These are some precise thoughts by Theologian Dax S. Farris on Prophecy FUTURISM: THE COUNTERFEIT PROPHECY
In the Protestant world today—especially in America—the most widely known and the most acceptable position on prophetic theology is the system of Dispensational Futurism. This system teaches that prophecy—both Old and New Testament—has met a partial fulfillment up to the time of Christ, while the major bulk of prophecy is still yet unfulfilled and inevitably will be fulfilled within the framework of a future seven-year tribulation. The time frame between Christ and the arrival of the seven-year tribulation is viewed as a parenthesis in history, where the major bulk of prophecy has no fulfillment. In the seven-year tribulation, it is believed that the Antichrist will rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, rule the world in the temple, persecute the Jews, and pretend to be God up to the time that he is destroyed by Christ (See Tim Lahaye. Revelation Illustrated And Made Plain, 94, 95).
The Protestant denominations associated with the dispensational futurist colleges are traditionally viewed as being Protestant, because they are believed to be the offspring of the Protestant Reformation. Protestant futurists see themselves as distinct from Roman Catholicism, because they believe that the Bible is their only rule of faith, whereas Catholicism is viewed as an organization that bases their beliefs largely on traditions—tradition s that are not in accordance with the Bible.
The questions that we wish the reader to ask throughout this chapter are: Are dispensational futurist organizations truly Protestant by the true definition of the word, and is the theological system of futurism truly a product of the Bible? It is our overall purpose in this chapter to demonstrate that dispensational futurism is neither Protestant nor is this doctrine derived from the Bible. Rather, the so-called Protestant dispensational futurist ideology is a product of Catholic elaborations of Church father traditionalism— stemming back to extra-biblical sources that span from the second century B.C. through the second century A.D. It is our purpose to reveal the fact that futurism is a counterfeit prophecy designed by the Jesuits to subvert Protestantism under the control of the Papacy.
Some Of The Basic Differences Between Protestantism And Catholicism
In order to ascertain whether modern day dispensational futurists are Protestant or whether they are more closely related to Catholicism, we must understand the foundational differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. We will explain the differences as they relate to the issue of this chapter. What is Catholicism by definition? Catholicism is an ideology that has its foundation in traditions that stem from the Church fathers and other extra-biblical sources. This is described in the dogma that came out of the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563). Froom explains:
Tradition and Scripture were ostensibly placed on a par, though by implication Scripture is made subservient to tradition through insistence that it be understood only in the light of the tradition of the church, specifically, the ‘unanimous teaching of the fathers.’ The Latin Vulgate was declared the one authentic version, with the intermingled apocryphal books as canonical (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 475).
Now, before we move any further, we must underscore that the Papacy still functions on the same ideological foundations that were established at the Council of Trent. The Papacy still bases its dogmas, not only on the traditions of the Church fathers, but also on extra-biblical writings, such as the apocrypha and the pseudapigraphal writings. These writings consist of books, such as: Tobit; Baruch; Maccabees; Esdras, Testament Of Twelve Patriarchs, and the book of Enoch—to name a portion.
What is Protestantism by definition? In order to accurately answer this question, we must ascertain Protestantism in the days of its inception. The Protestant Reformation based its reforms on the Bible. The goal of Protestantism was to be modeled as closely as possible with the Bible—rejecting the absolute authority of the Church fathers. They also rejected the apocryphal or pseudapigraphal writings as non-canonical and mythical.
Another point to be noted in ascertaining the meaning of Protestantism is that the name points to the great “protest” of Catholic men against the traditions of the hierarchical Church. The “protesters” of the Papacy separated themselves from the hierarchical Church as a distinct movement whose goal was to make the Bible the supreme authority of their doctrines.
One of the primary and outstanding foundations of Protestantism was its view of prophecy. The Reformers viewed prophecy as a continual process of fulfillment—without parenthetical divisions. Consequently, the Reformers were known as historicists. To the Protestants, the prophecies of scripture had been fulfilled in the past, were being fulfilled in the present, and were to be fulfilled in the future. The application of Historicism was one of the most fundamental marks that divided Protestantism from Catholicism.
The Protestant application of Historicism lead the Reformers to identify the existence of the Papacy as being the great apostasy (Falling Away) foretold in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, and they saw the Pope as the fulfillment of the position of the “man of lawlessness” in verse 4. The Reformers believed that the great “falling away” had taken place in Christendom, and the man of lawlessness had manifested himself as the head of a corrupted church. This was the opinion, for example, of the German Reformer and founder of the Lutheran Church, Martin Luther (1483 – 1546): I am practically cornered, and can hardly doubt any more, that the Pope is really the Antichrist, whom the world expects according to a general belief, because everything so exactly corresponds to the way of his life, action, words, and commandments (Sammtliche Schriften. Edited by Joh[ann] Georg Walch, Vol 21a, col. 234).
The French Reformer, John Calvin (1509 – 1564), believed that the Antichrist was being fulfilled in the Papacy:
Some people 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 and whose language we adopt (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2: 410, 411).
Throughout the centuries—before and after these Reformers—multitudes of confessors proclaimed the same thing as they: that the Antichrist was a corrupt church with a corrupt position of popery—tyrannizing the people into submission to church dogmas, which were antagonistic to the Bible. Protestant historicists in both Reformation days and the present day have come to the conclusion that the Papacy is the prophesied Antichrist. The books of Daniel and Revelation are clearly predicated to the Papacy, for the Catholic system and her history unequivocally coincide with the definition of the Antichrist (see chapters’ 5 and 6). Why is it clear to historicists that the Papacy is the prophesied Antichrist? Historicists use the whole Bible as an organic unit without arbitrary divisions. Because of this principle of studying the Bible as a whole book, we find that the New Testament interprets the Old. We find the unity of God’s saints in all ages as one people (Heb. 11). We need not chop up the Bible—especially prophecy—to fit up to some Zionist expectation for the nation of Israel. The New Testament perspicuously interprets the Church as the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises.
As a result of this clear understanding of scripture, we can see that prophecy has progressively unfolded throughout the centuries. Why would it? Biblical prophecy pertains to the Church—the spiritual temple—with her connection to the Davidic temple where Jesus reigns as both king and priest; thus, Israel in her local settings was a type of a much greater Israel inclusive of all nationalities— with the heavenly Jerusalem being the focal point of all unilateral provision. The unity of the scriptures, the unity of the saints, the Church constituting God’s temple, and the progressive unfolding of prophecy through history has led historicists to realize that the Pope is the Man of Lawlessness in the midst of Christendom fulfilling the abomination of desolation. This was the view of the Protestant historicists of the past, and is still the view of modern day Protestant historicists.
The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is thus summarized: Catholicism based its doctrines on traditions that stem from the early church fathers and extra biblical sources, whereas Protestantism sought to base its doctrines solely on the authority of the Bible—applying the methodology of Historicism; and Protestantism was a movement that “protested” against the Papacy. Note: These fundamental distinctions between Catholicism and Protestantism are of the utmost importance. As we move through each section in this chapter, we ask the reader to keep these fundamental distinctions in mind, because the sources that were used as authorities to form the creeds of either Catholicism or Protestantism are the main foundations that distinguish the two systems.
The Jesuit Scheme Of Prophetic Interpretation
Question: What kind of problems did the Papacy have with the Protestant Reformation? Froom explains:
The Reformers in all lands had been unanimous in applying most of the prophecies of Antichrist to the Papacy, though some applied one or two symbols to Mohammedanism, as a paralleling Eastern Antichrist. In fact, it was this united Protestant stand on the Papacy that became the spring of their reformatory action. It was this clear understanding of the prophetic symbols that led them to protest against Rome with such extraordinary courage and effectiveness, nerving them to break with her, and to resist her claims, even unto death. These positions were, moreover, shared by hundreds of thousands, and were adopted by both rulers and people. Under their influence, whole nations abjured allegiance to the bishop of Rome. It was clearly a crisis of major proportions (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 485. Emphasis mine).
Question: What did Rome do to thwart the Protestant message that the Antichrist was fully realized in the Papacy? Froom reveals:
Rome’s answer to the Protestant Reformation was twofold, though actually conflicting and contradictory. Through the Jesuit Ribera, of Salamanca, Spain, and Bellarmine, of Rome, the Papacy put forth her Futurist interpretation. And through Alcazar, Spanish Jesuit of Seville, she advanced almost simultaneously the conflicting Preterist interpretation. These were designed to meet and overwhelm the Historical interpretation of the Protestants. Though mutually exclusive, either Jesuit alternative suited the great objective equally well, as both thrust aside the application of the prophecies from the existing Church of Rome. The one accomplished it by making prophecy stop altogether short of Papal Rome’s career. The other achieved it by making it overlap the immense era of papal dominance, crowding Antichrist into a small fragment of time in the still distant future, just before the great consummation. It is consequently often called the gap theory (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 486, 487).
The Protestant writer, Joseph Tanner, tells us:
Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her 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 Alcasar devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method of interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus endeavored to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled at 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 not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and to 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 in modern times (Daniel and the Revelation: The chart of prophecy and our place in it. A study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation, 16).
George S. Hitchcock, a Catholic writer, also agrees that the systems’ of preterism and futurism both have their origin in the Jesuits:
The Futurist School, founded by the Jesuit Ribera in 1591, looks for Antichrist, Babylon, and a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, at the end of the Christian Dispensation. The Preterist School, founded by the Jesuit Alcasar in 1614, explains the Revelation by the Fall of Jerusalem, or by the fall of Pagan Rome in 410 A.D. (The Beast and the Little Horn, 7)
Since our focal point of analysis is the system of futurism, we ask for emphasis: What was the basic view of Jesuit futurism?
Futurism contended insistently for an individual Antichrist, not a system or dynasty; for a diminutive three and a half literal years, not twelve and a half centuries; for an individual Jew of the tribe of Dan, a clever infidel, to set himself up in the Jewish temple at Jerusalem, not a succession of bishops in the Catholic Church. Thus the prophecies allegedly had only to do with the first few centuries after Christ, and then three and a half years sometime in the future. Between the two was the great gap of the spreading centuries with which prophecy had not to do. Antichrist obviously had not come-because the time of the end had not come (Froom, Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 488, 489).
Up to this point, we can deduct that two systems of prophetic interpretation were developed through the Jesuits to destroy the Historical Protestant’ school of interpretation. Francisco Ribera (1537 – 1591), Jesuit scholar of Salamanca, and Robert Bellarmine (1542 – 1621), Italian cardinal and Jesuit, developed the system of futurism. Jesuit futurism allows prophecy to be fulfilled up to the time of Christ; and then, prophecy is forced up in the distant future—prior to the end of the world—as a three and a half year tribulation. The Jesuit Alcazar, through his system of preterism, has the whole of prophecy fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled in Rome.
What is extremely obvious about these systems is the fact that they deliver a message that can be visualized through the “gap theory.” They are systems that can be visualized as a mechanism that does everything to excuse the Papacy from the BIG PICTURE of prophecy. Common sense can detect that the “gap,” which the Jesuits have placed between Pagan Rome and the three and a half year tribulation, is a blank spot purposely created to blind men’s minds from seeing the fulfillment of the tyranny of the Papacy. As we have analyzed in chapters’ 5 and 6 of this course, Historicism is based on serious research, not just theological, but also historical. In fact, Historicism is congruous with the nature of God (Rev. 1:4, 8, 19; 22:16). The Jesuit systems are based on a research that overlooks the research of the Church age; which means, their system is an omission of credible knowledge, and thus research that does not really amount to much. The Jesuit systems are a prime example of the fallacy of false alternative; meaning, they “exclude relevant possibilities without justification.” Both preterism and futurism had the same purpose: a speedy resolution to solve and eliminate the Protestant identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist. Because Alcazar’s system was not very convincing—even among the Jesuits—the Jesuits for the most part focused on the futurist scheme as the theological savior of the Catholic Church. Indeed the Jesuits were busy in every frontier of knowledge to win the world to the control of the Catholic Church, and it is clear that they have had great success in the evangelical world today. In today’s evangelical world, one only has to turn on the television, and they can hear the doctrines of the Counter Reformation preached by “so called” Protestant teachers. One thing is certain; there could never be a successful ecumenical movement if Protestants still held to the Reformation view of Antichrist. It is the Jesuit view of prophecy that is causing the evangelicals in today’s Protestantism to wonder after the Beast. This is an issue that will be thoroughly covered in following chapters. Now we are going to demonstrate the sophistries of the futurist scheme and reveal its insufficiency as a proper method of prophetic interpretation.
Prophetic Ideas of Ribera and Bellarmine
(1) The first few chapters of Revelation are assigned to John in his own time.
(2) Five of the seals are applied to the Christian era.
(3) At the sixth seal, the saints will be sealed by the angel of Revelation 7.
(4) The sixth seal more or less initiates the three and a half year tribulation.
(5) Prior to the coming of antichrist, the ten horns destroy the Papacy after a falling away from the Pope.
(6) Then the antichrist comes and destroys three of the kingdoms and initiates the three and a half year tribulation.
(7) During the duration of the three and a half years—under the seventh seal—the seven trumpets meet their fulfillment.
(8) Enoch and Elijah are the two witnesses of Revelation 11 who prophesy for three and a half years.
(9) During the three and a half years of tribulation, the woman of Revelation 12 (the remnant of the church) flees from the antichrist. Revelation 12 and 13 are treated as parallel—as the reign of antichrist.
(10) During the three and a half years, the antichrist reigns in a literal temple in Jerusalem.
(11) The antichrist is only one man who possesses all the power of the devil. As a man, he is Satan incarnate.
The analysis and picture of the Jesuits above comes from Prophetic Faith Vol. 2, Froom uses the following commentaries: [Francisco Ribera, In sacram Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistae Apocalypsin Commentarij. ( Lugduni: Ex Officina Iuntarum, 1593).
Froom also gives illustrations of Robert Bellarmine’s Futurism from (Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes Roberti Bellarmini . . . de Controversiis Christianae Fidei, Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos. Cologne: Anton & Arnold Hieratorus Brothers, 1628. 4 Vols.)
Jesuit Construct
Dispensational Futurist Construct