s application of prophecy, giving the Vatican an alternative doctrine:

"
The futurist school of Bible prophecy was created for one reason and one reason only: to counter the Protestant Reformation!" Robert Caringola, Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative (Abundant Life Ministries Reformed Press, 1991): 34.

In fact, Jesuit futurism is at war with the prophecies of the Word of God itself. And if that’s not enough, consider this: Jesuit futurism originated with the Roman Catholic Church, which makes it the very doctrine of the Antichrist. When Christian ministries and movies like A Thief in the Night, Apocalypse, Revelation, Tribulation, and Left Behind: The Movie proclaim an Antichrist who comes only after the rapture, what are they really doing? They are sincerely and unknowingly teaching the doctrine of the Antichrist.

We live in a time when obedience is characterized as legalism, prophecy is viewed as some sort of optional study because no one can accurately understand it, and the love of Jesus over rides any rational reasoning, essentially voiding the Word of God.

Along with the relativistic attitude so popular today, it is no wonder that, according to a Barna Group study, 55% of American pastors do not believe in the Bible anymore as the unerring Word of God. While the Bible has its good points, they say, it is not to be taken too literally.

The sad truth is, however, that rarely does a congregation rise much above the pastor or church leadership. Most people simply accept what comes from the pulpit without checking its accuracy in the Word of God.

We are no longer people of the Book. Instead we follow the majority. There is a perceived safety in numbers. The majority of Christians can’t be wrong, can they? Hasn’t God appointed these pastors to their positions? But sadly, church leadership throughout Bible history has often been wrong.

Although futurism may be a comforting doctrine, it demands a faith that has no justification or fulfilment in the Bible or any history book. The Bible must be its own expositor. Letting the Bible explain itself allows for no other private interpretation. The Bible calls itself a double-edged sword:

"For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword" (Hebrews 4:12).

God loves everyone and calls us to love everyone
It is never comfortable to have error exposed—not to the one having to say it nor to the one listening. It is always much easier to compromise or to say nothing. God has patience with each one us, and leads us to truth as we are able. All Christians are growing as God leads them.

God loves everyone and calls us to love everyone as well. Part of loving others is to speak the truth in love. We must accept the truth no matter what others may think, and no matter how deep it cuts us (2 Thessalonians 2:10).
A good analysis of the proposed “Jesuit Fururism”

 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
12,218
Jesuits might be the hidden hand behind the great persecution of true christians at the 5th seal.

And that might be why they push the pretribulation rapture... as an explanation for why so many christians are suddenly missing.
I posted this up as it has been claimed that Jesuits invented the pre-trib rapture. The idea is pure historic revisionism, especially as Catholics and Jesuits have also been involved one way or another in the ideas of preterism, historicism, amillennialism, postmillennialism and futurism. Put simply, the Catholic Church was the only one in charge for centuries, and within it a wide variety of ideas were floated.
 

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,897
I posted this up as it has been claimed that Jesuits invented the pre-trib rapture. The idea is pure historic revisionism, especially as Catholics and Jesuits have also been involved one way or another in the ideas of preterism, historicism, amillennialism, postmillennialism and futurism. Put simply, the Catholic Church was the only one in charge for centuries, and within it a wide variety of ideas were floated.
Yes but Jesuits the black sheep of christianity might need an explanation for why so many christians are missing after the great persecution at the 5th seal. Besides a pretribulation rapture is not biblical at all... but a prewrath rapture is.

It's just that the great persecution at the 5th seal comes before God's wrath at the 6th seal.
 
Last edited:

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,992
The Antichrist.

As I've posted in this thread, Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera from the 16th century started and wrote about futurism to convince Protestants that the papal system is not the antichrist.

Many reformers at the time were teaching and were in no doubt that the antichrist was the papacy.

The great French reformer, John Calvin, identified the Antichrist:

"Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God...we affirm him to be the Pope…Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak. Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God...we affirm him to be the Pope…Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak." L. Froom, Prophetic Faith of our Fathers Volume 2 (Washington D.C: Review and Herald, 1948): 437.

I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536).

Martin Luther also identified the Antichrist from his studies of Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians, and the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation. In 1520, Luther wrote this:

"I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more, that the Pope is really the Antichrist... because everything so exactly corresponds to the way of his life, actions, words and commandments." Martin Luther, Schriften volume 21a, column 234, as translated in George Waddington, A History of the Reformation on the continent volume 1 (1841).

"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." L. Froom, Prophetic Faith of our Fathers Volume 2 (Washington D.C: Review and Herald, 1948): 121.

"Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." Martin Luther, as quoted in D'Aubigné, book 6 chapter 9.

"We are not the first who interpret the Papacy as the kingdom of Antichrist...He (John Purvey in 1390 AD) rightly and truly pronounces the Pope "Antichrist" as he is...a witness indeed, foreordained by God to confirm our doctrine." Martin Luther, Commentarius in Apocalypsin (reprint).

Other church leaders and reformers to identify the antichrist as the Papacy were Thomas Cranmer ("Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons"), John Knox ("Hitherto the pope has been antichrist"), John Wesley ("He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers"), John Wycliffe, John Huss, Jerome, and John Melanchthon.

Francisco Ribera succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. From his early work arose dispensationalist thinking that has unfortunately become common to nearly every Protestant church today. As a result, few Protestant churches would criticize the Pope or agree that the papal system is the Biblical antichrist.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
12,218
The Antichrist.

As I've posted in this thread, Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera from the 16th century started and wrote about futurism to convince Protestants that the papal system is not the antichrist.

Many reformers at the time were teaching and were in no doubt that the antichrist was the papacy.

The great French reformer, John Calvin, identified the Antichrist:

"Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God...we affirm him to be the Pope…Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak. Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God...we affirm him to be the Pope…Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we speak." L. Froom, Prophetic Faith of our Fathers Volume 2 (Washington D.C: Review and Herald, 1948): 437.

I shall briefly show that (Paul's words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other interpretation than that which applies them to the Papacy. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536).

Martin Luther also identified the Antichrist from his studies of Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians, and the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation. In 1520, Luther wrote this:

"I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more, that the Pope is really the Antichrist... because everything so exactly corresponds to the way of his life, actions, words and commandments." Martin Luther, Schriften volume 21a, column 234, as translated in George Waddington, A History of the Reformation on the continent volume 1 (1841).

"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no other obedience than that to Antichrist." L. Froom, Prophetic Faith of our Fathers Volume 2 (Washington D.C: Review and Herald, 1948): 121.

"Already I feel greater liberty in my heart; for at last I know that the pope is antichrist, and that his throne is that of Satan himself." Martin Luther, as quoted in D'Aubigné, book 6 chapter 9.

"We are not the first who interpret the Papacy as the kingdom of Antichrist...He (John Purvey in 1390 AD) rightly and truly pronounces the Pope "Antichrist" as he is...a witness indeed, foreordained by God to confirm our doctrine." Martin Luther, Commentarius in Apocalypsin (reprint).

Other church leaders and reformers to identify the antichrist as the Papacy were Thomas Cranmer ("Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and the pope to be very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other scriptures, old writers, and strong reasons"), John Knox ("Hitherto the pope has been antichrist"), John Wesley ("He is in an emphatical sense, the Man of Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he is, too, properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the death of numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers"), John Wycliffe, John Huss, Jerome, and John Melanchthon.

Francisco Ribera succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. From his early work arose dispensationalist thinking that has unfortunately become common to nearly every Protestant church today. As a result, few Protestant churches would criticize the Pope or agree that the papal system is the Biblical antichrist.
I am guessing I must be on block with you @phipps but David Daniels does a great job of addressing the above point directly…

 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,020
Protestantism is dead.

Whether most protestants know it or not, a lot of their traditions and doctrine are actually Catholic or of Catholic origin including dispensationalism. This was done intentionally by Catholicism for centuries. It all started with the counter-reformation where the Roman Catholic leaders made efforts to suppress the truths of the Reformation that was bringing light to so many in that time. They are still doing it today.

The counter reformation has been very successful because the false teachings of Rome have permeated most Protestant churches. These false teaching have been and are taught in their seminaries and sanctuaries too.

Today, Protestantism as a whole is dead. Although individual Christians within each denomination may be walking according to all the light they have received and there are small denominations that teach teach the truth, Protestantism itself, as a whole, is no longer what it used to be. The lines have become blurred.

"The man who thinks he can be a Protestant and yet reject the Bible or some portion of it, is making a profound mistake…true Protestantism cannot only be anti-Catholic…it must also be anti-modernist, anti-evolutionist, and against every evil that is sapping the life of the Christian churches of today. At the same time it must be in favor of every good thing—prayer, Bible study, and all that is meant by Christian service. That is the Protestantism that is so sorely needed." Arthur S. Maxwell, Protestantism Imperiled (Warburton, Australia: SIGNS Publishing): 5.

In spite of the rejection of truth by the formal churches, God has a special invitation for His honest, sincere children. God does not want His children to remain in this fallen state of Babylon. He appeals to them in Revelation 18:4:

"Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues."
A while back, i heard someone use this quote of a boy running away from home with a lock of his mum's hair in his pocket. For some reason, your post reminded me of it and i've just looked it up.

".....isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed.

They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair. "
Source

It's been on my mind lately that should the NWO religion roll out, we are going to get a REAL understanding of what it actually means to be a Protestant. Protestantism, in it's truest form, will be purged of the dross that presently adorns it. Polymoog commented in the covid thread that conspiracy theorists who willingly took the vax were never true believers and it is in the same vein that i comment on protestantism.
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,992
A while back, i heard someone use this quote of a boy running away from home with a lock of his mum's hair in his pocket. For some reason, your post reminded me of it and i've just looked it up.

".....isn't it curious that non-Catholics who profess to take their religion directly from the Bible and not the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed.

They have continued the custom, even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon an explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away - like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair. "
Source

It's been on my mind lately that should the NWO religion roll out, we are going to get a REAL understanding of what it actually means to be a Protestant. Protestantism, in it's truest form, will be purged of the dross that presently adorns it. Polymoog commented in the covid thread that conspiracy theorists who willingly took the vax were never true believers and it is in the same vein that i comment on protestantism.
Agree. I think the purge has began already within protestantism. As more people are becoming aware of the NWO, the illuminati etc and with recent events that have affected all of us around the world, more people are being led by the Holy Spirit to search their Bibles for God's truth. In these last days many will come to realise that a lot of what has been taught to them in their churches is not true and will leave.
 
Last edited:

TokiEl

Superstar
Joined
Dec 13, 2017
Messages
6,897
The Antichrist.

As I've posted in this thread, Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera from the 16th century started and wrote about futurism to convince Protestants that the papal system is not the antichrist.

Many reformers at the time were teaching and were in no doubt that the antichrist was the papacy.
That the "Vicar of Christ" of the old universal christian church should become the Antichrist is of course quite shocking.



Do we have proof ? Yes the prince who is to come (after the Messiah is cut off) and confirm a covenant with many... will do so 7x360 weeks after the jews restore control over the Old City of Jerusalem according to a correct understanding of Daniel 9.

From june 7 1967 there are 7x360 weeks to sept 23 2015 Yom Kippur.

On sept 25 2015 the pope confirmed Agenda 21 with Agenda 2030 about total global governance in the United Nations.



Now it's no longer circumstantial evidence conjecture or opinion but a Scriptural truth !
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,992
When Does the Antichrist Appear according to the Bible?

Dispensationalism/futurism teaches that the Antichrist will not appear until after the saints are caught away - seven years before the end of the world. Paul settles the entire matter for us in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2:1-4, "Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

The words of Paul are so plain that it is difficult to comment on them. How can they be plainer? Christ's coming will not take place "unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed." Show these words to any child who has learned to read; show them to anyone not prejudiced by "private" interpretations, and he will say, "These verses say that the man of sin (Antichrist) is going to be revealed before Jesus comes."

Paul is not referring to some superman suddenly to appear 2,000 years after his epistles. He wrote, "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way" (verse 7). While Paul lived, he combated the emerging spirit of the Antichrist. By the sixth century A.D., Antichrist had matured. The crowning act in the great drama of deception, however, occurs just before the return of Christ: "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming" (verse 8). This clearly states that Antichrist will be destroyed when Christ comes. He does not arrive after the Second Advent.

And here's the crowning clarification in this whole thing. Revelation 20:4 assures us that some of those who are raised in the first resurrection will be those who refused to worship the beast and receive his mark! How completely this demolishes the futuristic school of prophetic interpretation is evident, for they claim that the emergence of the Antichrist and the imposition of his mark are to be looked for after the first resurrection and what they call the secret rapture. Recently a radio preacher expressed this belief: "I don't expect to be here when the beast is enforcing his mark upon the people. I expect to go up in the rapture and be in heaven during the great tribulation time." But these verses declare that some of those who come up in the "first resurrection," when Christ comes the second time, have already refused to worship the Antichrist or receive his mark! Thus, the Antichrist must have already been on the stage of action carrying on his oppressive work before the "first resurrection" and well before the second coming of Jesus.

Without attempting to establish the identity of Antichrist at this point, let us notice how this teaching that the Antichrist will come in the future - originated. At the time of the Reformation, most of the reformers understood the prophecy of the Antichrist to refer to the great apostate system of Romanism that developed during the Middle Ages. Of course, Rome did not appreciate this interpretation. Please notice Rome's course of action to nullify this interpretation:

"So great a hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men, that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.

"Accordingly, toward the close of the century of the Reformation, two of the most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavoring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men's minds from perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the papal system. The Jesuit Alcazar devoted himself to bring into prominence the preterist method of interpretation, ... and thus endeavored to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the popes ever ruled in Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy.

"On the other hand, the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the papal power by bringing out the futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly, not to the career of the Papacy, but to some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and continue in power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the founder of the futurist system of modern times.


"It is a matter for deep regret that those who advocate the futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist." Reverend Joseph Tanner, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 16,17. (See also L. E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol 2, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1950, pp. 484-510.)

Thus, the whole theory of the future Antichrist had its origin with the Jesuits in an attempt to take the blame off the Papacy.

The origin of the two-phase coming of Christ has an equally unsavory history. It was not until around the year 1830 that this view began to be taught. In the Scottish church pastored by Edward Irving, a Miss Margaret McDonald gave what was believed at the time to be an inspired utterance. She spoke of the visible, open, and glorious second coming of Christ. But as the utterance continued, she spoke of another coming of Christ - a secret and special coming in which those who were truly ready would be raptured.

However, it was John Nelson Darby - Brethren preacher and diligent writer of the time in England - who was largely responsible for introducing this new teaching on a large scale. The teaching spread to the United States in the 1850s and 1860s, where it was to receive its biggest boost when Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, a strong believer in Darby's teachings, incorporated it into the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was published in 1909. Since that time, this view has been widely accepted - often by people who are completely unaware that this was not the belief held by Christians over the centuries. Many fine Christians hold his view today who have never questioned its authority.

Oswald Smith, noted minister and author of Toronto, says in his booklet Tribulation or Rapture - Which? that he once held the two-stage teaching, but that when he began to search the Scriptures for himself, he discovered that there is not a single verse in the Bible to uphold this view. He confessed: "I had been taught that the Greek word 'parousia' always referred to the Rapture and that other words were used for the coming of Christ in glory ... but I found that this is not true. ... We might go through all the writers of the New Testament, and we would fail to discover any indication of the so-called 'two stages' of our Lord's coming ... That theory had to be invented by man. Search and see. There is no verse in the Bible that even mentions it."
 

Lucy

Star
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
1,185
When Does the Antichrist Appear according to the Bible?

Dispensationalism/futurism teaches that the Antichrist will not appear until after the saints are caught away - seven years before the end of the world. Paul settles the entire matter for us in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2:1-4, "Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

The words of Paul are so plain that it is difficult to comment on them. How can they be plainer? Christ's coming will not take place "unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed." Show these words to any child who has learned to read; show them to anyone not prejudiced by "private" interpretations, and he will say, "These verses say that the man of sin (Antichrist) is going to be revealed before Jesus comes."

Paul is not referring to some superman suddenly to appear 2,000 years after his epistles. He wrote, "For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way" (verse 7). While Paul lived, he combated the emerging spirit of the Antichrist. By the sixth century A.D., Antichrist had matured. The crowning act in the great drama of deception, however, occurs just before the return of Christ: "And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming" (verse 8). This clearly states that Antichrist will be destroyed when Christ comes. He does not arrive after the Second Advent.

And here's the crowning clarification in this whole thing. Revelation 20:4 assures us that some of those who are raised in the first resurrection will be those who refused to worship the beast and receive his mark! How completely this demolishes the futuristic school of prophetic interpretation is evident, for they claim that the emergence of the Antichrist and the imposition of his mark are to be looked for after the first resurrection and what they call the secret rapture. Recently a radio preacher expressed this belief: "I don't expect to be here when the beast is enforcing his mark upon the people. I expect to go up in the rapture and be in heaven during the great tribulation time." But these verses declare that some of those who come up in the "first resurrection," when Christ comes the second time, have already refused to worship the Antichrist or receive his mark! Thus, the Antichrist must have already been on the stage of action carrying on his oppressive work before the "first resurrection" and well before the second coming of Jesus.

Without attempting to establish the identity of Antichrist at this point, let us notice how this teaching that the Antichrist will come in the future - originated. At the time of the Reformation, most of the reformers understood the prophecy of the Antichrist to refer to the great apostate system of Romanism that developed during the Middle Ages. Of course, Rome did not appreciate this interpretation. Please notice Rome's course of action to nullify this interpretation:

"So great a hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men, that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.

"Accordingly, toward the close of the century of the Reformation, two of the most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavoring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men's minds from perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the papal system. The Jesuit Alcazar devoted himself to bring into prominence the preterist method of interpretation, ... and thus endeavored to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the popes ever ruled in Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy.

"On the other hand, the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the papal power by bringing out the futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly, not to the career of the Papacy, but to some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and continue in power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the founder of the futurist system of modern times.


"It is a matter for deep regret that those who advocate the futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist." Reverend Joseph Tanner, Daniel and the Revelation, pp. 16,17. (See also L. E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol 2, Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1950, pp. 484-510.)

Thus, the whole theory of the future Antichrist had its origin with the Jesuits in an attempt to take the blame off the Papacy.

The origin of the two-phase coming of Christ has an equally unsavory history. It was not until around the year 1830 that this view began to be taught. In the Scottish church pastored by Edward Irving, a Miss Margaret McDonald gave what was believed at the time to be an inspired utterance. She spoke of the visible, open, and glorious second coming of Christ. But as the utterance continued, she spoke of another coming of Christ - a secret and special coming in which those who were truly ready would be raptured.

However, it was John Nelson Darby - Brethren preacher and diligent writer of the time in England - who was largely responsible for introducing this new teaching on a large scale. The teaching spread to the United States in the 1850s and 1860s, where it was to receive its biggest boost when Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, a strong believer in Darby's teachings, incorporated it into the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible, which was published in 1909. Since that time, this view has been widely accepted - often by people who are completely unaware that this was not the belief held by Christians over the centuries. Many fine Christians hold his view today who have never questioned its authority.

Oswald Smith, noted minister and author of Toronto, says in his booklet Tribulation or Rapture - Which? that he once held the two-stage teaching, but that when he began to search the Scriptures for himself, he discovered that there is not a single verse in the Bible to uphold this view. He confessed: "I had been taught that the Greek word 'parousia' always referred to the Rapture and that other words were used for the coming of Christ in glory ... but I found that this is not true. ... We might go through all the writers of the New Testament, and we would fail to discover any indication of the so-called 'two stages' of our Lord's coming ... That theory had to be invented by man. Search and see. There is no verse in the Bible that even mentions it."
Thank you Phipps for taking the time to post this.
I believe this to be one of the greatest deceptions Satan has brought into the Christian Church.
I cannot believe how many Christians I know who believe in this false doctrine.
And my fear, for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, will be that they lose their faith when the tribulations come and fellow Christians are being martyred and they are not raptured.
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
6,020
Jesus was unable to return because He was engaged in an "Investigative Judgment" process of examining all who dwell on the earth to determine who has repented sufficiently to receive the benefit of His atonement.
Investigative Judgment unsupported by scripture, it is contrary to scripture.
@Red Sky at Morning aswell

Let's forget about the SDAs for a moment. I will ask some questions as we explore the idea of some type of judgement happening in heaven prior to Christ's return.

a)How do the both of you read Hebrews 7:24-27 and the entire 8th chapter? Do you think Christ is just ceremoniously adorned in His highpriestly robes, lounging around sipping His tea OR do you think something more serious is going on when the book of Hebrews lays out that narrative?

b)Both of you believe in the Rapture.Which implies that by the time you are caught away, a decision has already been made in heaven, based on some evidence, that determines whether you are worthy or unworthy of the rapture. Is that decision arbitrary or do you think there some mega trial that takes place, calling into question the aforementioned evidence that decides your fate?

c)Where do you place Christ's statement in Revelation 22:12 as well as the judgement scene of Matt 25:31 in context of the rapture?
"Behold. Iam coming soon! My reward is with Me and i will give to everyone according to what he has done."
 

phipps

Star
Joined
Dec 27, 2017
Messages
2,992
@Red Sky at Morning aswell

Let's forget about the SDAs for a moment. I will ask some questions as we explore the idea of some type of judgement happening in heaven prior to Christ's return.

a)How do the both of you read Hebrews 7:24-27 and the entire 8th chapter? Do you think Christ is just ceremoniously adorned in His highpriestly robes, lounging around sipping His tea OR do you think something more serious is going on when the book of Hebrews lays out that narrative?

b)Both of you believe in the Rapture.Which implies that by the time you are caught away, a decision has already been made in heaven, based on some evidence, that determines whether you are worthy or unworthy of the rapture. Is that decision arbitrary or do you think there some mega trial that takes place, calling into question the aforementioned evidence that decides your fate?

c)Where do you place Christ's statement in Revelation 22:12 as well as the judgement scene of Matt 25:31 in context of the rapture?
"Behold. Iam coming soon! My reward is with Me and i will give to everyone according to what he has done."
You know someone has nothing better to say when instead of focussing on the Bible they focus on a denomination. The SDA's do teach the truth of the second coming, the Antichrist, investigative judgement (which is just judgement that will take place in heaven before Jesus returns the second time with everyone's rewards), and other subjects. Its certainly how I came to know the difference between biblical truth and man made doctrine. However as I have repeatedly said in this forum, biblical truth is not denominational. All Christians are supposed to have one truth on every subject in the Bible. Its sad that most of protestantism doesn't teach biblical truth any more. The reformation sadly has been abandoned by most of protestantism and is promulgating Catholic doctrine that is against God's Word.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
12,218
“…Let's forget about the SDAs for a moment. I will ask some questions as we explore the idea of some type of judgement happening in heaven prior to Christ's return.”

I am happy to set aside SDA doctrine* to the extent that the purpose of this thread appears to be a polemic against anything other than SDA doctrine (but that’s Phipps title, not yours ;-) So to the questions:

a)How do the both of you read Hebrews 7:24-27 and the entire 8th chapter?
Hebrews 7:24-27King James Version

24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
and

Hebrews 8 - King James Version
Christ's Eternal Priesthood

1Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. 3For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. 4For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: 5Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. 6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

The New Covenant

7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
I think that Jesus stands here as our advocate, with Satan as the accuser (literal translation). Our sins make us guilty before the Father, and only the atoning blood of Jesus can offer us pardon. Not our good works.
Do you think Christ is just ceremoniously adorned in His highpriestly robes, lounging around sipping His tea OR do you think something more serious is going on when the book of Hebrews lays out that narrative?

^ see above

b)Both of you believe in the Rapture.Which implies that by the time you are caught away, a decision has already been made in heaven, based on some evidence, that determines whether you are worthy or unworthy of the rapture. Is that decision arbitrary or do you think there some mega trial that takes place, calling into question the aforementioned evidence that decides your fate?


I believe that when you are Born Again, you are also sealed with the Holy Spirit. In wedding parlance, this is like being engaged. The Rapture patterns the Jewish wedding typology when the betrothed groom leaves his fathers house at an hour only the father knows, and comes to take his bride. It’s not a question of being “worthy” enough, but of relationship.

c)Where do you place Christ's statement in Revelation 22:12 as well as the judgement scene of Matt 25:31 in context of the rapture?
"Behold. Iam coming soon! My reward is with Me and i will give to everyone according to what he has done."

This touches on a doctrine of the “Bema seat of Christ” which many believe happens immediately after the Rapture. I think Paul refers to the event here, and shows the results of living as either a carnel or spiritual believer. Note that the judgement is not of a persons salvation, but if the nature of their works.

1 Corinthians 3 - King James Version

Christ the Only Foundation
(Isaiah 28:14-22; 1 Peter 2:4-12)

10According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. 11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

*I include a link to the SDA heavenly sanctuary interpretation here for comparison.
 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
12,218
All Christians are supposed to have one truth on every subject in the Bible.
It would appear that not all who are named Christians will understand the Bible properly or handle it wisely…

2 Peter 3

14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. 15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. 18But grow in grace, and inthe knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
 
Top