The Criteria of Antichrist.

[brakelite]

"Futurism and preterism both leave many unanswered questions, many unfulfilled details, and tend to make prophetic interpretation look more like guesswork and wishful thinking rather than the accurate study and strengthening of faith that it can be."
You got that right!

You have some very interesting points, I am enjoying reading this. It will take a few times and allot of study to truly grasp all of this but, great points.

As @amadeus is wont to say, thankyou, but give God the glory

 

[brakelite]

Criteria #7
He shall think to change times and laws.

The “times” are God’s calendar of prophetic events which He has previously appointed and announced. These events are under His control and will be ultimately fulfilled in the time and way which He has previously established.
This must mean that the little horn would attempt to change God’s prophetic calendar in some way. It would present a false prophetic scenario of endtime
events. In this sense, it would attempt to do precisely what Nebuchadnezzar had once tried to do in Daniel 3, that is, rewrite the prophetic scenario which God had previously appointed and revealed. The final fulfillment of the story of Daniel 3 is found in Revelation 13.

The Changing of the Times: A Historical Perspective
The Protestant reformers held the almost unanimous view that the Papacy was the predicted Antichrist of Bible prophecy. They shared several theological concepts: 1) The fourth beast of Daniel 7 is imperial Rome. 2) The “restrainer” of II Thessalonians 2 is the Roman Empire. 3) The Antichrist is not an individual, but rather a succession of popes who, taken together, constitute an apostate religious system. 4) The time periods in symbolic prophecy are to be understood figuratively, not literally. 5) The “temple” in which the Antichrist sits is not the literal Jerusalem temple, but rather, the Christian Church. 6) The word “Antichrist” does not denote a blasphemous
individual who openly denies and defies God, but rather, one who opposes Christ by posing as the vicar of Christ. 7) Though not unanimous, most Protestant reformers believed that the little horn of Daniel 7 represents the Roman Catholic Papal system.
When we think of the Protestant Reformation, expressions such as sola scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone) come to mind. However, all these “solas” grew out of a realization that the Roman Catholic system was the predicted Antichrist of Bible prophecy.
You see, the Protestant reformers knew for certain that in the prophetic flow, the lion (Babylon), the bear (Medo-Persia), the leopard (Greece), and the dragon (Rome) had already ruled the world. They also knew that Rome had been divided into ten kingdoms when the Barbarians carved up the Empire. They also knew that the predicted Antichrist was to arise among these ten kingdoms of Western Europe. They saw clearly and distinctly that they were living in the time of the little horn.
The historicist hermeneutical method made it quite simple. A correct understanding of Bible prophecy gave them the unmistakable mandate to unmask this system which had usurped the prerogatives of Christ and adulterated the truth of God!!

There is much evidence in written form of the almost unanimous view of the reformers that the RCC was indeed the antichrist. For the sake of space I will not quote them here, but can provide quotes if desired.

Bear in mind that those who pointed the finger at the Papacy as the great Antichrist were highly educated individuals. They could not be accused of being ignorant and unlearned. Many reached their own conclusions independently of others. Their expositions were saturated with quotations from Daniel 7 (the little horn), Revelation 13 (the beast), Revelation 17 (the harlot), II Thessalonians 2 (the Man of Sin), and Matthew 24 (the abomination of desolation). And their testimony was unanimous and covered the entire Continent of Europe!!

The Papacy knew it could triumph only by turning away the incriminating finger of Bible prophecy. But, how could it do this when the evidence was so clear and overwhelming? The Papacy saw that in order to be successful, it must change the method Protestants had used to interpret prophecy. Only by obliterating the method of historicism could the Papacy deflect the accusing
finger!! And the Papacy laid out a carefully devised plan to do just
this!!
In 1545 the Roman Catholic Church called a church council which was held at Trent. The avowed purpose of the Council of Trent was to arrest the growing Protestant Reformation. The council lasted until 1563 (the longest church council in the history of the Roman Catholic Church). No major decisions were reached with respect to Bible prophecy but the Papacy did reaffirm categorically the dogmas of the Church and pronounced an anathema upon anyone who taught otherwise.
Just eleven years before the Council of Trent, St. Ignatius of Loyola founded the Jesuit Order (in 1534). Besides providing the Papacy with a formidable secret police force, the Jesuits also trained an elite of theological scholars whose avowed purpose was to overthrow Protestantism. In fact, in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, there is a statue of Loyola trampling Protestants underfoot!!
Loyola’s Jesuit Order would eventually spawn two able scholars whose views would not only arrest the growth of Protestantism but actually conquer it!! To this story we must now turn. Let’s begin with Luis de Alcazar, the preterist.
The Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (born in the year 37 A. D.), believed that the little horn of Daniel 8 (perhaps also the little horn of Daniel 7, though we are not sure) was Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid ruler who governed from 174 till 163 B. C. In this, Josephus shared the view of the LXX and many other Jewish scholars of his day..
In the second century A. D., an enemy of Christianity whose name was
Porphiry, corresponded with Tertullian, one of the early church fathers, trying to persuade him that the little horn was Antiochus Epiphanes.
Luis de Alcazar, Jesuit from Seville, Spain, picked up on the idea of Josephus and the LXX. From 1569 onward he worked on counteracting the Protestant view of the prophecies. He wrote a 900-page commentary on the book of Revelation, titled: Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi [Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse]. The book was published posthumously in 1614.
The main thrust of Alcazar’s book was to relegate the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation to the distant past. This system of prophetic interpretation became known as preterism. According to Alcazar,
the entire book of Revelation was fulfilled in the first six centuries of the Christian Era. For him, Nero was the predicted Antichrist. By relegating the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation to the distant past, Alcazar argued that they could not apply to the Papacy in the 16th century.
If Alcazar’s view was true, then the preaching of the Protestants was gravely wrong. Alcazar established a rival method of interpreting prophecy which removed the incriminating finger from the Papacy and pointed it at Antiochus and Nero!!
Tragically, Protestants soon picked up Alcazar’s deviant theory. It was first adopted by Hugo Grotius of Holland in his Annotationes of 1644. Many other Protestant scholars would follow suit. Noteworthy is the German rationalist J. G. Eichhorn (1752-1827), who had the audacity of republishing Alcazar’s preterist interpretation. (For a list of other rationalist scholars who followed
Grotius and Eichhorn, see, Froom, PFF, II, p. 510).
What made the preterist method so attractive to the German rationalists was that it seemed to eliminate the predictive element from the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Remarkably, preterism was introduced into the United States for the first time by Moses Stuart in 1842. Thus, while William Miller and his fellow preachers were proclaiming a message based on the method of historicism, Satan was working to introduce the rival method of
preterism.
Preterism is still the prophetic method of choice in the Roman Catholic Church. It is also the favorite menu for liberal Protestant scholars who use the historical-critical method to do away with the supernatural predictive element of Bible prophecy.

 

[brakelite]

The preterist hermeneutic involves a change of God’s times, that is, it creates its own prophetic scenario and tries to change our understanding about the manner in which prophecy was and will be fulfilled (remember what Nebuchadnezzar attempted to do in Daniel 3?). And liberal Protestants, by adopting the preterist method from Roman Catholicism, have become the False Prophet of Roman Catholicism. By reflecting the prophetic views of the
Papacy, they have become, hermeneutically speaking, an image of the beast.
Is this perhaps the reason why liberal Protestants are becoming practically indistinguishable from Roman Catholicism? Could this be the reason why liberal Protestants are reaching across the abyss to clasp the hand of
Catholicism? Having cast aside the compass of a proper prophetic hermeneutic, liberal Protestants cannot but wander in a maze of uncertainty and confusion.

 

[brakelite]

But we must now turn to the other Jesuit scholar: Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), from Salamanca, Spain. Ribera was a brilliant student who specialized in Latin, Greek and Hebrew. He received a doctorate in theology from the University of Salamanca and joined the Jesuit Order in 1570 when he was just 33 years old.
Before we analyze Ribera’s methods of prophetic interpretation we must underline that the Early Church fathers (not the New Testament writers!!) had certain futuristic elements in their eschatology. They almost unanimously believed that the “restrainer” of II Thessalonians 2 was the Roman Empire. They also believed that as soon as the Empire fell apart, a literal evil individual would arise to rule the world for three and a half literal years. (See, George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope, pp. 28-31 where he presents, for example, the views of Lactantius and Hippolytus).
In all fairness to these Church Fathers, we must remember two things:

1) They did not expect the history of the world to last another 2000 years. They believed that the coming of Christ was in the foreseeable future.

2) Prophecy is usually not understood in its fulness until the times of fulfillment.
Jesus Himself explained to the disciples: “And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.” (John 14:29).
The Gospels reveal that the disciples of Jesus totally misunderstood and misapplied Bible prophecy before the resurrection. It was not until after the fulfillment of these prophecies that their hearts burned within them as Jesus opened unto them the Scriptures (Luke 24:32). History proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the meaning of the prophecies becomes clearer and clearer as the time of fulfillment draws near (see, II Peter 1:19).
The Early Church Fathers lived in the time of the fourth beast (Rome). The Empire had not yet crumbled into ten kingdoms. The little horn had not yet risen. The best they could do was guess about the identity of the Antichrist.
But the Protestant Reformers did not need to guess. They had the benefit of looking back at over one thousand years of church history and saw, with their own eyes, what the Early Church fathers could not have foreseen. By the time of the Reformers, the Roman Empire had crumbled into ten kingdoms
and an evil spiritual empire (Papal Rome) had risen among these kingdoms to rule over them. Thus, the Reformers had the benefit of history to help them identify the little horn, the Man of Sin, the Beast, the Harlot and the abomination of desolation.
Now, back to Ribera. This Jesuit scholar capitalized on the incomplete views of the Early Church fathers. In 1590 he published a 500-page commentary on the Apocalypse where he expounded the prophecies of Revelation using the literalistic hermeneutic of futurism. The main tenets of his eschatology are described by Froom:
“Ribera assigned the first few chapters of the Apocalypse to ancient Rome, in John’s own time; the rest he restricted to a literal three and a half years reign of an infidel Antichrist, who would bitterly oppose and blaspheme the saints just before the second advent. He taught that Antichrist would be a single individual, who would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, abolish the Christian religion, deny Christ, be received by the Jews, pretend to be God, and conquer the world–and all in this brief space of three and onehalf years!” (Froom, PFF, II, pp. 489-490, ).
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).

 

[brakelite]

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. Later on we will see 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).
It is abundantly clear that Bellarmine applied the hermeneutic of a stringent literalism in his exposition of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. As we shall see later, this literalistic hermeneutic was picked up by conservative Protestants and taken to ridiculous extremes. But now we must get back to our story of futurism’s “incredible journey.”
For over 150 years after Ribera and Bellarmine, Protestantism remained true to its prophetic principles. But then there was a shift, gentle at first and then with a vengeance!! In the early 19th century some Protestant expositors began to make overtures to Rome. This can be seen most clearly in the Oxford Tractarian Movement of the Anglican Church in England. Let’s allow Froom to describe the movement toward Rome:
“But now, in the nineteenth century in Britain, the Futurist concept was again revived, by Samuel Maitland, James Todd, William Burgh, John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren, and the renowned John Henry Newman.” (Froom, PFF, III, p. 656).
It all started with Samuel Maitland who in 1826 published a series of pamphlets entitled, Enquiries. Froom states that “In these Maitland had militantly assailed the whole Protestant application to the Roman Papacy of the symbols of the little horn, Daniel’s fourth beast, the Apocalyptic Beast, and Babylon–holding that a personal and avowedly infidel antichrist was meant, and asserting that the prophetic days of its dominance were simply literal days.” (Froom, PFF, III, p. 657).
Maitland’s views were shared by James Todd (1805-1869) and William Burgh (1800-1866)[both were clergymen in the Church of England]. These views would eventually form the foundation for John Henry Newman’s return to Rome.
Notice the following words from William Burgh: “First that ‘THE MAN OF SIN’ is not popery appears from the necessity that this chapter be understood of an individual, and not of a power or office vested in numbers or held by succession.” (William Burgh, Lectures on the Second Advent [second edition], p. 63).
“I would say that an individual is intended–one person whose pretensions live and die with himself. . .” [don’t forget these last words which will later be picked up verbatim by Dave Hunt]
(William Burgh, Lectures on the Second Advent, pp. 64, 65).
“Secondly, the nature of these same acts and pretensions prove that the ‘man of sin’ is not the Pope.” (William Burgh, Lectures on the Second Advent, p. 65).
James H. Todd was likewise categorical in his denial of the Papacy as the Antichrist. His lectures for 1838 were later published as Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Writings of Daniel and St. Paul. The book was dedicated to Samuel Maitland.
The basic tenets of Todd’s concept are:

1. Antichrist will be an individual who will appear at the end of the world just before the second coming of Christ.
2. The evil deeds of the Antichrist will be connected with the Jews rather than the Gentiles. In fact, the Antichrist will sit in a rebuilt Jerusalem Temple.
3. His period of rule will be for 1260 literal days.
4. The fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 is not the Roman Empire and the horns are not fulfilled in the Roman Empire.

In other words, the fourth kingdom will at some future period be established upon the earth. (Froom, PFF, III, p. 661).
Todd went so far as to say that “Romanism [is] not properly an apostacy from the faith”. He also states: “. . . the Errors of Romanism do not amount to Apostasy.”
And amazingly, he affirms: “The Church of Rome [is] a true Christian Church.” (James H. Todd, Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Writings of Daniel and St. Paul, pp. xv, 259-267, 320-321, 322-323).
Protestants of the Church of England were now applying the futuristic and literalistic hermeneutic they had acquired from the Society of Jesus!! No wonder they could no longer detect the Papacy as the predicted Antichrist of Bible prophecy.

The concepts of Todd and Burgh were foundational to what has become known as the Oxford Tractarian Movement. To make a long story short, this movement lasted from 1833-1845. .
During this period a series of ninety Tracts for the Times were prepared with the express purpose of “deprotestantizing” the Church of England. The principal writers were Newman, Pusey, Keble, Froude and Williams. These men seized upon the writings of Maitland, Burgh and Todd to absolve the Papacy from the stigma of being called the Antichrist. Protestants were openly encouraged to return to Catholicism and to accept the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate leader of the Christian world.
The movement toward Rome was driven by the literalistic prophetic principles of futurism. If the Papacy was not the predicted Antichrist, then what was to keep Protestantism from reuniting with Rome? It was in this way that the counterfeit hermeneutic of literalistic futurism led to an ecumenical spirit [as will happen at the end as well]. As the historicist hermeneutic had given Protestantism its driving force and the courage to separate from Rome, so futurism stalled the progress of Protestantism and led it to seek a reunion with Rome.
The climax of the Oxford Movement came when John Henry Newman (1801-1890) defected from the Church of England and joined the Roman Catholic Church. He had been one of the prime movers of this movement. Twenty nine of the 90 tracts were composed by Newman. Though he had previously spoken harsh words against the Papacy, in 1843 he “published a retraction of all the hard sayings he had formerly said against Rome.” Finally, in 1845 he was received into the Roman communion, leaving Oxford for Rome where, in 1846, he was ordained a priest and later given a D. D. degree by the pope.
In 1847 he returned to England, where he continued to reside. In 1854 Newman was called to Dublin as rector of the newly established Catholic University, and in 1879 he was given the cardinal’s hat.” (Froom, PFF, III, pp. 666- 667)

 

[brakelite]

These are long posts for sure, with a lot of information to digest. But if I, like so many just said, the papacy is the Antichrist many would rightly demand evidence. Proof. Biblical and historical realities that genuinely contribute to the above conclusion. You may not like reading long posts, but if you are interested in truth, here it is.

 

[CoreIssue]

These are long posts for sure, with a lot of information to digest. But if I, like so many just said, the papacy is the Antichrist many would rightly demand evidence. Proof. Biblical and historical realities that genuinely contribute to the above conclusion. You may not like reading long posts, but if you are interested in truth, here it is.

Who are all these others that said the Papacy is the antichrist? Almost all the posts are by you.

 

[brakelite]

Who are all these others that said the Papacy is the antichrist? Almost all the posts are by you.

I can see your confusion. I worded that poorly. Sorry. I'll have another try.
If I, like so many have done in other threads and on other forums, simply stated that the Papacy...or anything or anyone else for that matter, is the Antichrist, many would rightly demand proof.

 

[CoreIssue]

I can see your confusion. I worded that poorly. Sorry. I'll have another try.
If I, like so many have done in other threads and on other forums, simply stated that the Papacy...or anything or anyone else for that matter, is the Antichrist, many would rightly demand proof.

There is no confusion. I was going by your postings on this thread.

 

[brakelite]

I will not go into the long story add to how the futurist hermeneutic entered into mainstream Protestantism, suffice to say that a cursory glance at the bookshelves of any Christian bookstore will attest to the fact that there is previous little to be found of the true reformation teachings regarding prophecy and the identity of the little horn, or the Antichrist in general. The first element is relatively new to the Christian church, in fact not only new, but completely unproven. So now to the second part of that text, he shall think to change times and laws.
Criteria #8
He shall think to change…laws”.

We are not to believe that this power seeks to change human laws. To change human laws is certainly no big deal, for every new government whether voted for or coming to power through revolution changes the laws to suit its own agenda, so no human laws are intended to be meant by this prophecy. It is God’s laws that the little horn power believes it has the power or authority to change. One may immediately enquire, and with some justification, how can any power on earth possibly believe that it has the authority to change the laws of God? The answer of course, is no power on earth does have that authority. But we must be clear as to what the prophecy is actually saying. Note that the prophecy does not say that the little horn does actually change the law, nor does it say that he can actually change the law, but that he thinks to change the laws.

The distinction here is important. For what the scriptures are revealing to us is that along with all the blasphemous claims as mentioned in previous characteristics, this power actually dares to believe that she has the authority to change the very laws of God which were written by the finger of God upon stone, symbolic of the permanence of that very law. In other words, the little horn claims to have authority greater even than God Himself. This characteristic reminds us of the ambitious insanity of Lucifer when it is said of him:

Isaiah 14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

So, the question we must ask ourselves, does the Roman Catholic Church claim that authority? Does she believe she has the power to change the law of God, and further, is there an example of this where she has attempted to do so? And the answer to both questions is yes. I will quote here from RCC sources themselves, which will provide irrefutable proof of this most blasphemous of claims.

The particular law this author is referring to here is the 4th commandment of the Decalogue, “Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day…” In all Catholic catechisms this commandment is designated as the 3rd, reasons for which most of us are familiar. However, it is to the subject of the Sabbath that I wish to focus, for it is the change to that commandment which stands out as the most notable example of Roman perfidy.



The first quote comes from one of, if not the most pre-eminent theologians in the history of the Catholic church, Thomas Aquinas.

“In the New Law the keeping of the Sunday supplants that of the Sabbath, not in virtue of the precept of the law, but through determination by the church and the custom of the Christian people.”(Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, quoted in The Sabbath in Scripture and History, pp. 205-206).



Next I shall turn to the eminent historian, James Cardinal Gibbons.

“Now the Scriptures alone do not contain all the truths which a Christian is bound to believe, nor do they explicitly enjoin all the duties which he is obliged to practice. Not to mention other examples, is not every Christian obliged to sanctify Sunday and to abstain on that day from unnecessary servile work? Is not the observance of this law among the most prominent of our sacred duties? You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. ( Notes the author; Note what Cardinal Gibbons is saying here. That the observance of Sunday is a law, a law which is one of the Christians most sacred duties, yet in the very next sentence admits that far from being a law of God, it is a law of the church. Thus the laws of the church are said to overrule the laws of God.)

The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we [Catholics] never sanctify.” James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers



There are many many examples of such Roman Catholic scholars, historians, and theologians down through the ages all in agreement that it was the church itself that changed the day of corporate worship, rest, and solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. Not only so, but many of them also deride Protestantism because although claiming the Bible alone as the basis for faith and practice, protestants follow the teaching tradition of Rome when it comes to Sunday worship. There are many protestant leaders who agree with this, among whom is the author of the Baptist manual, Dr. Edward T. Hiscox.



“There was and is a commandment to keep holy the Sabbath day, but that Sabbath day was not Sunday. It will be said, however, and with some show of triumph, that the Sabbath was transferred from the seventh to the first day of the week, with all its duties, privileges and sanctions. Earnestly desiring information on this subject, which I studied for many years, I ask, Where can the record of such a transaction be found? Not in the New Testament, absolutely not. There is no Scriptural evidence of the change of the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week. I wish to say that this Sabbath question, in this aspect of it, is the gravest and most perplexing question connected with Christian institutions which at present claims attention from Christian people; and the only reason that it is not a more disturbing element in Christian thought and in religious discussions, is because the Christian world has settled down content on the conviction that somehow a transference has taken place at the beginning of Christian history. . . . To me it seems unaccountable that Jesus, during three years’ intercourse with his disciples, often conversing with them upon the Sabbath question, discussing it in some of its various aspects, freeing it from its false glosses, never alluded to any transference of the day; also, that during forty days of his resurrection life, no such thing was intimated. Nor, so far as we know, did the Spirit, which was given to bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever that he had said unto them, deal with this question. Nor yet did the inspired apostles, in preaching the gospel, founding churches, counseling and instructing those founded, discuss or approach this subject. Of course, I quite well know that Sunday did come into use in early Christian history as a religious day, as we learn from the Christian Fathers and other sources. But what a pity that it comes branded with the mark of paganism, and christened with the name of the sun-god, when adopted and sanctioned by the papal apostasy, and bequeathed as a sacred legacy to Protestantism.” From a speech given before the New York Ministers’ Conference, November 13, 1893.

Finally, I would like to quote Pope Paul 11, who in his encyclical Dies Domini promoted Sunday as the mark of Christian piety, and although not going so far as to rebuke Protestantism for its inconsistency, still unequivocally claimed that it was the church that is fully responsible for any change from Saturday observance of the Sabbath to Sunday.

Although the pope attempts to give Biblical grounds for Sunday observance, there are several statements he makes which betray the true source of the change.

Paragraph 6: “Given this array of new situations and the questions which they prompt, it seems more necessary than ever to recover the deep doctrinal foundations underlying the Church’s precept, so that the abiding value of Sunday in the Christian life will be clear to all the faithful.” Here John Paul II clearly states that Sunday is the Church’s precept.

Paragraph 18: “Because the Third Commandment depends upon the remembrance of God’s saving works and because Christians saw the definitive time inaugurated by Christ as a new beginning, they made the first day after the Sabbath a festive day, for that was the day on which the Lord rose from the dead.” Here John Paul attributes the change to Christians.

Paragraph 27: “This Christocentric vision sheds light upon another symbolism which Christian reflection and pastoral practice ascribed to the Lord’s Day. Wise pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as ‘the day of the sun’. . . .” Here John Paul attributes Sunday observance as resulting from Christian reflection and pastoral practice and wise pastoral intuition.

Paragraph 63: “This is why Christians , called as they are to proclaim the liberation won by the blood of Christ, felt that they had the authority to transfer the meaning of the Sabbath to the day of the Resurrection.” Here John Paul once again attributes the change to Christians, not to Christ!!

Paragraph 81: “The spiritual and pastoral riches of Sunday as it has been handed down to us by tradition, are truly great.” In this statement John Paul, without apology or qualification, attributes the “riches” of Sunday observance to tradition.

In short, these five statements clearly show that the change was made by the church and not by Christ or the Apostles!

Indeed does the Roman Catholic Church meet the criteria of the 8th characteristic of the Little horn, by “thinking to change laws”.

 

[CoreIssue]

at a cursory glance at the bookshelves of any Christian bookstore will attest to the fact that there is previous little to be found of the true reformation teachings regarding prophecy and the identity of the little horn, or the Antichrist in general. The first element is relatively new to the Christian church, in fact not only new, but completely unproven. So now to the second part I will not go into the long story add to how the futurist hermeneutic entered into mainstream Protestantism, suffice to say thof that text, he shall think to change times and laws.
Criteria #8
He shall think to change…laws”.



In short, these five statements clearly show that the change was made by the church and not by Christ or the Apostles!

Indeed does the Roman Catholic Church meet the criteria of the 8th characteristic of the Little horn, by “thinking to change laws”.

Neither Christ or the apostles moved anything to Sunday. The early Christians did because they shared use of the synagogues with the Jews, who use the synagogues on Saturday.

Catholicism didn't even exist.

There is no Sabbath law in the New Testament.

You're still pushing SDA doctrine.

 

[quietthinker]

I for one have found this series by brakelite enlightening. It is sufficiently concise to cover the subject definitively for any seeker of truth. As we are seeing, the time when God's Law will be brought to the attention of every conscience is in process. Those excusing themselves with their myriad of unstable and slippery arguments and substitute the law of man carry a heavier than realised responsibility.

 

[Nancy]

These are long posts for sure, with a lot of information to digest. But if I, like so many just said, the papacy is the Antichrist many would rightly demand evidence. Proof. Biblical and historical realities that genuinely contribute to the above conclusion. You may not like reading long posts, but if you are interested in truth, here it is.

"You may not like reading long posts, but if you are interested in truth, here it is."

Lol...I am enjoying reading your posts, just, please don't expect replies! Hahaha. I totally agree with the papacy being the AC, and have believed it since the 1990's. But, I could NEVER do such a great job of writing it in such a way that you are so, press on brother, and I will continue reading ♥

 

[CoreIssue]

I for one have found this series by brakelite enlightening. It is sufficiently concise to cover the subject definitively for any seeker of truth. As we are seeing, the time when God's Law will be brought to the attention of every conscience is in process. Those excusing themselves with their myriad of unstable and slippery arguments and substitute the law of man carry a heavier than realised responsibility.

Praise from a fellow SDA.

 

[CoreIssue]

As @amadeus is wont to say, thankyou, but give God the glory

All of which he said is pure speculation and SDA doctrine.

The Catholic Church does not faintly fulfill the requirements of the AC.

 

[quietthinker]

Praise from a fellow SDA.

If one can lump a person under a title the assumption is that one does not need to question or think further on the matter. It's a method used for centuries by all who who find the straight testimony hard to bear.

 

[Naomi25]

First, I would like to clear up a popular misconception regarding the reformers claims against the church they wished to reform. It wasn't solely based on behaviour. Nor are my claims against the CC. Catholic crimes against humanity are the fruits we can read of throughout over 1200 years of unrevised history where Rome has replaced Christ with a system of pagan/state sponsored brutality against Christians and non-believers alike. They have erected a monstrous false god within the Christian community that has deceived millions. Those fruits, the Catholic crimes, are still being experienced today by hundreds of thousands of victims worldwide who if not committing suicide and suffering in mental asylums as a result of the abuse heaped upon them by pedophile priests, are taking class action law suits against the church which is declaring bankruptcy to avoid huge payouts in compensation. Instead of rebuking her priests and handing them over to the appropriate authorities, they dump them on unsuspecting communities where they can continue to meddle and destroy the lives of children. One dumping ground of this nature was the Alaskan Yukon territories where the local native population of the Yapik tribe are still having to deal with the ongoing mental and spiritual damage caused by such ignorant and ugly actions of a church that has never known better. These crimes however are not what make her antichrist. They are but the bitter results of being antichrist, and the evidence thereof, but there are specific criteri that Bible demands that must be used as evidence...
Now Catholics cite Protestant behaviour as evidence for apostasy also, but that doesn't counter specific criteria that I will present.

As far as the crimes of Protestantism, there is no excuse either. That they were slow in learning their lessons is neither an excuse or is it a militating factor in their guilt. After all, they for the most part were simply carrying on what they had practiced previously as priests and bishops of Rome. Yes, it did take time to learn. Although sadly there are still lessons to be taught them by God that is why the reformation hasn't finished yet.
One thing however I would like to add. Many of the anti-Catholic persecutions that took place, particularly in Britain, was done in order to protect what freedoms Protestants had won. They knew full well that if Catholicism was to regain the throne of England, their freedoms to worship according to conscience would very quickly be rescinded, their leaders hunted down and tortured and killed, and the members of their churches forced to either change their allegiances or burn. Allow me to quote a Catholic source which fairly sums up the difference between the two lines of reasoning of Protestant philosophy and Catholic philosophy when it comes to freedom.

"You ask if he (the Roman Catholic) were lord in the land, and you were in a minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: If expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly, he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing: He would never tolerate you for the sake of 'the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty' . . . Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself."--"Civil and Religious Liberty," in The Rambler, 8, Sept, 1851, pp. 174, 178. ["The Rambler" was an English Roman Catholic journal published from 1848 to 1862].

Based on the above quote, (and many others I could give regarding Rome's attitude toward "heretics") it can be concluded that while Protestants are in power, the Catholic church would take full advantage of religious freedom in full accordance with Protestant principles that govern religious liberty, however, in full accordance to Catholic principles, if Catholicism were in power every other form of worship would be forbidden with dire consequences to all who resist or stand against the dictates of Roman tyranny. And all modern Popes openly repudiate religious liberty, except that liberty which allows Catholic minorities to flourish. Hence the majority of Protestant aggression against Catholicism was never based on self promotion, but in self defense.

Thus the establishment of religious liberty in America was first a godly principle, second a Protestant principle, but also, a very risky principle; one that many American leaders of old recognized knowing the mind of Rome and the imminent influx of Catholics that would take advantage of the newly founded constitution guaranteeing their rights to practice their religion freely. The fear today for many Protestants ought not be the resurgence of Islam, but in light of the above, rather the majority held position of Catholics on the Supreme Court.

I've come to this conversation rather late, and have not yet managed to read through every post. But I wanted to ask you an initial question here. You are saying that Catholicism would, if possible, force everyone to convert, if it had the chance. How you do undertand Pope Francis with his push towards accepting "all"? He appears radically left, to be honest, talking about welcoming most faiths as equal. Do you understand him to be false, or do you think he, like many of our day, is but showing liberal tendancies that are not actually in line with the RCC? Thanks.

As for the thread topic in general, I'll read with interest. I haven't made up my mind, but I'm keeping it open. Where I live, it's very hard to see Catholics are the Antichrist, because they're just good, decent people, many of them appearing to be genuine, Christ-loving people. However, I have recently become aware of an aquaintance who has spent many, many years in various Countries overseas for missionary purposes. And he has said that the Catholic Church here, is not the Catholic Church elsewhere. He's said that it does display very evil fronts. Those where his words. And this guy...I trust. So...I don't know, but yes...will read with interest.

 

[Naomi25]

I don't need the characteristic. Your whole concept is not biblical.

The same can...and is...said for Dispensationalism. But that doesn't, and shouldn't, stop you from voicing your opinions here.
End Times doctrines are open-handed issues. We should be free to debate and discuss our thoughts on them.
You should be secure enough in your own to stand up under such debates. If you are not, that might be someone trying to tell you something.

 

[CoreIssue]

If one can lump a person under a title the assumption is that one does not need to question or think further on the matter. It's a method used for centuries by all who who find the straight testimony hard to bear.

Meaning don't call me out for pushing my doctrine when it isn't biblical.

 

[brakelite]

I've come to this conversation rather late, and have not yet managed to read through every post. But I wanted to ask you an initial question here. You are saying that Catholicism would, if possible, force everyone to convert, if it had the chance. How you do undertand Pope Francis with his push towards accepting "all"? He appears radically left, to be honest, talking about welcoming most faiths as equal. Do you understand him to be false, or do you think he, like many of our day, is but showing liberal tendancies that are not actually in line with the RCC? Thanks.

As for the thread topic in general, I'll read with interest. I haven't made up my mind, but I'm keeping it open. Where I live, it's very hard to see Catholics are the Antichrist, because they're just good, decent people, many of them appearing to be genuine, Christ-loving people. However, I have recently become aware of an aquaintance who has spent many, many years in various Countries overseas for missionary purposes. And he has said that the Catholic Church here, is not the Catholic Church elsewhere. He's said that it does display very evil fronts. Those where his words. And this guy...I trust. So...I don't know, but yes...will read with interest.

Hi. First, let me explain something of my understanding of what the ecumenical movement is all about. Each different faith retains the own peculiar traditions and practices. In the long term, even Islam will join, but retain their own traditions. Except for one. Catholicism has at its core one particular doctrine that she considers imperative as a sign of her authority. All will eventually bow to papal authority, and it is in acceptance of this one doctrine that the Pope will give his approval. Sunday sacredness. It is this doctrine that the last 3 popes have been at great plains to get established throughout the world, particularly in Europe. Protestantism will enforce it through legislation, beginning in the US.
as for the other matter, individual Catholics are not Antichrist. Never will be. Antichrist is the system under which they are enslaved. It is the system that seeks to enslave the world. Global dominion has ever been the ambitious goal of Satan, and his masterpiece of counterfeit Christianity will accomplish it on his behalf.