Rapture: A Background for Consideration (Compiled by CM)

C Mc

@GaoLu said:

@C_M_ said: I don't have a problem with Darby, Scofield, or God. I've merely reflected the historically verifiable truth. I was sharing factual information, as fellow users of CD, to engage the topic in-depth. All can do so with terms clearly defined and context in place. What is so sinister about this?

It is fine. So I responded. What is so sinister about that?

Nothing, if you are writing words because you can type. By all means, when you do write or respond to a post (s), do so with a cause and a point. Who knows, it may be helpful and you will add meaning to the conversation. It seems your "jars were getting tight" over the historical truth, Darby, Scofield, and what the Bible actually teaches.

Because of the nature of the subject matter, sometimes moving parts and nuances, some pre-detailing are required. This is not politics, trust me. I will keep it biblical. You're at liberty to participate (or not), but don't try to discourage me. Every contribution adds to one knowledge base, one's understanding of self, others and the topic at hand. Is not, this is one of the principal reasons for the rebirth of CD?

Fine with me. I might challenge you to be truthful as your presentation is standard slander and twisting facts to attack a dead man in order to disparage a view on the Bible.

What do you mean by my " presentation is standard slander"? Why do you say this? "Twisting facts", What facts, specifically, on this topic are you talking about? It appears you're making things up because you can. Forgive me, but you appear, here, to be like a school-yard bully-- looking to pick a fight. Especially, when you say, I seek to "attack a dead man in order to disparage a view on the Bible." Help me to understand:

1. What are you talking about?
2. "Attack a dead man..." are you referring to C. I. Scofield, the author of "The New Scofield Reference Bible"? His works or notes in his study Bible speak for themselves. Many of his notes are contrary to biblical teachings, erroneous and grossly misleading. I have referred to a few above.
3. When is affirming biblical truth is to "attack a dead man"? Dead or alive, the truth is the truth.
4. Please note what you have written, "disparage a view on the Bible." What teaching of the Bible I seek to "disparage"? When identified, what specifically, is your view or understanding of what you think I am trying to deny or to get around?
5. "Attack a dead man", all the Bible writers are dead men. The truth be told, so are the Church Fathers, all past Popes (except one), many authors, the Jesus' disciples, many of the US Presidents, etc. are dead. To disagree or point out errors (if such exist) in their historical work, has to be or is an attack? Are not, you need to rethink your statement? On its face, it borders the obscenity. Perhaps, you wrote this in haste. If you insist on holding on to it, please, clarify, up to the point, what I have done.

I find that distasteful and will say so as you can see.

There is nor rational premise for such. Even if you could verify a thing, it's premature, at best. Aren't you being like the "Boy who cried wolf" and like, "Chicken Little"?

If you want to talk about the Bible, then talk about what the Bible says.

I don't need an invitation from you, anew, beyond the standard one, issued by CD. Given this reality, I will "talk about the Bible", what the Bible says", and specifically, in this thread of C. I. Scofield's New Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensational Teachings (which have tentacles in all Christian movements or thinkings) with rapture and other biblical errors influencing today's believers.

Don't attack, to the Bible, let's get back. CM

C Mc

Is there a balanced book-review or critical analysis of C. I. Scofield's New Scofield Reference Bible? CM

GaoLu

I just happened across this article some time back as it seemed more or less balanced. I am not a fan of Scofield's theology but appreciate what he did during his time with his study Bible. He brought the Bible alive, encouraged self-study and greatly informed millions of people at a time America needed all that, after the civil war, at a time the church was dividing in America between Conservatives and Liberals.

C Mc

Thanks, GaoLu, for the link. I will give it a read. CM

C Mc

@C_M_ said:

Continues-- Background Information # 4 (compilation for intelligent discussion)

What Are Errors of Dispensationalism?

       ********************************************************************

Continues-- Factual Background Information # 5

The controversy over the covenants exposes the roots of what is known as "Dispensationalism" couched among most evangelical churches.

1. The name "Dispensationalism" derives from the belief that redemptive history is divided into distinct dispensations or segment of time, in each of which God has been working with humanity in a different way.
   • It is taught in principle at the Chicago Moody Bible Institute and at an estimated two hundred Bible institutes in the United States. This teaching is deep and wide.
2. Its official magazine is Bibliotheca Sacra which was inherited by Dallas Theological Seminary in 1936.
   • Christianity Today [Another magazine] which supports some of the dispensational views of the End.
3. Popular books like Left Behind [even a movie] and The Late Great Planet Earth,
4. These two books have influenced millions of people to accept the dispensational End-time scenario:
   • The Rapture of the Church
   • Followed by the tribulation of the Jews and unbelievers.
5. Dispensationalists interpret the Old and New Covenants as representing two different plans of salvation for two different people - Israel and the Church. In other words, God has not only two different plans of salvation, but also two different people.

The destiny of each is supposed to be different, not only in this present age but also throughout eternity. So said, Lewis Sperry Chafer, a leading Dispensational theologian:

• "Throughout the ages, God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives, which is Christianity."

This help explains why so many, in so many places, misunderstand the Second Coming of Christ and the Covenant. I, see, now why so many believe in the Rapture, the "Second Chance", and Gap Theories. Many have strayed from biblical teachings. CM

SOURCE:

-- Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, 1936), p. 107.

Dave_L

The entire Dispensational (Sawmillinnial) scheme rests on a hypothetical gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week that no one can provide scriptural support for. So they remove the 70th week from the bible and build a hypothesis around it, and "saw up" the rest of scripture to make it work.

Gap = Antichrist instead of Jesus in vs 27. And seven year tribulation = pre-trib rapture, restored Roman Empire and probably Armageddon inserted into the gap.

No Gap = Jesus, not Antichrist fulfilled the 70 contiguous weeks in the first century AD.

C Mc

Interesting, Dave. A new term to me--"Sawmillinnial". Let me share you...

Factual Background Information # 6. It may be new to you, but it's true:

The roots of the rapture theory

The roots of this theory go back to the time of the "Counter-Reformation". Did you know that the Protestant reformers in the sixteenth century identified the papacy as the antichrist of prophecy? Martin Luther, for example, said: "I believe the pope is the masked and incarnate devil, because he is the Antichrist". [See sources below for Full quote].

Several Jesuit scholars undertook the task of defending the papacy against these attacks:

1. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542- 1621), head of the Jesuit College in Rome, sought to nullify the prophetic year-day principle as proof for the 1,260 years of papal rule.
2. The Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) projected the antichrist prophecies into the future (futurism).
3. Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613), contended that these prophecies were already fulfilled in the time of the Roman Empire (preterism).

Alcazar's preterism was soon adopted by the Calvinist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in Holland, and in time became the favorite method for the interpretation of biblical prophecy among "liberal" theologians.

Ribera applied the antichrist prophecies to a future personal antichrist who would appear in the time of the end and continue in power for three and a half years. I would look further.

For nearly three centuries futurism was largely confined to the Roman Catholic Church:

• In 1826, Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, published a 72-page pamphlet in which he promoted Ribera's idea of a future antichrist. Soon other Protestant clergymen turned to futurism and began propagating it far and wide.
• Among them were John Henry Newman, leader of the Oxford movement, who later became a Roman Catholic cardinal, and Edward Irving, the famous Scottish Presbyterian minister.

I hope this find puts the topic in a better light for understanding. CM

Sources:

-- Luther's Works, vol.54, Table Talks, No.4487, p.346)

• "I believe the pope is the masked and incarnate devil because he is the Antichrist. As Christ is God incarnate, so the Antichrist is the devil incarnate. The words are really spoken of the pope when it's said that he's a mixed god, an earthly god, that is , a god of the earth. Here god is understood as god of this world. Why does he call himself an earthly god, as if the one, almighty God weren't also on the earth? The kingdom of the pope really signifies the terrible wrath of God, namely, the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place". (Luther's Works, vol.54, Table Talks, No.4487, p.346); Martin Luther. Samtliche Schriften (St. Louis. Concordia Pub. House [1887]), 23:845. https://www.cwrc-rz.org/historicalperspectives-martinluther.html

-- L. R. Conradi, The Impelling Force of Prophetic Truth (London: Thynne and B. Co., Ltd., 1935). 346.

-- Samuel R. Maitland. An Enquiry Into the Grounds on Which the Prophetic Period of Daniel and St. John has been supposed to Consist of 1260 Years, 2nd ed. (London: 1837), 2.

C Mc

@C_M_ said:
Interesting, Dave. A new term to me--"Sawmillinnial". Let me share you...

Factual Background Information # 6. It may be new to you, but it's true:

The roots of the rapture theory

Alcazar's preterism was soon adopted by the Calvinist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in Holland, and in time became the favorite method for the interpretation of biblical prophecy among "liberal" theologians.

---

Factual Background Information # 6-B. It may be new to you, but it's true.

Who is Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)?

Like many Protestants embraced Luis de Alcazar's (1554-1613) unorthodox hermeneutic (preterism). Hugo Grotius adopted it in 1644 in his Annotationes. Many other Protestant scholars followed suit. Noteworthy is the German rationalist J. G. Eichhorn (1752-1827) republished Alcazar’s book. There were other Protestant scholars who followed suit:

1. Other rationalist scholars, such as:

• G. H. A. Ewald (1803-1875)
• G. C. F. Lucke (1791-1855)
• W. M. L. De Wette (1780-1849)
• Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)
• Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)

2. And since 1830, numerous British and American scholars have followed Eichhorn:

• In 1830, Prof. Samuel Lee of Cambridge, likewise injected Bossuees. Preterist interpretation into the discussion.
• Prof. Moses Stuart, of Andover (1780-1852), introduced Preterism into the United States about 1843.
• Dr. Samuel Davidson reiterated it in England in 1848.

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was one of the men instrumental in the formation of that aspect of biblical criticism known as "Literary Criticism" during the 17th and 18th centuries. The other men of this time and efforts were:

• Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
• Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677)
• Richard Simon (1638-1712)

They began to lay the groundwork for a study of Scripture that analyzed and scrutinized the Bible just as one would study any other literature. This is another pathway to lead people away from the Bible. For example:

• Hobbes saw that the Bible is not itself the revelation of God, but that it merely contains the record of men who received that revelation led to the study of Scripture as a merely human book.
• Simon, arguing from the standpoint of the authority of church tradition, stated that the Christian faith could be sustained without the Scriptural record. From his view, many began to doubt the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, seeing these books as rather the result of a long process of compilation and redaction (the work of many editors).

In short, Biblical criticism is not concerned to lead readers to conviction, faith, and action but simply to a discriminatory understanding of the people, culture, history, and religion from which the book arose. CM

                          ******************************************

One may be inclined to ask the obvious question of what is "Literary Criticism"?

Historically, biblical criticism has developed along several interrelated and interdependent lines. Higher criticism attempts to deal with the literary history and meaning of the text through such disciplines as literary criticism, form criticism, and tradition criticism.

1. Literary, or source, criticism attempts to discover the documents or sources presumed to lie behind the present record.

2. Form criticism attempts to discern the structure and life setting that required or produced a given kind of structure.

3. Tradition criticism considers both the history of the development of a passage and the final editorial work on it.

The questions asked by biblical criticism are:

1. How are we to explain what is contained in the final biblical record?
2. What is the psychological framework in which this sort of writing would be feasible
3. What are the anthropological and sociological forces that would lead to the formation of a particular concept or to the use of a particular literary style?
4. What are the molding forces of the literary style?
5. What is the matrix of political and historical forces which would cause this or that interpretation to be placed on an event in history?
6. Why does the record have the theme it has?
7. Is it advocating a political or a religious cause, or has it been influenced by any combination of such forces?
8. What part does this document play in the history of man's religion as he moves toward a more mature religion?

Dave_L

@C_M_ said:

@C_M_ said:
Interesting, Dave. A new term to me--"Sawmillinnial". Let me share you...

Factual Background Information # 6. It may be new to you, but it's true:

The roots of the rapture theory

Alcazar's preterism was soon adopted by the Calvinist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) in Holland, and in time became the favorite method for the interpretation of biblical prophecy among "liberal" theologians.

---

Factual Background Information # 6-B. It may be new to you, but it's true.

Who is Hugo Grotius (1583-1645)?

Like many Protestants embraced Luis de Alcazar's (1554-1613) unorthodox hermeneutic (preterism). Hugo Grotius adopted it in 1644 in his Annotationes. Many other Protestant scholars followed suit. Noteworthy is the German rationalist J. G. Eichhorn (1752-1827) republished Alcazar’s book. There were other Protestant scholars who followed suit:

1. Other rationalist scholars, such as:

• G. H. A. Ewald (1803-1875)
• G. C. F. Lucke (1791-1855)
• W. M. L. De Wette (1780-1849)
• Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890)
• Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918)

2. And since 1830, numerous British and American scholars have followed Eichhorn:

• In 1830, Prof. Samuel Lee of Cambridge, likewise injected Bossuees. Preterist interpretation into the discussion.
• Prof. Moses Stuart, of Andover (1780-1852), introduced Preterism into the United States about 1843.
• Dr. Samuel Davidson reiterated it in England in 1848.

Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) was one of the men instrumental in the formation of that aspect of biblical criticism known as "Literary Criticism" during the 17th and 18th centuries. The other men of this time and efforts were:

• Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
• Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677)
• Richard Simon (1638-1712)

They began to lay the groundwork for a study of Scripture that analyzed and scrutinized the Bible just as one would study any other literature. This is another pathway to lead people away from the Bible. For example:

• Hobbes saw that the Bible is not itself the revelation of God, but that it merely contains the record of men who received that revelation led to the study of Scripture as a merely human book.
• Simon, arguing from the standpoint of the authority of church tradition, stated that the Christian faith could be sustained without the Scriptural record. From his view, many began to doubt the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, seeing these books as rather the result of a long process of compilation and redaction (the work of many editors).

In short, Biblical criticism is not concerned to lead readers to conviction, faith, and action but simply to a discriminatory understanding of the people, culture, history, and religion from which the book arose. CM

******************************************

One may be inclined to ask the obvious question of what is "Literary Criticism"?

Historically, biblical criticism has developed along several interrelated and interdependent lines. Higher criticism attempts to deal with the literary history and meaning of the text through such disciplines as literary criticism, form criticism, and tradition criticism.

1. Literary, or source, criticism attempts to discover the documents or sources presumed to lie behind the present record.

2. Form criticism attempts to discern the structure and life setting that required or produced a given kind of structure.

3. Tradition criticism considers both the history of the development of a passage and the final editorial work on it.

The questions asked by biblical criticism are:

1. How are we to explain what is contained in the final biblical record?
2. What is the psychological framework in which this sort of writing would be feasible
3. What are the anthropological and sociological forces that would lead to the formation of a particular concept or to the use of a particular literary style?
4. What are the molding forces of the literary style?
5. What is the matrix of political and historical forces which would cause this or that interpretation to be placed on an event in history?
6. Why does the record have the theme it has?
7. Is it advocating a political or a religious cause, or has it been influenced by any combination of such forces?
8. What part does this document play in the history of man's religion as he moves toward a more mature religion?

Thanks CM! I'm copying this for my notes. I know many of the Reformed Creeds I.D. the Antichrist as the Papacy. And I'm aware of the roots of futurism. But it's great the way you lay it all out so clearly.

What boggles my mind is how the futurists build all of their doctrines on a non-existent gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week. This includes, the rapture, the 7 year tribulation, the restored Roman Empire, the rebuilding of the Temple and a return to animal sacrifices and so on. Not a shred of scripture (in context) to support any of it.

C Mc

@Dave_L said:

Thanks CM! I'm copying this for my notes. I know many of the Reformed Creeds I.D. the Antichrist as the Papacy. And I'm aware of the roots of futurism. But it's great the way you lay it all out so clearly.

Dave,
You're welcome. I am more or less the "Good News"/Truth Mailman. It's getting to the roots to understand, see connections, follow patterns, and discern truth from error, track deviations from the Bible; regardless by whom, the places, the institution or number of years. It's then, we can speak with understanding. I learn as I share. It's healthy and more meaningful to connect the historical dots.

No, it's not about shaming, embarrassing, or putting people and/or institutions down, as some sought to purport here in CD. Truth found truth shared.

@Dave_L said: What boggles my mind is how the futurists build all of their doctrines on a non-existent gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week. This includes, the rapture, the 7 year tribulation, the restored Roman Empire, the rebuilding of the Temple and a return to animal sacrifices and so on. Not a shred of scripture (in context) to support any of it.

It's simple. For a running heads-up, see above: Factual Background Information # 6 -- The Roots of the Rapture Theory. In short, they do so because of the Enemy of Christ, purpose (mission), popularity, and deviation from the Inspired Word, the Bible. More needs to be unpacked to expose the foundation of such errors as you've cited above.

"It's better to have the bitter truth than sweet lies." CM

GaoLu

Is there some bitter truth? If so, what would that be?

GaoLu

Wow. When Bill goes, the world goes silent.

C Mc

Factual Background Information # 7: Counter-reformation

The birth of Protestantism came about by a return to Scripture and an intense seeking for God and led to a break-away from the Catholic Church which started the counter-reformation. in another name (a.k.a) -- Counter-Reformation Roman Catholicism. While the Reformation took much away, the Counter-Reformation got much of it back.

The Anabaptists disagreed on certain doctrines with the Roman Church as well as with Protestantism and were persecuted by both groups. Acting on theological convictions has fragmented Christianity into numerous denominations.

The present Pope is called Francis, not Francis I. Only if a later pope would choose the same name, would he be renamed Francis I. He is the first Jesuit 
on the papal throne.

And his approach to the Scriptures became the fountainhead of Idealism in prophetic interpretation. Origen’s allegorizing method influenced Eusebius, the church historian, who in turn impacted on Augustine of Hippo, whose prophetic ideas predominated throughout the Middle Ages.

• It is not surprising that Alcazar, a good member of his church, should lean on Origen’s ideas and bolster his Preterism with allegorical, Idealistic elements.
  • He promote one’s own religion and arbitrary allegorical-idealist thinking, pioneered by Origen.
  • He used anallegorical method of interpretation to bridge the gap between the Greek myths and the Bible.

What is the Allegorical Interpretation?

Allegorical Interpretation is a method of interpretation which assumes that a text conveys a hidden, mystical meaning other than its literal, plain, ordinary sense. Its best-known proponent is Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 185-254), who used Greek philosophical categories to **spiritualize away the plain meaning of Scripture **in his attempt to discover these additional meanings. Allegorical interpretation competed with the Antiochian interpretation which tended to be rational, historical, and literal.

Who Are Jesuits?

• Jesuits were instrumental in launching the counter-reformation and developed both preterism and futurism. See Bellarmine (1542- 1621) and Ribera (1537-1591), above in my Background #6).
• The Jesuits' relation to the papacy was of such a nature 
that at times they were the pope’s most faithful followers and elite army and at times they were suppressed.
• All this contributes to extensive speculations, fears, and certain expectations, including the claim that Christ’s second coming must happen during the reign of the present pope.

Along with Preterism and Futurism to fuel the Counter-Reformation, is Idealism, a development based on Origen’s allegorization [“anything could be arbitrarily made to mean anything else”].

• -- This sloppy way of interpreting the Scriptures influenced preachers throughout the Catholic Middle Ages, and in some ways is still with us today.
• -- Allegorizing is like a wax nose: it can be twisted this way and that way to make anything in the Bible mean anything.
• -- The Allegorical Method used by Origen was partly under the influence of pagan Neoplatonism, to whom prophetic Idealism is traceable ( EB 07, s.v. “Origen.”).

Theosophy is an occult movement “with roots that can be traced to ancient
Gnosticism and Neoplatonism. . . . In modern times, theosophical views have been held by Rosicrucians and by speculative Freemasons.” It teaches “that God is utterly transcendent and impersonal, that creation is the product of spiritual emanations from God, and that humans are sparks of the divine trapped in the material world who desire to return to their spiritual home.” That is, the Theosophical Society is ultimately pantheistic. Although it has a relatively small membership, it “has been very influential.” It “pioneered the promotion of Eastern thought in the West but also inspired the creation of more than 100 esoteric religious movements . .” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Macropaedia (Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton, 1982), 11, s.v. “Theosophy.”).

Who was Origen (c. 185-254)?

1. The Alexandrian church father Origen (ca. A.D. 185-ca. 254), an accomplished practitioner and defender of the allegorical method of interpretation.
2. An Egyptian. A seminary professor and prolific writer succeeded Clement as head of the Catechetic School. Though at different times condemned as a heretic, Origen gave to Catholics and others—even many Protestants—a destructive legacy. (More upon request).
3. He is credited with being the first to understand the creation "days" in an allegorical and non-literal manner.
4. He was philosopher-theologian of Alexandria. He believed that only those with higher rational powers could understand obscure passages in scripture.
5. A student of Clement of Alexandria.
6. Origen, as his Master Clemens, had done before, used the method known as allegorization when it came to interpreting the Scriptures.
7. Master, Clement, and student, Origen, highly esteemed the doctrine of the pre-existent soul, it's fall into matter, and it returns to God (See Rudolph below).
8. Again, like his mentor Clement, Origen directly opposed the heresy of Gnosticism as the other church fathers had.
9. Origen‘s view of the resurrection was identical to Plato‘s idea of the ―immortality of the soul and did not believe in a physical resurrection (See Segal below).
10. He argued for infant baptism on the basis of pollution.
11. Origen read into the OT unwarranted and fanciful allegorical interpretations.
    One aim of allegorists was to establish Judaism as an intellectually respectable faith in a sophisticated pagan milieu. Thus they would interpret anthropomorphic biblical references allegorically. Philo, Origen, Augustine, and Jerome freely indulged in the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, whereas Luther, Melanchthon, and Calvin maintained that this method was too subjective.
    Origen was the father of spiritualistic exposition of Scripture, and by this, and also by teaching the Platonic philosophy to his many followers, he did incalculable injury to the church.

One can clearly see the seed and stock-roots of unbiblical teachings. CM

SOURCES:

-- See “Homily XXVII on Numbers,” in Origen, trans. Rowan A. Greer (New York: Paulist Press).
-- Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (1866; reprint, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1961), 187-203.
-- The decisive section from Origen's On First Principles: Book Four (excerpt quoted in Karifried Froehlich, trans./ed., Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984], 63) noted that the days of creation cannot be understood to be literal just as it "is foolish enough to believe that, like a human farmer, God planted a garden to the east of Eden and created in it a visible, physical tree of life....".
-- Terence E. Fretheim, "Were the Days of Creation Twenty-Four Hours Long?" in The Genesis Debate: Persistent Questions About Creation and the Flood, ed. Ronald R. Youngblood (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1986), 12-35.
-- Rudolph, K. 1987. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism. San Fransisco: Harper and Row Publishers. pg. 17
-- Segal, Alan. 2004. Life After Death: A History of the Afterlife in Western Religion. New York: Doubleday Press., pg574
-- J. A. Seiss, D.D., The Apocalypse: A Series of Special Lectures on the Revelation
of Jesus Christ with Revised Text, Vol I. 12th ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1865/1869),p. 130

C Mc

Background # 8: Counter-reformation Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542- 1621).

Why is he so important to this study on Dispensationalism?

Dispensationalist - Rapture roots go do into religious history. To understand its doctrine, we must get to the taproots or the genesis of its existence. The Counter-reformation (a.k.a) -- "Counter-Reformation Roman Catholicism" was started by several Jesuit scholars to defend the papacy against these attacks that the Protestant reformers, in the sixteenth century, identified the papacy as the antichrist of prophecy. e.g. Martin Luther said: "... the pope is the masked and incarnate devil because he is the Antichrist". [See above Background # 6].

To distract and distort several Jesuit scholars undertook the task of defending the papacy against these attacks in their quest to dismantle the Bible prophecy of Dan 9, particularly, the 70 weeks. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542- 1621), head of the Jesuit College in Rome, sought to nullify the prophetic year-day principle as proof for the 1,260 years of papal rule. And, on the other hand, the Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) projected the antichrist prophecies into the future (futurism).

The development of present-day errors of Dispensationalism's Antichrist. The Reformation had challenged Rome to prove that the pope was not the antichrist. The pope enlisted Jesuits to produce Scriptural evidence in favor of the Papacy (Jesuits previously were a militaristic order). The challenge instigated research by Catholic theologians Bellarmine, Ribera, and Alcazar, and resulted in preterist and futurist interpretations of prophetic antichrist.


Bellarmine's Counteract Reformation Confusions:

1. Cardinal Bellarmine, 1542-1621, Italian, combated Protestant claims that pope was the antichrist. Counter-Reformation had checked Protestantism in Europe. Bellarmine's chief attack was on the year-day principle of prophecy. He paved the way for present futurist teachings, by applying apocalyptic symbols to future.

2. He used the “Gap Theory” - 70th week of Daniel 9 was separated from 69th week and placed just before the end of the world. The beginning date for 2300 days was 445 B.C.
3. He also taught that antichrist was a Jew of the tribe of Daniel
.
4. The crucifixion date was set by Bellarmine at AD 38 instead Of AD 31.

5. Daniel 9:27. One who confirms covenant is not Christ.

6. Dispensationalists teach that the covenant was confirmed with Jews after “secret rapture” and during the 70th week. (A Catholic teaching.)

7. Futurism distorted significant prophetic events and threw them into future in a meaningless way.

Modern Dispensationalism has reversed Protestant historic interpretation of prophecy by accepting antichrist of Futurism. Protestants long held to true interpretation, but today even Fundamentalists teach Rome's views of antichrist. To approach antichrist misconceptions, teach historic interpretation of prophecy.

It's amazing for nearly three centuries futurism was largely confined to the Roman Catholic Church, until in 1826, Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, published a 72-page pamphlet ((See source -Maitland) where he promoted Ribera's idea of a future antichrist.

What Futuristic Teachings of Ribera's Did Bellarmine Accept?

1. Francisca Ribera was a Jesuit, of Spain, 1537-1591.
 A Jesuit scholar at the Spanish University of Salamanca.
2. He taught antichrist was a single individual preceded by the reappearance of Enoch and Elijah.

3. His basic instruction was known as Futurism, his approach to prophecy was intended to refute the teachings of the sixteenth-century reformers and their antecedents, including medieval Catholics like Joachim of Floris (c. 1135- 1201), "the first to apply the year-day principle to the 1260 years."
4. Antichrist was a Christ-opposing power to appear shortly before the end.

5. Antichrist was to build the temple at Jerusalem and drive out Christian religion. It was a power that would pretend to be God, be received by Jews, and conquer the world. There was involved a future period of “tribulation.”

This is just a piece of the dispensationalism puzzle to help one to see the whole picture. I hope this helps? CM

SOURCES:

-- L. R. Conradi. The Impelling Force of Prophetic Truth (London: Thynne and B. Co., Ltd., 1935). 346.

--Samuel R. Maitland. An Enquiry into the Grounds on which the Prophetic Period of Daniel and St. John Has been Supposed to Consist of 1260 Years 2nd ed. (London: 1837), 2.

Dave_L

@C_M_ said:

Background # 8: Counter-reformation Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542- 1621).

Why is he so important to this study on Dispensationalism?

Dispensationalist - Rapture roots go do into religious history. To understand its doctrine, we must get to the taproots or the genesis of its existence. The Counter-reformation (a.k.a) -- "Counter-Reformation Roman Catholicism" was started by several Jesuit scholars to defend the papacy against these attacks that the Protestant reformers, in the sixteenth century, identified the papacy as the antichrist of prophecy. e.g. Martin Luther said: "... the pope is the masked and incarnate devil because he is the Antichrist". [See above Background # 6].

To distract and distort several Jesuit scholars undertook the task of defending the papacy against these attacks in their quest to dismantle the Bible prophecy of Dan 9, particularly, the 70 weeks. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542- 1621), head of the Jesuit College in Rome, sought to nullify the prophetic year-day principle as proof for the 1,260 years of papal rule. And, on the other hand, the Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) projected the antichrist prophecies into the future (futurism).

The development of present-day errors of Dispensationalism's Antichrist. The Reformation had challenged Rome to prove that the pope was not the antichrist. The pope enlisted Jesuits to produce Scriptural evidence in favor of the Papacy (Jesuits previously were a militaristic order). The challenge instigated research by Catholic theologians Bellarmine, Ribera, and Alcazar, and resulted in preterist and futurist interpretations of prophetic antichrist.


Bellarmine's Counteract Reformation Confusions:

1. Cardinal Bellarmine, 1542-1621, Italian, combated Protestant claims that pope was the antichrist. Counter-Reformation had checked Protestantism in Europe. Bellarmine's chief attack was on the year-day principle of prophecy. He paved the way for present futurist teachings, by applying apocalyptic symbols to future.

2. He used the “Gap Theory” - 70th week of Daniel 9 was separated from 69th week and placed just before the end of the world. The beginning date for 2300 days was 445 B.C.
3. He also taught that antichrist was a Jew of the tribe of Daniel
.
4. The crucifixion date was set by Bellarmine at AD 38 instead Of AD 31.

5. Daniel 9:27. One who confirms covenant is not Christ.

6. Dispensationalists teach that the covenant was confirmed with Jews after “secret rapture” and during the 70th week. (A Catholic teaching.)

7. Futurism distorted significant prophetic events and threw them into future in a meaningless way.

Modern Dispensationalism has reversed Protestant historic interpretation of prophecy by accepting antichrist of Futurism. Protestants long held to true interpretation, but today even Fundamentalists teach Rome's views of antichrist. To approach antichrist misconceptions, teach historic interpretation of prophecy.

It's amazing for nearly three centuries futurism was largely confined to the Roman Catholic Church, until in 1826, Samuel R. Maitland (1792-1866), librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, published a 72-page pamphlet ((See source -Maitland) where he promoted Ribera's idea of a future antichrist.

What Futuristic Teachings of Ribera's Did Bellarmine Accept?

1. Francisca Ribera was a Jesuit, of Spain, 1537-1591.
 A Jesuit scholar at the Spanish University of Salamanca.
2. He taught antichrist was a single individual preceded by the reappearance of Enoch and Elijah.

3. His basic instruction was known as Futurism, his approach to prophecy was intended to refute the teachings of the sixteenth-century reformers and their antecedents, including medieval Catholics like Joachim of Floris (c. 1135- 1201), "the first to apply the year-day principle to the 1260 years."
4. Antichrist was a Christ-opposing power to appear shortly before the end.

5. Antichrist was to build the temple at Jerusalem and drive out Christian religion. It was a power that would pretend to be God, be received by Jews, and conquer the world. There was involved a future period of “tribulation.” This is just a piece of the dispensationalism puzzle to help one to see the whole picture. I hope this helps? CM

SOURCES:

-- L. R. Conradi. The Impelling Force of Prophetic Truth (London: Thynne and B. Co., Ltd., 1935). 346.

--Samuel R. Maitland. An Enquiry into the Grounds on which the Prophetic Period of Daniel and St. John Has been Supposed to Consist of 1260 Years 2nd ed. (London: 1837), 2.

Thanks! Great work...