The Current War against Iran and Support for Israel is based on Catholic Counter Reformation Theology.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Luther7

Active Member
Dec 20, 2025
351
136
43
60
Vineland
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
For over 200 years, the Protestant reformers had been proving from scripture and from history that the papal church of Rome was the Antichrist, the man of sin, and the little horn of Daniel 7. As a result of this, the Catholic Church was leaking members and financial support like a burst water balloon. Rome needed an answer. Previously, they would meet such a challenge head on, through war and threats against secular rulers. In this case however, the stampede towards protestant truth required more. So Rome called what was later known as the council of Trent.
At this council they affirmed Catholic teaching, that tradition was of equal authority as scripture. They compromised on nothing, but still couldn't find an answer to the fast growing protestant movement, until the Jesuits provided it. They had to change the manner in which prophecy was interpreted. The reformers were historicist, just as were many of the church communities before them, such as the Waldenses and Cathars (Albigenses) and the Celtic church in Britain.
Enter Francisco (Franciscus) Ribera, a Spanish Jesuit priest (1537–1591) who is widely regarded as the key early futurist Jesuit commentator on Revelation. Ribera was a Jesuit from Spain who taught at the University of Salamanca and wrote a large commentary on Revelation around 1585–1590. His commentary argued that most of Revelation (after the early chapters) refers not to church history, but to a short, literal period (about three and a half years) immediately before the Second Coming.
Ribera was more of a writer than a lecturer. He also died at the early age of 54. For these reasons, Ribera’s views needed a shrewd and articulate champion to carry his message far and wide. The champion was found and his name was Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621).
Bellarmine was an Italian cardinal and also one of the ablest Jesuit
controversialists. He was a powerful speaker and lectured to large audiences. Bellarmine picked up where Ribera left off. In fact, Bellarmine made it his special project to spread the literalistic hermeneutic of futurism with unabated passion.
“He insisted that the prophecies concerning Antichrist in Daniel, Paul, and John, had no application to the papal power. This formed the third part of his Disputationes de Controversiis Christianae Fidei Adversus Huius Temporis Haereticos [Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time], published between 1581 and 1593. This was the most detailed apology of the Catholic faith ever produced, and became the arsenal for all future defenders and expositors. It called forth a host of counter-writings from Protestant leaders, who considered him their greatest adversary.” (Froom, PFF, II, p. 495).
Though the basics of Bellarmine’s prophetic views were identical to Ribera’s, he “perfected”, “refined” and amplified many of the details. And he crusaded in favor of the literalistic futurist view and against the Protestants with an evangelistic zeal worthy of admiration!
Bellarmine was an expert at turning the Reformers against themselves. For example, he wondered why Luther, who taught that his views were based on Scripture alone, doubted the canonicity of the book of Revelation. In contrast, Bellarmine appeared to be the defender of the book of Revelation as part of the New Testament canon.
He also took painstaking efforts to document the fact that the Reformers could not even agree among themselves as to when the prophetic periods began and ended. For example, some Protestants dated the beginning of the dominion of the Antichrist from the fall of Rome (400 A. D.). Others dated it to 600 A. D., when Pope Gregory the Great took the papal throne, and still others dated it to somewhere between 200 and 773, 1,000, or even 1,200. Bellarmine contended that if the Reformers could not agree on the time period of Antichrist’s dominion, neither could they be trusted to identify who he was. Bellarmine also documented that the Early Church fathers (not the New Testament writers!!) taught an individual Antichrist who would rule for a literal three and a half year period. In this way he tried to prove that his view was the original belief of the Early Church. He also showed that each of the Reformers interpreted Daniel and Revelation’s symbols differently. In this way he worked to undermine their views regarding the identity of the Antichrist.
In chapter five of his work, Bellarmine employed an argument which would later be picked up by Protestants. There, Bellarmine rewrote history, saying that the Roman Empire had never been divided according to the specifications of the prophecy and therefore, Antichrist could not have come yet. According to Bellarmine, the complete desolation of the Roman Empire must come before the advent of the Antichrist, and this had not yet taken place. It turned out later that a host of Protestant writers picked up this argument and “ran with it”.
The essence of Bellarmine’s argument is that the Papacy cannot be the Antichrist for three reasons:
1. The Antichrist prophecies call for an individual but the Papacy is a system.
2. The Antichrist time periods demand a literal three and one half years, but the Papacy has existed for centuries.
3. Antichrist is to sit in the Jerusalem Temple, but the popes are ruling in Rome.
Let’s allow Bellarmine to tell us these things in his own words:
“For all Catholics think thus that the Antichrist will be one certain man; but all heretics teach. . . that Antichrist is expressly declared to be not a single person, but an individual throne or absolute kingdom, and apostate seat of those who rule over the church.”
(Quoted in Froom, PFF, II, p. 500).
“Antichrist will not reign except for three years and a half. But the Pope has now reigned spiritually in the church more than 1500 years; nor can anyone be pointed out who has been accepted for Antichrist, who has ruled exactly three and one-half years; therefore the Pope is not Antichrist. Then Antichrist has not yet come. (Quoted in Froom, PFF, II, p. 502).
“The Pope is not antichrist since indeed his throne is not in Jerusalem, nor in the temple of Solomon; surely it is credible that from the year 600, no Roman pontiff has ever been in Jerusalem.”
(Quoted in Froom, PFF, II, p. 502).
The above teachings were later picked up by catholic leaning Protestants such as Samuel Maitland, James Todd, William Burgh, John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren, and the renowned John Henry Newman. Then through the Schofield Bible these Jesuit lies and deceptions, all invented to destroy Protestantism, ended up in the Dallas Theological Seminary, and the rest is history.

Futurism is the principle cause and motivation behind the current war against Iran and the wholesale unconditional support for Israel. All on delusion and Jesuit deception designed, successfully, to take the teeth out of protestant scriptural authority.
How you may wonder? Through the lie, invented by Ribera and later refined by Bellarmine, that the temple, spoken of in 2 Thess.2, must be a third temple expected by the dispensation people today to be built and that it is essential to Christ's second coming. Nearly all evangelical and charismatic preachers teach this, and they are all wrong. And what's more, they are responsible for deceiving multitudes and turning the attention of sincere well meaning Christians away from true Protestantism and the biblically affirmed teaching of the reformers and their almost fanatical focus on Israel as the center of end time prophecy, when in reality the focus ought to be on the United States.

All of futurism is built on the false premise of a future physical temple in Jerusalem. It is a curious blindness that those who promote this teaching cannot see within the very verse they use as the basis for it, declares the reason why it is untenable. Paul calls this temple, whatever you want to believe it may be whether physical or spiritual, the temple of God. Paul clearly and succinctly declares the temple as God's own temple. A dwelling place for His presence. That one single profound statement renders the entire Jesuit and now modern Protestant belief in a third temple built by either apostate Jews or the Antichrist himself, as a satanic inspired deception. And now there's a war being waged on those false grounds.
Jews ( talmudic, supremist , Zionist) run the world not Catholics. The Jewish religion teaches a future kingdom where they , with their "messiah", govern the world from Jerusalem. It can't get any more obvious than that.

Hopefully the world ( especially "Christian" zionists) will wake up to who has control over them , and fight back ( spiritually). That might be part of prophecy. We may find out when it's too late ( like Europe during the rise of Communism, a jewish invention). But God has opened the eyes of many.
 

dad

Well-Known Member
Apr 17, 2020
3,962
500
113
66
private
normanbruleart.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
@dad

...but the whole earth, exactly as Jesus says in Matthew 5:5.
We will inherit the earth. That does not mean we live here, at least all of the time. Nor does it mean that a little group of Jewish survivors will not be restored to the promised land as well. It is not one or the other. All promises will be fulfillled
And yes, we, together, are God's Israel, the household of God.
And also, together, the saved remnant of Jews will inherit the land ans also will be Israel.Why do you try to punish the remnant and make God a liar? (while accusing others of having heads of stone?)
That's exactly what I have been saying, several times over now, the reason being that is exactly as Scripture says Yes, in the greater sense. Good for you (finally). Maybe you're not so stone-headed after all. <smile> However...
Well, I guess I escaped that bullet
In saying these things, here are the Scriptures (again) that you're turning on their head... refuting... stating the opposite of (and this is not an exhaustive list):
  • Genesis 12:1 ~ in the call of Abram (later Abraham), there is nothing there regarding his having believed in God... or even known who He was/is, but when God told him to go, he obeyed... and this is exactly the case with all Jesus's the disciples, when He said to each of them, "Follow me." To that point, Jesus later says to them, in John 15:16, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide..."
Who cares? God still promised the remnant a certain land, and a certain land they will get. The intricacies of why God called Abraham a friend, and why he got saved are a separate issue
  • Ezekiel 11:19-20 ~ God says, "I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in my statutes and keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God."
Right, the saved remnant will be saved in other words, just like we are. Why begrudge them that?
  • Ezekiel 36:26-27 ~ same as above;
In that case, the answer is same as above also
  • Matthew 19:26, Luke 18:27 ~ these are accounts by Mark and Luke of the same event; the disciples ask Him, "Who then can be saved?" To which Jesus looks at them (pointedly), and says, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Matthew), "What is impossible with man is possible with God" (Luke).
So all can be saved then. Great! All they need to do is choose Jesus. Otherwise they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. Sorry if you may have thought there were free passes given out to some supposed special few who didn't need to do that.
  • John 1:11-13 ~ "He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, He gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." (This receiving is of the Father, Who gives them to Jesus and Jesus to them.
In other words they did not choose Jesus. You shot your own case in the foot there
  • John 3:3-8 ~ "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God... Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God... The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
To do that we choose Jesus. THEN we are born again.
  • John 6:37-40 ~ "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will but the will of Him Who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I should lose nothing of all that He has given Me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
Everyone that believes is saved. Choosing Jesus. Clear as day there. Not sure why you post verses that slay your own case.
  • John 8:43-47 ~ "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear My word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires... But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me... If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."
Right, after we come to Jesus and are saved we hear His words. In no way does this mean that we do not need to ask and come to Him.
  • John 10:25-30 ~ "I told you, and you do not believe... you do not believe because you are not among my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one."
The sheep are those who chose Jesus.Sorry if you thought it was just some phantom special ticket holders or whatever that happened to receive the tickets while everyone else was destined for hell. No The rest of your verses also in no way support any notion that the saved must not first receive Jesus. Doing so is not a work that saves us, it is what we must do so that God will work a work that saves us.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,972
6,871
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
@Spiritual Israelite


You mean as if I haven't?

giphy.gif
You actually think you have proven something?

200w.gif

Yeah, a head of stone. <shrug> I mean, to your satisfaction, no, which I get, and acknowledged, but that's all you can really say.
Uh huh. The delusion continues.

Okay, we think the very same of each other. Cool.
200.gif


Well, anymore, after this, because I have, at least three times now. But yeah, you're certainly welcome to your (stone-headed) opinion; far be it from me to deprive you of that... as if I could do so anyway...
You're right that your stone-headed opinions can never convince me to agree with you.

Why do something over and over again, thinking you might change your mind, but knowing the outcome ~ your continuing in your stone-headedness and insults ~ which is all you have ~ will be the same?
LOL. You are such a hypocrite. You are the one of the most stone-headed people on this forum. You are shown truth very clearly from scripture, such as what is indicated in Romans 7:9-11, but you're stone-headedness results in you thinking that Paul is saying sin made him dead to sin in Romans 7:11 rather than making him dead in his sins.

Isn't that the definition of insanity? Again, I have, but sooner or later you just have to kind of throw your hands up and walk away. Not to compare myself to Jesus, but that's exactly what He did; it's what God does, too, really, in giving unbelievers over to their own selfish passions, and enduring them with great patience, and even giving them a great measure of grace (but not the particular grace of salvation), even though they don't acknowledge it.
LOL. You are so incredibly full of yourself. Your stubborn pride is the reason that you won't let go of your false Calvinist doctrines.

Of course I "discern" that; it's what I have said several times now. But that's not the issue, Spiritual Israelite. The issue has always been, regarding verses 9 through 11... you saying that in those particular verses Paul said of himself that he "became dead in his sin," which is exactly the opposite of what he was saying there, and in saying that you were/are both contradicting yourself... <wide eyes>
So, how about you paraphrase the passage for me instead of just making claims about it? You have yet to actually exegete the passage like I have. Are you afraid to do so? When Paul said in verse 11 that sin deceived him and killed him, what exactly do you think that means? You have said before that you think in Romans 7:9-11 that he's talking about being made dead to sin. That would mean in verse 11 you are saying that sin deceived him and made him dead to sin. Explain how that makes any sense. Until you actually exegete the passage, I can't take you seriously on this. So far, you're just all talk when it comes to that passage and no substance.

...and making Paul out to contradict himself both here in Romans 7 and in Ephesians 2, when he says, of salvation itself (substituting 'we' here for 'you' because it's true of all of us who have been saved/born again), "(we) were dead in the trespasses and sins in which (we) once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience⁠
I, of course, don't deny that we (believers) were all formerly dead in the trespasses and sins in which we once walked. That isn't what we are debating. We're debating the timing that someone becomes dead in their sins. How can you apply Ephesians 2 to babies or young children. Have they walked in trespasses and sins while following the course of the world and the prince of the power of the air? No. You have to understand what sin is in order to do that. You can't apply Ephesians 2 to anyone who does not yet even understand what sin is.

~ among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
Do babies and young children carry out the desires of the flesh and the mind? No. They don't know what they're doing and don't know what sin is yet.
 

Spiritual Israelite

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
16,972
6,871
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Gender
Male
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ⁠ ~ by grace (we) have been saved⁠ ~ and raised us up with Him..." And this is all in your futile effort to disprove John Calvin's concept of "total depravity" and that we are not born dead in sin.
Futile effort? Hardly! You have done less than nothing to prove that anyone is born dead in their sins. All you do is take verse after verse out of context and then think you've proven something. It's a joke.

Maybe the problem, Spiritual Israelite, is how you state that. Maybe you're really thinking correctly but just stating things poorly. He did not "become dead in sins" (nor do any of us).
No, that's exactly what I meant and I'm stating it accurately. Your claim that people are born dead in their sins is what is stated poorly and falsely.

What he's saying of himself ~ and also saying of all those in Christ, here and elsewhere, particularly Ephesians 2 ~ is that he (and they) was (were) formerly dead in his (their) sin, but now are dead to sin, and alive together with Christ, which is precisely what He says in Ephesians 2:5-8 ~, "...even when we were dead in our trespasses/sin, (God) made us alive together with Christ⁠... by grace (we) have been saved through faith. And this is not (our) own doing; it is the gift of God."
Exegete Romans 7:9-11 for me. Based on what you're saying, this is how I would think you would translate or paraphrase the passage.

Romans 7:9 I was once never alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive , died in me, so I died to sin. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to sin to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, failed to deceive deceived me and through it killed me to sin.

Is this how you understand the passage to read? If not, then please paraphrase it for me so that I can see how you understand it.

There is no state previous to being dead in sin.
Paul indicated otherwise. He said in Romans 7:9 - "I was once alive apart from the law". What do you think that means?

This is our natural state.
If a little child is naturally dead in sins and a child of wrath, then why would Jesus have said this...

Matthew 19:13 Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, 14 but Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And he laid his hands on them and went away.

As he says, "The natural person..." ~ ~ "...does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 1:14). We are born in our natural state, Spiritual Israelite ~ how anyone can think differently than that is just incredible, really ~ there is nothing... no state of man... previous to that, but only non-existence, having not been conceived or born. Now, there are some people out there who believe in a pre-existence, but I think you and I both agree that's... well, just nutty. <smile>
That verse is talking about the deeper things of God that even babes in Christ can't understand, as Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. In that verse Paul is talking about the solid food of the word that even immature Christians can't understand. They can only sip milk. That has nothing to do with whether someone can understand the simple message of the gospel or not. You once again are taking scripture out of context, as you do repeatedly.

You might continue to deny thist, and if so, fair enough, but it is what it is.
Of course I will continue to deny your false doctrine. That will never change. Because it is what it is.

I've... "done nothing to back up" my "claim." Wow.
Nothing convincing. I'm not saying you haven't tried, but you have no idea how unconvincing your arguments are. Maybe if you actually exegeted Romans 7:9-11 and showed exactly how you read it, that would change my opinion about that.

I mean that too is just a stone-headed thing to say.
Says the stone-headed man.