Prophetic Tool Chest Chapter 8

1
PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST
CHAPTER EIGHT
FUTURISM: THE COUNTERFEIT PROPHECY

In the Protestant world todayespecially in Americathe most widely known and the most acceptable position on prophetic theology is the system of Dispensational Futurism. This system teaches that prophecyboth Old and New Testamenthas 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 traditions 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
By D. S. Farris
2
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 Enochto 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 Biblerejecting 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 fulfillmentwithout 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).
Copyright 8/27/03
Throughout the centuriesbefore and after these Reformersmultitudes of confessors proclaimed the same thing as they: that the Antichrist was a corrupt church with a corrupt position of poperytyrannizing 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 Gods saints in all ages as one people (Heb. 11). We need not chop up the Bibleespecially prophecyto 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 Churchthe spiritual templewith 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 nationalitieswith the heavenly Jerusalem being the focal point of all unilateral provision. The unity of the scriptures, the unity of the saints, the Church constituting Gods 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 Bibleapplying 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
By D. S. Farris
4
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:
Romes 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 Romes 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 mens 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.
Copyright 8/27/03

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 futureprior to the end of the worldas 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.
The Jesuits Ignore Fulfilled Prophecy To Save The Papacy PRETERISM Gap Theory THE PAPACY FULFILLED EVERY MARK (1) Comes out of Rome (2) Comes up among divided kingdoms (3) Continues to exist among kingdoms (4) Is different from other kingdoms (5) Is stronger than other kingdoms (6) Uproots three kingdoms (7) Speaks great words against God (8) Kills the saints (9) Thinks to change times and laws (10) Rules 1,260 prophetic days FUTURISM
Tribulation 3. 5 Years
Gap Theory Of Dispensationalsim
Christ
( Parenthesis )
Church Dispensation
3. 5 Years
3.5 Years
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 By D. S. Farris
6 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 mens 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 Alcazars system was not very convincingeven among the Jesuitsthe 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 todays 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 todays 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 sealthe seven trumpets meet their fulfillment.
Copyright 8/27/03
(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 parallelas 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 Bellarmines 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
Gap Theory First few chapters fulfilled in John's time frame. Seals 1 - 5 span Church era ( Rev. 6 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6th seal
(Rev. 7) Saints Sealed (Rev. 8, 9 Trumpets)
Rev. 11 (The two witnesses)

Bowl Judgements
7th seal
1 Rev. 2 and 3
( Temple )
6 7
A.D. 100
Most Holy Place
Rev. 13 Antichrist Rules Rev. 12 Remnant Flees
( Rev. 17 ) Before the appearing of the Antichrist, the ten horns will overthrow Papal Rome after a "future falling away from the Pope." ( Dan. 7 ) Antichrist will then appear and uproot three of the horns. This will initiate the the 3. 5 year tribulation.
3. 5 years
Note: The following is the Dispensational Futurist Construct:
By D. S. Farris
Dispensational Futurist Construct

Rev. 11 Lahaye has witnesses in first 3 . 5 years. Larkin has witnesses in 2nd 3 . 5 years.
( The seals ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 144, 000 sealed under sixth seal 7 ( The trumpets ) ( The plagues ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rev. 12 ( Israel is pursecuted ) Rev. 13 ( Reign of Antichrist )
Antichrist Rules in Temple Antichrist makes 7 year covenant with Jews. He helps the Jews build the Temple. Most Holy Place
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3 . 5 Years
Ecclesiastical Babylon ( The Papacy and fallen Protestantism ) are destroyed by the 10 horns. The little horn or Antichrist arises out of the 10 horns and uproots three of these powers. This initiates the Great Tribulation for three and a half years.
3 . 5 Years
COMPARRISONS BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS In looking at the 11-fold illustration of Jesuit futurism in comparison with modern dispensational futurism, here are some fundamental differences: (1) Modern dispensational futurism possesses an extra three and a half years for the tribulation period, while the Jesuits tribulation period was three and a half years complete. (2) Modern dispensational futurists make Revelation 1 3 apply to the whole Church dispensation, whereas the Jesuits made these chapters applicable to Johns time. (3) Modern dispensational futurists do not apply any of the seven seals to the Church period, whereas the Jesuits did. Dispensational futurism applies the seals as Judgments in the first three and a half years. The white horse is the Antichrist, and the other riders represent the judgments that follow his coming (See Tim Lahaye, Revelation Illustrated And Made Plain, 98 108) (4) Modern dispensational futurists apply the woman of Revelation 12 to Israel not the remnant of the Church (or the Papacy) as the Jesuits did.
Copyright 8/27/03
PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST The First Structural Similarity Between The Two Systems
Two Witnesses
6th seal 144, 000 sealed under this seal.
7th seal ( Trumpets ) 3 4 5 6
3 . 5 Years
The structure of the Jesuits prophetic picture is very much like modern dispensational futurism. The difference lies in the fact that modern futurists have spread these ideas out into seven years, whereas the Jesuits crunched these ideas into three and a half years. Modern futurism is only a more developed version of the work that Ribera and Bellarmine developed. (1) Concerning the two witnesses, Lahaye asserts: They will be on the scene during the first half of the Tribulation Period to counteract the lying wonders of the antichrist (Revelation Illustrated And Made Plain, 152). Lahaye makes Moses and Elijah (The Jesuits make the two witnesses, Enoch and Elijah.) the two witnesses, and he teaches that prior to the second three and a half years they will be killed for a period of three and a half literal days (Revelation Illustrated And Made Plain, 152-154). Ribera too makes the death of the witnesses literal time (See Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 491). On the other hand, Larkin says, the time when these TWO WITNESSES are to prophecy must correspond with the last half of the Week, or the time of THE GREAT TRIBULATION (The Book Of Revelation, 84, 87). He too makes the witnesses, Moses and Elijah. Riberas view is somewhat of a combination of the two, because of the fact that he crunches the whole of the tribulation in three and a half years. Ribera says:
And they shall prophesy 1260 days. It signifies a time of three years, and a half not complete . . .Gloss: Note that these days do not completely make up three and a half, just as Christ did not complete a half year of preaching. And since it is probable that they will begin to prophesy at the same time in which the tyranny of Antichrist will begin, seeing that, as it were, they had been given as his antidote, they are killed by the same Antichrist on the 20th day before the end, and before his death (Cited in Prophetic Faith Vol. 2, 492).
(2) Larkin teaches that the interval between the sixth and seventh seal is for the sealing of the 144,000 (The Book Of Revelation, 65). Larkin has the sealing of the 144,000 as something that takes place under the sixth seal. Larkins pattern is similar to Ribera on this point.
By D. S. Farris
10
(3) Both Larkin and Lahaye illustrate the seven trumpets following the seventh seal as Ribera does. The Second Structural Similarity Between The Two Systems
7 Bowl Judgements Ten horns come prior to Antichrist, not before. Ten horns destroy Ecclesiastical Babylon. Little horn emerges and uproots three, leaving seven for the Great Tribulation. Rev. 12 Rev. 13 Saints flee in wilderness Cruel reign of Antichrist.
Antichrist sits in the Most Holy
3 . 5 Years
(1) Concerning the arrival of the 10 divisions of Rome, Larkin envisions the iron legs of Rome as being divided between the Eastern Empire and the Western Empire. He illustrates in his chart that these legs are very long and stretch all the way up to the sevenyear tribulation. Larkin maintains that the ten toes or horns will meet fulfillment in this seven-year period. Larkin says, These TEN TOES have not as yet manifested themselves, so the historical fulfillment of the Image is not yet complete (The Book Of Daniel, 48). This too is Bellarmines thesis against the argument that the little horned has been fulfilled in the Papacy:
That this has not ever been thus fulfilled is clear since, up to this time, the succession and name of the Roman emperors remains, and by the marvelous providence of God, when the western Empire fell, which was one of the legs of the statue of Daniel, there remained the whole empire in the east, which was the other leg. But since the eastern Empire had to be destroyed by the Turks, as now we see done; again God raised up in the west the former leg, that is, the western Empire, through Charlemagne, which empire endures up to now (Cited in Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 501).
(2) Concerning the destruction of the Papacy and the fallen Protestant churches, Lahaye explains:
Antichrist will permit the one-world church to govern his actions during the first three-and-a half years of the Tribulation while he is gathering more and more power; but in the middle of the Tribulation, when he feels he can become an autocratic ruler, he and the ten kings will throw off the harlot because, in reality, while being dominated by her they hate the harlot (Revelation Illustrated And Made Plain, 236, 237).
In other words, prior to the second three and a half years, the ten horns will destroy the Harlot. This too is Riberas theory:
Copyright 8/27/03
11

In Revelation 17 Ribera admits the woman to be not only pagan Rome but also Rome Christian after a future falling away from the pope. He admits, further, that before the consummation the ten kings, prefigured by the ten horns, will overthrow Rome just prior to the coming of Antichrist (Leroy Froom, Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 491).
(3) Modern dispensational futurism teaches that, following the destruction of the Harlot, the Antichrist uproots three of the horns. Larkin says:
As the LITTLE HORN of Daniels Fourth Wild Beast he will destroy three of the Ten Kings and firmly establish himself in the place of power, and as he as the LITTLE HORN, does not appear until after the TEN HORNS, or Ten Federated Kingdoms, come into existence, it is clear that the Antichrist does not form the Federation, but is the outgrowth of it (The Book Of Daniel, 148).
Blasius Viegas (1554 1599), a Portuguese Jesuit who continued Ribera and Bellarmines work, endorses this interpretation:
Now, as the angel here declares to John that ten Kings will hate the Harlot, and will entirely desolate and burn her, it may be gathered plainly that, a little before Antichrists coming, or at least in the beginning of his reign, the city of Rome will be overthrown and burnt by those ten Kings: for when Antichrist rules, there will be, not ten Kings, but seven (Commentarii Exegetici in Apocalypsim Ioannis Apostoli. (Eborae: Apud Emmanuelem de Lyra, 1601) cap. 17, sec. 3, pp. 798, 799).
(4) According to Lahaye, the woman of Revelation 12 represents Israel who will be persecuted by the Antichrist in the last three and a half years (See Revelation, 160 169). Therefore modern futurists parallel Revelation 12 and 13 within the last three and a half years. Ribera and Bellarmine teach the same concept, except that the woman is the remnant of the Papacy after a future falling away from the Pope. (5) Dispensational futurists do not visualize the 1,260 days and 42 months as being symbolic time as the Reformers did; modern futurists expect these symbols to represent literal time. This is one of the reasons why dispensationalists cannot see Papal Rome as being the Antichrist. This was the Jesuit argument used in the Counter Reformation against Protestantism. Bellarmine acutely argues:
The fifth argument is taken from the duration of Antichrist. 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 the Antichrist. Then Antichrist has not yet come (Cited in Prophetic Faith, Vol. 2, 501 503).
(6) We have demonstrated throughout this course that dispensationalists teach the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt through the Antichrist. John Hagee insists:
By D. S. Farris
12
The Jewish temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem. During the first half of his rule, the Antichrist will allow the Jewish people to resume making sacrifices in the temple. They will rejoice and many of them may even believe him to be their Messiah. But during the last three-and-a -half years of his reign, he will forbid the offering of sacrifices (Beginning Of The End, 128).
The difference between dispensational futurism and Jesuit futurism on this point is simply thus: Ribera and Bellarmine apply the rebuilding of the temple to three and a half yearscomplete, whereas dispensationalists apply the rebuilding of the temple to the first three and a half years, then the Antichrist rules in the temple for the second three and a half years. The Protestants in Luthers day did not believe that the temple, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, was to be a building in Jerusalem. They believed that Christendom was the temple and that the man of sin was the Pope. Clarence Larkin argues against the Protestant position where he emphasizes, Again, the Lord, who destroys Antichrist at His Coming, comes to Jerusalem, not to Rome, the seat of the Papal System (Dispensational Truth, 115). This is nothing new, for Larkin is only quoting the Jesuit, Bellarmine:
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 (Cited in Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 502).
(7) Concerning the Antichrist, Larkin declares:

While there are many things in the history of the Church of Rome, and in the conduct of her Popes that foreshadow the Antichrist, yet it is clear from the preceding scripture that the Papal System is not the Antichrist, and that these scriptures can only be fulfilled in the person of some Individual yet to appear (Dispensational Truth, 115. Empasis mine).
This too was the Jesuit argument. Bellarmine argues:

For all Catholics think thus that Antichrist will be one certain man; but all heretics teach as cited above 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 (Cited in Prophetic Faith, Vol. 2, 500).
Not only do dispensational futurists emphasize the singularity of the Antichrist as the Jesuits do, but they also make the Antichrist a Jew who will posses all the power of the devil. Larkin says that Satan is to incarnate himself in the Antichrist (The Book of Daniel, 139). Concerning the nationality of the Antichrist, Lahaye elaborates:
He will be predominately Roman. Daniel 11: 36, 37 tells us that he regards not the God of his fathers. Taken in context, this suggests he will be a Jew. In all probability the Antichrist will appear to be a Gentile and, like Adolph Hitler and others who feared to reveal Jewish blood, will keep his Jewish ancestry a secret (Revelation, 172. Emphasis mine).
Copyright 8/27/03
13
These two ideas are in agreement with the Jesuits. Ribera makes the Antichrist a Jew from the tribe of Dan. Bellarmine makes him a Jew in whom will dwell all the power of the devil, the same as all the power of God dwelt in Christ (See Prophetic Faith, Vol. 2, 499. Emphasis mine) What is the difference between Jesuit futurism and modern dispensational futurism? They both have the same structures. The Jesuits placed both of the structures found in the dispensational construct into three and a half yearscomplete. Said another way, dispensationalists have divided the Jesuit structure into two three and a half year periods. It is unquestionable that dispensational futurism is Jesuit constructed theology. Dispensationalists simply borrowed these structures and added additional ideas; but nevertheless, the main structural foundation of their system is the work developed by the Jesuits. What was the main reason for developing futurism? As Joseph Tanner emphasizes, the system of futurism was developed by the Jesuits to divert mens minds from perceiving the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system. The Gap theory that was applied by the Jesuits had only one real purpose as Froom argues:
. . . a gap of centuries leaves as the only adequate reason for the theory the necessity of parrying the application to the Papacy of the specifications set by prophecy for that period following the breakup of Rome. So Futurism deliberately overlaps the centuries of the Middle Ages and seeks to fasten all eyes on a superman Antichrist at the end of the age (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 802, Appendices).
Froom explains this precisely and accurately. The Gap was developed to hide Romes division between A.D. 376 476. It was developed to hide the career of the Papacy. In chapter five, we analyzed the fact that pagan Rome partitioned and was succeeded by Papal Rome. This is not imaginative; this is a historic reality. Futurists apply historical and theological jugglery to omit what is clear. The Presbyterian scholar, Thomas Brightman (1562 1607), noticed this scheme, where he says:
Indeed Francis of Ribera the Iesuit, thrust his whole Prophecy almost into these straits, wisely indeed to save his Popes head (A Revelation of the Apocalypse in The Workes of That Famous, Reverend, and Learned Divine, Mr. Tho: Brightman, Chap. 1, 8)
We need not omit what is reality to sustain imaginary prophecy in order that the Beast may continue to prepare multitudes for the second death. The Early Church Fathers (Irenaeus and Hippolytus View On Antichrist) In an attempt to parry the identification of dispensational futurism to the Counter Reformation and the Jesuits, dispensationalists argue that their views come from the early Church fathers. They argue that the Jesuits simply borrowed a preexisting prophetic interpretation, which predates the Protestant Reformation and the Jesuit Order. This is an
By D. S. Farris
14 argument that isin many casesomitted from discussion by those who emphasize that the Jesuits created modern futurism. Unfortunately, there are those whoin arguing the case of this chapterdo not give the early father argument the attention it needs. The result of this neglect has caused dispensationalists to believe that they are not a product of Jesuit subversion; but rather, they are teaching theology, which comes from the Church closest to Christ. As we are going to seefrom this point to the end of the chapterthe early father argument is a device that works well against the uninformed, for when one becomes informed of the extra-biblical influence in the writings of the Church fathers, this argument becomes a fantastic joke. What is not realized by many today, is that the Protestants were well informed about this argument. The Jesuit scheme of reliance on the early fathers did not impress Thomas Brightman, for he realized that the Jesuits were great schemers:
For when as I had by chance light upon Ribera, who had made a Commentary upon this same holy Revelation; Is it even so (said I) doe the Papaists take heart again, so as that book which of a long time before they would scarce suffer any man to touch, they dare now take in hand to intreat fully upon it? What? was it but a vain image or bug, at the sight wherof they were wont to tremble a few years since, even in the dim light, that now they dare be bold to look wishly upon this glasse in this clear sun-shine, and dare proclaime to the world, that any other thing rather is poynted at in it than their Pope of Rome (A Revelation of the Apocalypse, Preface).
Brightman wondered howall the suddenthe Papacy could have taken such a great interest in prophecy and come out with truth that surpassed the scholarship of Protestantism. What would make him raise such a question? He probably wondered how an organization as diabolical as the Jesuit Order could have been more impressed by the Holy Spirit on Holy Writ than evangelicals who were put to death in the inquisitions. He asked questions that should be asked today. But let us ask another question just as important as Brightmans: Did the Jesuits borrow an already existing prophetic system of interpretation? The Jesuits did not grab onto a system; they grabbed onto basic ideas and molded these ideas into a system. Irenaeus of Gaul, the bishop of Lyons (c. 130 -c. 202), and his student, Hippolytus (d. c. 236), called bishop of Rome or Porto; known as the First Systematic Expositor. The Jesuits used these Ante-Nicene fathers to argue against Protestantism. In order to argue against the Historicist system rediscovered in Reformation days, these church fathers are still used. As we are going to see in this chapter and following chapters, reliance on the early fathers is very deceptive. Note: We are in agreement with these men on the following interpretation: (1) That Daniel 2 and 7 were parallel prophecies pointing to the four major kingdoms with the arising of the Antichrist. Hippolytus says:
The Golden head of the image and the lioness denoted the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, and the bear, represented the Persians and Medes;
Copyright 8/27/03
15

the belly and thighs of brass, and the leopard, meant the Greeks, who held the sovereignty from Alexanders time; the legs of iron, and the beast dreadful and terrible, expressed the Romans, who hold the sovereignty at present; the toes of the feet which were part clay and part iron, and the ten horns, were emblems of the kingdoms that are yet to rise; the other little horn that grows up among them meant the Antichrist in their midst; the stone that smites the earth and brings judgment upon the world was Christ (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, 210: Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, sec. 28).
(2) According to Irenaeus, the Antichrist, Sea Beast of Revelation 13, Man of Lawlessness of 2 Thessalonians 2:4 11, and the Little Horn of Daniel 7 all refer to the same man (See Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, chaps. 25 28 in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 553 557). Note: We are in agreement with Irenaeus parallelism on these symbols; however, we do not agree that these symbols point to an individual exclusively. (3) The Antichrist is delayed until Romes division when he comes and destroys three kings:
Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, chap. XXV, sec. 3, in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 553).
Note: We are not in agreement with the following interpretation: (1) The Antichrist will be a man who possesses all the power of the devil:
For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, chap. XXV, sec. 1, in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 553).
(2) The Antichrist will sit in the Jerusalem temple. This is the abomination of desolation:
Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavoring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation which was spoken by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place . . . . (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, chap. XXV, sec. 2, in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 553).
By D. S. Farris
16 (3) The Antichrist will rule in the Jerusalem temple for three and a half literal years:
But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, chap. XXX, sec. 4, in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, 560).
(4) Froom illustrates that Hippolytus was the first to set a date for Christs second coming. Hippolytus set a date for Christs second Advent on the basis of the six thousand year theory. Hippolytus set Christs second coming at A.D. 500 on the basis of the Septuagint chronology, which was many centuries ahead of the Jewish chronology (See Prophetic Faith, vol. 1, 278). Hippolytus says that Jesus was to appear in the year 5500:
For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day on which God rested from all His works (Fragments From Commentaries, On Daniel fragment 2, sect. 4 in ANF, vol. 5, 179).
Consequently, this interpretation brings the year 6000 approximately 500 years after Christ, which is 250 years after Hippolytus day:
From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be (Fragments From Commentaries, On Daniel fragment 2, sect. 6 in ANF, vol. 5, 179).
(5) Irenaeus applies the second half of Daniels 70th week to the reign of Antichrist. Though their are no explicit statements about a Gap, it is assumed that Irenaeus intended a gap.
And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: And in the midst of the week, he says, the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete. Now three years and six months constitute the half-week (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 5, in Ante Nicean Fathers, vol. 1, Chap. XXV, sec. 4. 554).
Hippolytus applies the whole 70th week to the Antichrist, 7 years prior to A.D. 500. He was the first to officially invent a Gap theory (that is, if it cannot be proven that Irenaeus had such a theory in mind), and Hippolytus also applies the two witnesses to Enoch and Elijah:
For he says, And one week will make a covenant with many, and it shall be in the midst (half) of the week my sacrifice and oblation shall cease. By one week, therefore, he meant the last week which is to be at the end of the whole world; of which week the two prophets Enoch and Elias will take up the half. For they will preach 1, 260 days clothed in sackcloth, proclaiming repentance to the people and to all the nations (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, sec. 43, in ANF, vol. 5, 213).
Copyright 8/27/03
17
(6) Antichrist will be from Dan:

For as Christ springs from the tribe of Judah, so Antichrist is to spring from the tribe of Dan (Treatise on Christ and Antichrist, sec. 14, in ANF, vol. 5, 207).
Note: When we take the views of Irenaeus and Hippolytus together, we come up with the following view on Antichrist: Construct Based On View Of Irenaeus And Hippolytus
(1) Jerusalem Temple (2) Antichrist possesses all the power of the Devil (3) Antichrist is from the Tribe of Dan. (4) Antichrist persecutes Elijah and Enoch.
Gap
Second Coming of Christ
5500 From Creation Christ Irenaeus ( 130 - 202 ) Hippolytus ( 236 ) 3.5 3.5
6000 From Creation A. D 500
Millennium ( 1, 000 years )
Note: This next diagram illustrates Irenaeus and Hippolytus view in conjunction with what actually happened in history:
Hippolytus' Supposed Gap Rome Divided Anglo Saxons Franks Alemanni Lombards Ostrogoths 376 - 476 Visigoths Burgundians Vandals Suevi Heruli A. D. 493 Heruli Destroyed Modern Historicists look back and see the true fulfillment of Prophecy. The three Horns Removed by the Papacy
A. D. 500
A. D. 534 Vandals Destroyed
A. D. 538 Ostrogoths Removed From Rome
3.5
3.5
Early Father's View on Antichrist
By D. S. Farris
18 Note: The Protestant Reformation of Luthers day did not have the historical method of interpretation nearly as crystallized as modern historicists, but they were able to see the fact that Rome had already been a divided kingdom in their day; and they saw that the Papacy had met the fulfillment of the prophecies pertaining to the Antichrist. The views of the Ante-Nicene Fathers were very underdeveloped. Their views on Antichrist were not the elaborately constructed Jesuit system or the Dispensational system. We could not have expected the early fathers to posses a clear and concise knowledge on the fulfillment of these prophecies. Froom explains this excellently:
There could be no concept, on the part of any of these early expositors, of a long reign of entrenched apostasy through centuriesas the symbolic time would indicatebefore the final developments and the return of Christ. Time was naturally foreshortened to them, for they looked for the speedy return of their Lord. Indeed, only as history actually unrolled the prophetic scroll through fulfillment, could its intent be perceived (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 1, 242).
The Reformers were able to see that the 1,260 days and the 42 months of Antichrist could not be literal time, for all the other elements of the prophecy (Romes division; the great apostasy; the Papal tyranny; the bequeathing of the seat of the Caesars to the popes) had been fulfilled in hindsight and were being fulfilled right in front of their faces. The Jesuits grabbed onto concepts, which were not founded upon the canonical body of scripture, and they developed these concepts into a system to hide the Papacy from being detected as the fulfillment of the Antichrist. Let us now prove this assertion. The History Of Extra Biblical Writings The Old Testament canon of scripture closed with the book of Malachi around 425 B.C. The New Testament writings were written during the first century A.D., and they were completed by the latter half of the first century. Between the time of Malachi and the New Testament, many Jews settled in Alexandria. In time these Jews adopted the Greek language and gradually lost Hebrew. The Alexandrian Jews who had a desire to retain the body of Old Testament writings sought to gain a Greek translation of the scriptures. Over a period of three hundred years, the whole of the Old Testament was translated for the Greek speaking Jews. The Hexateuch was translated in the third century B.C.; the Prophets in the second century B.C.; the writings in both the second and first century B.C. (See Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 1, 75). These writings in whole, the true canon of the Old Testament, consisted of: The Law: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy The Prophets: Joshua, Judges, 1, 2 Samuel, 1, 2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel The Twelve: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
Copyright 8/27/03
19
The Writings: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and 1, 2 Chronicles During the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into, what was later called, the Alexandrian Septuagint, there were Alexandrian Jews who claimed to have divine revelation from God. These so called prophets and seers could not find official entrance for their writings into the true canon in Palestine; however, these pseudo prophets writings found their way into the Septuagint. The additional books that were added to the true canon consisted of: 1, 2, 3, 4 additional Kings, 1, 2 Esdras, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Esther with additions, Judith, Tobit, Epistle of Jeremy, additions to Daniel: Songs of the Three Children, Susannah, Bel and the Dragon: 1, 2, 3, 4 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon, Enoch, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses. These extra biblical books were of Jewish origin, and they later received the name Apocrypha, which means, hidden or concealed. Related to the Apocrypha, there were also pseudepigraphal (false prophetic) writings, such as: Ethiopic Enoch, written between 200 63 B.C.; Jubilees, written in Palestine between 109 105 B.C.; The Testament Of The Twelve Patriarchs, written between 109 106 B.C.; The Secrets of Enoch or the Slavonic Enoch, written between A.D. 1 50; The Assumption of Moses, written between A.D. 7 29 Note: From the days of the writing of the Alexandrian Septuagint to the writings of the New Testament, there were constant supposed revelations placed into and beside the true canons of scripture. EXTRA BIBLICAL INFLUENCES ON THE CHURCH FATHERS Between Malachi and the writings of the New Testament, two major bodies of Jews formed. Kenneth Scott Latourette explains:
When Christianity began, Judaism was by no means uniform. Often it is said to have displayed two main divisions, Palestinian and Hellenistic. By the first is meant that which prevailed in Palestine and which, supposedly, had been less subject to alien influences than the second. Hellenistic Judaism was that which predominated among the Jews outside the homeland, where the inherited faith had been modified by the pervading Greek culture, which had acquired such currency and prestige under Alexander and his successors (A History of The Expansion Of Christianity: The First Five Centuries. 4th edition, Vol. 1, 39).
Greek Hellenism influenced the Alexandrian Jews; and consequently, the pseudepigrapha and apocrypha writings had within them a combination of pagan and Jewish concepts. It is from the Alexandrian stream of extra biblical concepts that we find much of the beliefs
By D. S. Farris
20 of early Roman Christianity. Dr. Adolph Harnack emphasizes that the early Christian apologists are of the same stream as the mystical Alexandrian Jews:
The Gospel was hellenised in the second century in so far as the Gnostics in various ways transformed it into a Hellenic religion for the educated. The Apologists used itwe may say inadvertentlyto overthrow polytheism by maintaining that Christianity was the realization of an absolutely moral theism. The Christian religion was not the first to experience this twofold destiny on Graeco-Roman soil. A glance at the history of the Jewish religion shows us a parallel development; in fact, both the speculations of the Gnostics and the theories of the Apologists were foreshadowed in the theology of the Jewish Alexandrians, and particularly in that of PhiloThree centuries before the appearance of Christian apologists, Jews, who had received a Hellenic training, had already set forth the religion of Jehovah to the Greeks in that remarkably summary and spiritualized form which represents it as the absolute and highest philosophy, i.e., the knowledge of God, of virtue, and of recompense in the next world. Here these Jewish philosophers had already transformed all the positive and historic elements of the national religion into parts of a huge system for proving the truth of that theism. The Christian Apologists adopted this method, for they can hardly be said to have invented it anew (History Of Dogma: Translated From The Third German Edition by Neil Buchanan, Vol. 2, 174, 175).
Not only did the early apologists become a Christianized version of the Alexandrian Jews, the apologists made use of the extra biblical influences. Harnack tells us:
Not only the genuine Greek portions of the Septuagint, but also many Apocalypses were quoted by Christians in the second century as of equal value with the Old Testament. It was the New Testament that slowly put an end to these tendencies towards the formation of a Christian Old Testament History Of Dogma,
Vol. 1, 115).
The problem that the apologists faced was thatthough the New Testament was completed by the later part of the first centurythe New Testament writings were scattered throughout different regions; it was not until the third or fourth century that the New Testament writings were brought together for debate as to the authenticity of canonizing; Consequently, the apologists relied mainly on the Septuagint. The Apostles used the Septuagint; however, they made a sharp distinction between canonical and noncanonical scripture, for Jesus was their instructor on Holy-Writ (Luke 24:44, 45); and Jesus never once cited a pseudepigrapha text. On the other hand, the early Church fathers associated with Alexandria and Rome did not make these distinctions. What popular dispensational teachers must realize is that the foreign influences, which inevitably were to corrupt Christianity, began very early. Many Jews preceding and proceeding Christs day were tinctured with extra Biblical ideas, and these same influences were already at work in the Apostle Pauls day. Paul himself said in Acts 20:28 31 that No sooner would he depart and men would arise within the Church who would speak perverted things. These perverted thingsin partcome from the extra-biblical writings. We completely agree with Manly P. Hall where he emphasizes:
Copyright 8/27/03
21

The discrepancies in the writings of the early Church Fathers not only are irreconcilable, but demonstrate beyond question that even during the first five centuries after Christ these learned men had for the basis of their writings little more substantial than folklore and hearsay. [Hall went on to say] To the easy believer everything is possible and there are no problems. The unemotional person in search of facts, however, is confronted by a host of problems . . . (The Secret Teachings of All Ages, CLXXVII).
Froom tells us:

These second-century writings are in sharp contrast to the inspired Scriptures of the apostles. These successors were already definitely influenced by the sophistries of the day, which had introduced such legends as that of the phoenix, and other fables. The views of some were tinctured with Jewish concepts; others were marred by gross extravagances (Prophetic Faith, Vol. 1, 206).
Froom claims that the legend of the phoenix was believed by some of the early fathers. The Introductory Notice in the Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 1, p. vii explains: The Apostolic Fathers are here understood as filling up the second century of our era. This was the Church period from A.D. 100 200. These are the fathers that precede Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Even back here we find things that confirm what both Manly P. Hall and Leroy Froom state. In The First Epistle Of Clement chap. XXV we read: The Phoenix An Emblem Of Our Resurrection. Clement endorsed this fable:
Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and it lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the alter of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed (The First Epistle Of Clement, Chap. XXV in ANF, vol. 1, 12).
Hall explains: The phoenix was regarded as sacred to the sun, and the length of its life (500 to 1000 years) was taken as a standard for measuring the motion of the heavenly bodies and also the cycles of time used in the Mysteries to designate the periods of existence (The Secret Teachings Of All Ages, XC). On the same page, Hall says, To the ancient mystics the phoenix was a most appropriate symbol of the immortality of the human soul. . . . We have already seen in chapter 6 that the Phoenix was sacred to the god of 666, for the Phoenix is another name for Lucifer and has the numerical value of 666. How is it that an early Church father borrowed such an idea from the system of 666? Obviously the system of 666 had made its way into early Roman Christianity very earlyvery early indeed. The early Church became tinctured by different fables, and as
By D. S. Farris
22 we are going to see, some of the most dangerous fables come, not only from Paganism, but also from the pseudepigraphal writings. The Pseudepigraphal Millennium Froom emphasizes: Justin Martyr, for instance, quotes and esteems the book of Enoch, and Tertullian defends it (Prophetic Faith, Vol. 1, 294). On another page, Froom says, Clement of Alexandria accepts and cites the Old Testament Apocrypha freely, and considers the miracles related in the book of Tobit as authentic (Prophetic Faith, Vol. 1, 295). In light of these statements, we must ask the question: Could it be that the Irenaeus and Hippolytus merged apocalyptic concepts from the pseudepigraphal writings with those of Daniel and Revelation? Yes! These Fathers received their concept on the millennium from extra-biblical sources. Irenaeus endorsed certain Jewish pseudepigraphal concepts on the millennium:
. . the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine (Irenaeus Against Heresies book 5, chap. XXXIII, sect. 3 in ANF, vol. 1, 563. Emphasis mine).
In section 4 of the preceding citation, Irenaeus says: And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp. The preceding citation of plenty, from Irenaeus, is identical with the writing of the Apostolic Father, Papias (see Fragments Of Papias, chap. IV in ANF, vol. 1, p. 153). Let us underscore that whether or not there will be great plenty in the millennium is not the issue; the issue is that we cannot find any scripture from Genesis to Revelation that says anything this fanciful. However, we find that the early fathers used a multiple of 10 for the Sirach Baruch to form their concept of plenty in the millennium. In II Baruch 29:5, 6 we read:
The earth also shall yield its fruit ten thousandfold and on each vine there shall be a thousand branches, and each branch shall produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a core of vine (Cited in R. H. Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2).
What do the preceding comparisons between Baruch and the Church fathers tell us? The preceding comparisons tell us: in all probability, Irenaeus heard or read something about Papias who supposedly heard something from Polycarp who supposedly heard something from John; but in actuality, heard something from the Sirach Baruch. This is the folklore and hearsay of the early fathers. We must emphasize that there are elements of truth in the extra biblical writings, but whatever truth exists in these writings, is layered by non-Biblical concepts. The issue then is not whether or not certain elements of the extra biblical writings elude to a truth in the true canon of Scripture, the issue is that the early fathers often grasped onto not only
Copyright 8/27/03
23
certain elements of truth in the extra biblical writings, but also the foreign ideas that were attached. The ultimate result was that the Church fathers compared, similarly, an element of truth in the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha with truths in the true canon of scripture, and then induced the attached falsehoods of the extra biblical texts into the true Scriptures. This kind of layering, which ultimately leads to theological distortions, can be visualized in the Church fathers emphasis on the concept of 6,000 years for mans probation. The Apostolic Father Barnabas (not to be confused with the apostle) teaches:
And God made in six days the works of His hands, and made an end on the seventh day, and rested on it, and sanctified it. Attend, my children, to the meaning of this expression, He finished in six days. This implieth that the Lord will finish all things in six thousand years, for a day is with Him a thousand years. . .Therefore, my children, in six days, that is, in six thousand years, all things will be finished. And He rested on the seventh day. This meaneth: when His Son, coming [again], shall destroy the time of the wicked man, and judge the ungodly, and change the sun, and the moon, and the stars, then shall He truly rest on the seventh day (The Epistle Of Barnabas, chap. XV in ANF, vol. 1, 147. Emphasis mine).
Barnabas went on to say further in this paragraph:

Ye perceive how He speaks: your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eight day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day also with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead (The Epistle Of Barnabas, chap. XV in ANF, vol. 1, 147. Emphasis mine).
We do not preclude the possibility that God may end human history after 6,000 years and begin the millennium of Revelation 20 at the 7th millennium, for God does work in 7s. Though this is a possibility; it is only possible by an inductive theory of a very limited availability of deductible scriptures. For example in 2 Peter 3:8, we read that a day with God is as a thousand years. But can this be rightly correlated with the Creation Week of Genesis to produce 6,000 years for mans probation. Let us be careful in this matter, for there are teachers in Christendom who destroy the Creation Week with this very theory in a different form; they say that God created the world in 6,000 years, which is completely false! One must realize that in Peters day the longest stretch of time with barriers was a thousand year period. Even in the world today, we have the year, the decade, the century, and the millennium. Peter was simply saying: Mans greatest conception of time is like a day to God. In essence, 2 Peter 3:8 and the fact that there is 6 days of creation in Genesis is not enough to be extremely dogmatic about the 6,000-year theory. If this is a truth, God has not explicitly revealed it to us in the canonical scriptures. Let us ask: What is the problem with the preceding citation from Barnabas? The problem is that we cannot find such a vivid account in the scriptures, an account that makes the six days of creation a type of 6,000 years for the probation of man with the seventh millennium being the Sabbath millennium, while the eighth millennium is an antitype of keeping the eightinstead of the seventhday in the present? There is no such statement in the word of Godnot one! Where did Barnabas receive this idea? It is By D. S. Farris
24 likely that he borrowed this idea from the Slavonic of Enoch 32:2; 33:1, 2 written by a Hellenistic Jew who was undoubtedly pagan in his beliefs:
And I blessed the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, on which he [Adam] rested from his works. And I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first-created after my work, and that the first seven revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not-counting, endless, with neither years, nor months nor weeks nor days nor hours (Cited in Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2).
The problem with Barnabas is that he layered explicit pseudepigraphal illustrations with canonical scriptures, which are notby themselvesadequate to prove the theory. Thus, the canonical Bible was contorted to justify extra biblical concepts. We have already established that there will be a millennial period of 1,000 years; Revelation 20 makes this clear. But there is no indication in Revelation 20 of an earthly millennial period. The early fathers were absolutely correct in teaching that there was going to be a 1,000-year millennium, but they interpreted Revelation 20 through the lenses of Jewish extra-biblical apocalyptic writings; consequently, their vision of the Messianic Age became almost homogeneous with that of the Jewish myth. The idea that the millennium must take place on earth and that the Jews must return to their land is supplied by pseudo prophetic writings, such as the preceding pseudepigrapha. Another pseudo book that emphasizes the return of the Jews to Palestine is Jubilees. This book teaches that there is to be a great tribulation in which the Gentiles come against Israel as the object of oppression. In this time frame, the Jews are said to study the law anew and return to righteousness, and this righteous transition is to inaugurate the messianic age. Jubilees 23:27 29 states:
And the days shall begin to grow many and increase amongst those children of men till their days draw nigh to one thousand years, and to a greater number of years than was the number of the days. And there shall be no old man nor one who is not satisfied with his days, for all shall be as children and youths. And all their days they shall complete and live in peace and in joy, and their shall be no Satan nor any evil destroyer; for all their days shall be days of blessing and healing (Cited in Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2).
Books like the Slavonic Enoch, with its 6000-year theory for the probation of man, and Jubilees, with its mention of a 1000-year life span during the millennium, supplied the induction of taking the new earth in Isaiah and placing it into the 1,000 years of Revelation 20. This is an induction that cannot be accomplished without these pseudepigraphal books. This was the case with the early fathers; they were influenced by extra-biblical sources.
Copyright 8/27/03
25
Beliar, The Pseudo Anti-Messiah Did the early apostolic fathers (the Church fathers that immediately came after the apostles), as in the case of the millennium, interpret the Antichrist through the lenses of Jewish extra-biblical apocalyptic literature? We cannot deduct this from the account of their writings, but this is possible on account of the fact that there were Christianized pseudepigraphal writings during the first century that focused on the pseudo antichrist. We will talk about this on following pages. What we can detect in the writings of the apostolic fathers is simplicity on the theological point of the Antichrist. They expected Antichrist to come at Romes breakup. They did not teach that the Antichrist was to be a Jew from Dan who would possess all the power of the Devil or any of the fanciful ideas that are seen in Irenaeus and Hippolytus writings. However, the Ant-Nicene fathers Irenaeus and Hippolytus and others that followed propagated these ideas, and now we must analyze the true sources of these concepts. In the time frame of the early fathers, writings called Pseudo Sybylline Oracles were in circulation. There were essentially three types of these writings: Pagan, Jewish, and Christian. The pagan sibyls were a poetic type of writing that pagan prophetesses and fortunetellers used to propagate their pagan beliefs amongst the populaces in their societies. Both Jews and Christians, in the hope of winning pagans to their beliefs, wrote their Jewish and Christian prophetic expectations in the format of these Pagan Sibyls. There were three big problems that the Christians faced: (1) These Sibylline Oracles were largely poetic forms of the general pseudepigraphal writings in circulation; meaning, these writings were a more corrupted version of the pseudepigraphal books (as though, the general pseudepigrapha was not corrupt enough). (2) The Jewish versions of these Sibyls were constantly mixed up with the Christian versions; and consequently, the Christians became even more tinctured with fanciful concepts about prophecy. (3) The pagans paid littleif anyattention to this scheme; and consequently, the Christians more than anyonewere left reading all the garbage. Interestingly, Hippolytus wrote some of these spurious or dubious writings. He says:
Since the saviour of the world, with the purpose of saving the race of men, was born of the immaculate and virgin Mary . . . in the same manner also will the accuser come forth from an impure woman upon the earth, but shall be born of a virgin spuriously (Appendix To The Works Of Hippolytus, chap. 22. in ANF, vol. 5, 247, 248).
Hippolytus, in chapter XXVI of this same work, describes fanciful accounts of the Antichrists power:
Under the eye of the spectators he (the antichrist) will remove mountains from their places, he will walk on the sea with dry feet, he will bring down fire from heaven, he will turn the day into darkness and the night into day, he will turn the sun about wheresoever he pleases; and, in short, in presence of those who behold him, he will show all the elements of earth and sea to be subject to him in the power of his specious manifestation.
By D. S. Farris
26
Hippolytuss antichrist is a character that we cannot find in the Bible. The Man of Lawlessness described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 10 is described as coming with power, signs, and lying wonders, but these scriptures do not describe the fanciful ideas seen in this Pseudo work of Hippolytus. What is extremely fascinating about this whole scheme is the fact that the Jews used a similar character in their sibyls:
[63] From the stock of Sebaste Beliar shall come in latter time [64] and shall raise the mountain heights and the sea, [65] the great fiery sun and the bright moon, [66] and he shall raise up the dead and perform many signs for men: [67] but they shall not be effective in him. [68] nay, but he deceives mortals, and many shall he deceive, [69] Hebrews faithful and elect and lawless too, and other [70] men who have never listened to the word of God. [71] But at whatsoever time the threatened vengeance of the Almighty God draws near, [72] and fiery energy comes through the swelling surge to the earth, [73 and burns up Beliar and the overweening men (Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2 The Sibylline Oracles, book 3, lines 63 73).
The work by Hippolytus looks like a work derived from the preceding Jewish source or other pseudepigraphal sources that explain antichrist in this fanciful way. We must ask who was the Jewish apocalyptic character, Beliar? The Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible reveals:
ANTICHRIST. Strictly defined, a mythical demonic or demonic-human adversary of Christ who will appear before the Second Advent as the last oppressor and persecutor of the Christians, only in turn to be defeated and overcome by Christ in his return to earth. The term has also been used for the opponent of a Jewish messiah, but in such cases anti-messiah is preferable. More broadly, the term is also applied to a historical or mythical potentate who wages war against the faithful (The Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible, Vol. 1, 140, art. Antichrist. Emphasis mine).
These writers speak of a mythical type, demon-man antichrist, and they also describe that the Jews believed that an anti-messiah of this character would come. These writers point out that there are some Jewish prototypesif, indeed, not antecedents and modelsfor the Christian concept of Antichrist (The Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible, Vol. 1, 141, art. Antichrist. Emphasis mine). One of these prototypes is described in the following:
A somewhat different tradition is provided by the TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS, with Beliar, a demonic figure from the tribe of Dan, causing Israel to turn aside from the worship of God. However, the Messiah, of the tribe of Levi, will bind him and cast him into everlasting fire (Test. Dan 5:10 - 11; Test. Levi 18:12; Test. Judah 25:3) (The Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible, Vol. 1, 141, art. Antichrist. Emphasis mine).
After reading this document, we must further concur with these writers where they emphasize:
These and similar patterns of Jewish thought concerning the oppressors of the Jews and the anti-messiah provided prototypes and sources, even, for the Antichrist of Christian beliefs, despite certain differences between the Jewish and
Copyright 8/27/03
27

Christian concepts (The Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible, Vol. 1, 141, art. Antichrist. Emphasis mine).
Whether directly or indirectly, the TWELVE PATRIARCHS is one of the sources that Irenaeus and Hippolytus used to form their view on the Antichrist. This pseudo book dates back between 109 106 B.C., written by a Pharisee who was undoubtedly tinctured with the flow of extra-biblical influence (See Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2, 282). Why is this significant? This is roughly 200 to 300 years before the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The view that Antichrist was to be a man possessing all the power of the Devil from the tribe of Dan had been the teaching in this extra-biblical writing before the birth of Christ; long before the writings of the New Testament; long before the early Apostolic Fathers; long before the Ante-Nicene fathers. The view of Hippolytus and Irenaeus has nothing whatsoever to do with the account of Antichrist given in the New Testament. It is obvious that these Ante-Nicene fathers borrowed their view of the Antichrist from The Twelve Patriarchs and other writings, so where did they receive their view on Daniels 70th week? Distortion Of Daniels 70 Weeks There are three important keys to understand why Hippolytus concocted the gap theory for the 70th week of Daniel 9: (1) In the Testament Of The Twelve Patriarchs, Beliar is inextricably tied to a distorted version of the 70 weeks. (2) In the Testament Of The Twelve Patriarchs, the Millennium comes at the end of the 70 weeks. (3) Hippolytus believed that the millennium was to come at the end of 6,000 years. Let us now analyze these three points: THE TESTAMENT OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS has a distorted version of the 70 weeks. T. Levi 16:1 5 says:
And now I have learned that for 70 weeks ye shall go astray, and profane the priesthood, and pollute the sacrifices. And ye shall make void the Law, and set at nought the words of the prophets by evil perverseness . . .And your holy places shall be laid waste even to the ground because of him. And ye shall have no place that is clean; but ye shall be among the Gentiles a curse and a dispersion until He shall again visit you, and in pity shall receive you (Cited in Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2).
Question: Who was the primary cause of the sacrificial pollution in the 70 weeks, and who was to bring restoration back to Israel? Answer: T. Levi 18:2, 8 14:
Then shall the Lord raise up a new priest, and to him all the words of the Lord shall be revealed; and he shall execute a righteous judgment upon the earth for a
By D. S. Farris
28
multitude of days. And there shall none succeed him for all generations for ever. And in his priesthood the Gentiles shall be multiplied in knowledge upon the earth, and enlightened through the grace of the Lord: in his priesthood shall sin come to an end . . . . And he shall open the gates of paradise, and shall remove the threatening sword against Adam. And he shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of Life, and the spirit of holiness shall be upon them. And Beliar shall be bound by him, and shall give power to his children to tread upon the evil spirits (Cited in Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2).
The Messiah was to come and make an end of Sin after he destroyed Beliar; then, the Messianic reign was to begin. T. Dan. 5:10 12 shows:
And there shall arise unto you from the tribe of [Judah and of] Levi the salvation of the Lord; And he shall make war against Beliar. And execute an everlasting vengeance on our enemies; And the captivity shall he take from Beliar [the souls of the saints], And turn disobedient hearts unto the Lord, And give to them that call upon him eternal peace. And the saints shall rest in Eden, And in the New Jerusalem shall the righteous rejoice (Cited in Charles, Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament, Vol. 2).
These pseudepigraphal texts taken together teach that there will be a period of 70 weeks in which Beliar will hold Israel captive. Beliar will pollute the sacrifices, make void the law, and bring disaster to Israel. At the end of this period, the Messiah will come and bound Beliar and make and end of sin. After the Messiah accomplishes this, the New Jerusalem will be set up for the saints. The following diagram depicts the concepts of the Twelve Patriarchs:
70 Weeks ( 1 ) Profane the priesthood ( 2 ) Pollute the sacrifices ( 3 ) Make void the Law BELIAR ( T. Levi 16: 1 - 5 )
( T. Levi 18: 2 - 14; T. Dan 5: 10 - 13 ) Beliar is bound by the Messiah
MESSIANIC KINGDOM
Where did Hippolytus receive his view on the 70 weeks of Daniel 9? From the same place he received his view on the devil-man antichrist from DanThe Twelve Patriarchs. Whether by direct or indirect reading, Hippolytus was a recipient of T. Levis version of the 70 weeks. It does not take a great stretch of the imagination to figure this one out. Reading Daniel 9:24 27 side by side with the pseudepigraphal concept for decades could only lead to the conclusion that Beliar was somehow tied in with Daniel 9:24 27. Hippolytus, in realizing that Christ will come back and destroy the Man of Lawlessness, as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 9, and with a predilection for thinking
Copyright 8/27/03
29
that Beliar was somehow tied into Daniels 70 weeks; most likely applied the 70th week to the Man of Lawlessness right before the Messianic age, which he thought was to come in A. D. 500. The notion that Beliar was attached to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 and the notion that the end of the world was to come in A.D. 500 created a justification for separating the 70th week as the Beliar persecution. The mention of sacrificial pollutions, profaning the priesthood, and making void the law in T. Levi and T. Dan was paralleled with the abolishment of the sacrifices in Daniel 9:27. Hippolytuss gap was a justification to somehow keep the 70 weekswith the notion that Beliar was attached connected to the millennium. Up to this point we can say that The Twelve Patriarchs definitely has the potential to supply a distorted view of Daniels 70 weeks, but this pseudepigraphal work is not the only extra-biblical influence which could have supplied a misconstruing of Daniels prophecy; there are others. The Syriac Baruch 28:1 3 mentions a period of 7 weeks divided into two parts of a week. Chap. 27:1 14 explain that 12 woes of tribulation take place in this week. Chap. 29:4 9 explain the Messianic period as following this tribulation week. Then there is 2 Esdras 7:27 33, 37, which describe a 400 year Messianic reign. At the end of this period, the Messiah dies for 7 days; and after the seven days, the New Age follows. Notice that these pseudepigraphal writings have the outer structure of a week and also 7 days preceding the Messianic period. What happens when we analyze Daniel 9:24 27 through the lenses of the following pseudepigraphal concepts for decades upon decades? We come up with ideas either similar or identical to the views of Irenaeus and Hippolytus.
70 Weeks ( 1 ) Profane the priesthood ( 2 ) Pollute the sacrifices ( 3 ) Make void the Law BELIAR ( T. Levi 16: 1 - 5 )
MESSIANIC KINGDOM
( Syriac Baruch 28: 1 - 3 ) Two parts of a week of 7 weeks ( Syriac Baruch 27: 1 - 14 ) THE TWELVE WOES ( Tribulation ) ( Syriac Baruch 29: 4 - 6 )
3. 5 WEEKS
3. 5 WEEKS
MESSIANIC KINGDOM
By D. S. Farris
30
400 Year Messianic reign ( 2 Esdras 7: 27 - 33, 37 )
Messiah and all men die 7 DAYS MESSIANIC KINGDOM
Gap
5500 From Creation Christ Irenaeus ( 130 - 202 ) Hippolytus ( 236 ) 3.5 3.5
Both the Syriac Baruch and 2 Esdras create ideological patterns of two parts of a week or 7 days preceding the Messianic age. These patterns in conjunction with The Twelve Patriarchs version of the 70 weeks of sacrificial pollutionsproduced by Beliar create the perfect lenses to distort the 70th week of Daniel 9 as something applicable to the Antichrist. The extra-biblical influence on the early Church fathers does not stop here. Beliar centered pseudepigraphal writings continued to be written. In the first century A.D. before the New Testament had been compiled togetherthere were obviously Christianized pseudepigraphal versions of the Beliar myth. The Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible reveals:
The Testament of Hezekiah (3:13b - 4:18 of the Ascension of Isaiah), from about the end of the first century, presents a more fully developed antichrist tradition. It is predicted that in the last days there will be a falling away and much disorder in the church. Shortly before the second advent of the Beloved (Christ), Beliar, the demonic ruler of this world, will descend from the firmament in the likeness of a man, of a lawless king who had killed his mother (Nero). He will persecute the church, putting one of the Twelve (possibly Peter is meant) to death. He will also speak and act like Christ, will call himself God, will perform wonders and miracles, and will set his image up in every city for people to worship. During this sway of 3. 5 years many will follow him, but others will faithfully await the Lords return. When Christ does appear with his angels and armies of holy ones, he will drag Beliar and his armies into Gehenna. A messianic interim of indefinite duration will follow (The Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible, Vol. 1,
Copyright 8/27/03
31

p. 142, art. Antichrist. To see an illustration of this Christian pseudepigraphal, look at: Willis Barnstone, The OTHER Bible: Ancient Alternative Scriptures. (Harper San Francisco: A Division of Harper Collins Publishers, 1984)
These writers go on to say:

It is obvious that the Antichrist and the pseudo Christ are assimilated into one person in this form of the tradition. This person, moreover, is a mythical demonic-human character, for he is Beliar (the equivalent of Satan) incarnate... (The Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible, Vol. 1, 142, art. Antichrist).
Before Irenaeus and Hippolytus came into being, yes, before the writing of the New Testament in the first century, the stages had been set to misconstrue the prophecies, not only in Daniel, but also in 2 Thessalonians and Revelation. In the ASCENSION OF ISAIAH, there is, not only mention of a period of three and a half literal years of the reign of Antichrist, but this writer literally uses the title Beliar for the Antichristin opposition to Jesus. Furthermore, the concept of three and a half literal years was already being molded as literal time around the mythical Antichrist before Irenaeus and Hippolytus came into the picture. It is unquestionable that FOURTH EZRA, II BARUCK, THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH, and THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS were lenses for interpreting Daniel 9 and other prophecies in 2 Thessalonians and Revelation.
70 Weeks ( 1 ) Profane the priesthood ( 2 ) Pollute the sacrifices ( 3 ) Make void the Law
( T. Levi 16: 1 - 5 )
400 Year Messianic reign
BELIAR
( 2 Esdras 7: 27 - 33, 37 )
Messiah and all men die
MESSIANIC KINGDOM
7 DAYS
MESSIANIC KINGDOM
( Syriac Baruch 28: 1 - 3 ) Two parts of a week of 7 weeks ( Syriac Baruch 27: 1 - 14 ) THE TWELVE WOES ( Tribulation ) ( Syriac Baruch 29: 4 - 6 )
ASCENSION OF ISAIAH Beliar Comes Against The Church
3. 5 WEEKS
3. 5 WEEKS
MESSIANIC KINGDOM
3 . 5 Years
By D. S. Farris
32
Gap Theory First few chapters fulfilled in John's time frame. Seals 1 - 5 span Church era ( Rev. 6 ) 1 2 3 4 5 6th seal
(Rev. 7) Saints Sealed
Rev. 11 (The two witnesses)

Bowl Judgements
7th seal
(Rev. 8, 9 Trumpets)
1
6 7
Rev. 2 and 3
( Temple ) Most Holy Place Rev. 13 Antichrist Rules Rev. 12 Remnant Flees
A.D. 100
Gap
5500 From Creation Christ
( Rev. 17 ) Before the appearing of the Antichrist, the ten horns will overthrow Papal Rome after a "future falling away from the Pope." ( Dan. 7 ) Antichrist will then appear and uproot three of the horns. This will initiate the the 3. 5 year tribulation.
3. 5 years
Irenaeus ( 130 - 202 )
Hippolytus ( 236 ) 3.5
3.5
Rev. 11 Lahaye has witnesses in first 3 . 5 years. Larkin has witnesses in 2nd 3 . 5 years.
( The seals ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 144, 000 sealed under sixth seal 7 ( The trumpets ) ( The plagues ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rev. 12 ( Israel is pursecuted ) Rev. 13 ( Reign of Antichrist )
Antichrist Rules in Temple
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Two Witnesses
Ten horns come prior to Antichrist, not before. Ten horns destroy Ecclesiastical Babylon. Little horn emerges and uproots three, leaving seven for the Great Tribulation. Rev. 12 Rev. 13
7 Bowl Judgements Saints flee in wilderness Cruel reign of Antichrist.
Antichrist makes 7 year covenant with Jews. He helps the Jews build the Temple.
Most Holy Place
6th seal 144, 000 sealed under this seal.
7th seal ( Trumpets ) 3 4 5 6
3 . 5 Years
Antichrist sits in the Most Holy
3 . 5 Years
Ecclesiastical Babylon ( The Papacy and fallen Protestantism ) are destroyed by the 10 horns. The little horn or Antichrist arises out of the 10 horns
3 . 5 Years
3 . 5 Years
and uproots three of these powers. This initiates the Great Tribulation for three and a half years.
Very factually Adolph Harnack says:

It [the Jewish apocalyptic literature] was an evil inheritance which the Christians took over from the Jews, an inheritance which makes it impossible to reproduce with certainty the eschatological sayings of Jesus. Things directly foreign were mixed up with them, and, what was most serious, delineations of the hopes of the future could easily lead to the undervaluing of the most important gifts and duties of the gospel (History Of Dogma, Vol. 1, 101).
In light of this knowledge, we are not impressed with either dispensational or Jesuit reliance on the early fathers for the authentication of their theology, for as Harnack says, A wealth of mythologies and poetic ideas was naturalized and legitimized, in the Christian communities, chiefly by the reception of the Apocalyptic literature (History Of Dogma, Vol. 1, 102). On the part of the Jesuits, reliance on Irenaeus and Hippolytus for the correct interpretation on prophecy was a hopeless case of authoritative jugglery to escape the inevitable derogation from Christendom; it was jugglery to avoid the realization of the ignominy and perfidy in the Beast of Revelation 13. For dispensationalism, reliance on these Church fathers is jugglery to escape the fact that they
Copyright 8/27/03
33
are a product of the Jesuit order and a disgrace to the evangelicals who sealed their prophetic testimony with blood. The former Jesuit, Alberto Rivera, states the matter factually:
The "Early Fathers" observed most of the ancient Babylonian system plus Jewish theology and Greek philosophy. They all perverted most of the teachings of Christ and His apostles. They paved the way for the Roman Catholic machine that was to come into existence ("Dr. Rivera's Introduction" The Secret History Of The Jesuits, Introduction)
The truth of the matterafter rightly dividing the factsis that dispensationalism is the product of a Jesuit system that borrowed ideas from men who borrowed ideas from pseudepigraphal works. Futurism is nothing more than Jesuit elaborations on myths that are no more real or sacred than the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, or Santa Clause. THE SOURCE OF THE BELIAR CHARACTER What Does The Bible Say About Beliar? Where did the Jews receive the knowledge to create the character, Beliar? The term Beliar is the Greek equivalent of Belial meaning worthlessness or worthless one and can be found in the following texts in the KJV of the Bible: Duet. 13:13 (children of Belial); Judg. 19:22 (sons of Belial); 20:13(children of Belial); 1 Sam. 1:16 (daughter of Belial); 2:12 (sons of Belial); 10:27(children of Belial); 25:17(son of Belial), 25 (man of Belial); 30:22 (men of Belial); 2 Sam. 16:7(man of Belial); 20:1(man of Belial); 23:6(sons of Belial); 1Kings 21:10 (sons of Belial); 21:13 (children and men of Belial); 2 Chron. 13:7(children of Belial); 2 Cor. 6:15 (Belial) The Newer translations of the Bible (NIV; NAU; NRS; NKJ) completely omit the word Belial in the Old Testament as it is written in the KJV. In the Newer translations we find worthless, wicked, or evil modifying the nouns. For example: Deuteronomy 13:13 says wicked or worthless men instead of children of Belial. Why do the newer translations omit the term Belial from being a character or even the devil in the Old Testament? The Heb. Beliya al denotes worthlessness or wickedness in a general sense, not as a person. Deuteronomy 15:9 says, Beware lest there be a wicked (Heb. Beliyaal) thought (Heb. Dabar speech word) in your heart. Proverbs 19:28 says, An ungodly (Beliyaal) witness scorneth judgment. Psalm 18:4 says, The pangs of death surrounded me, And the floods of ungodliness (Beliyaal) made me afraid. The reason this word is not used as a character in the Old Testament is obvious. THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY in the article BELIAL tells us:
Beliyya al in Hebrew means wickedness and is often found in compounds expressing evil people. The use of beliyya al as a proper name for Satan is not found in the Hebrew Bible, but Belial as the leader of the forces of darkness is ubiquitous in the pseudepigraphic and Qumran material (ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY, Vol. 1, 654).
By D. S. Farris
34 Why does Belial have the appearance of a character in the KJV of the Old Testament? It has been argued that the KJVthough a good Biblehas carried some of the italicized words and concepts from the Latin Vulgate version of the Old Testament; meaning, the Catholic scholars who attempted to polish up the work of William Tyndale were themselves tinctured with ideas found in the Latin Vulgate. (We do not mean to say that the King James is directly translated from the Vulgate; we say the men who did the translating brought with them words from the Vulgate.) Jerome, a great scholar of the Catholic Church, translated the Latin Vulgate from the Septuagint. Jerome did not want the Apocryphal books in the Latin Vulgate (he hated these books), but the Roman churched pressured him into adding the extra-biblical writings. Consequently extrabiblical concepts and this worddeveloped in the time frame of the pseudepigraphic writingwere added to the Vulgate. The Vulgate goes as far as to interpret Beliyaal as Diabolus (devil) in 1 Kings 21:13. The term Belial was a word coined to represent the devil himself and also the anti-messiah; this term was interpreted both ways. The Greek rendering of this word is Beliar. There is only one instance in the whole of the Bible where Beliar is used. The term Beliar is found in 2 Corinthians 6:15: And what concord hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? This text undoubtedly parallels the Devil and his offspring (seed of serpent) against Christ and His offspring (seed of woman). There is nothing here to indicate a pseudepigraphic usage of the term, otherwise Paul would have defined this term as such; and he would have used the term in conjunction with the Man of Lawlessness; but, he did not! The fact that this term exists only once in the whole of the Bible and was used by Paul in the letter to the Corinthian church indicates that he had a special reason to use this term. The Ascension Of Isaiah1st century Christian pseudepigraphaindicates that Christians were being inundated with Jewish apocalyptic myths concerning Beliar. Paul said of himself in 1 Corinthians 9:19 23:
For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospels sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
It is likely that Paul used this term, because this term had already been widely used among those who were indoctrinated with pseudepigraphal concepts, and this may have been the case with some in the Church of Corinth. It is also likely that Paul purposely used this term in reference to the devil as the author of darkness to thwart the pseudepigraphic misconceptions of that word, for in the preceding verse, Paul said, what communion hath light with darkness. The term Darkness definitely belongs with the Heb. Beliyaal. If the word Beliar was to have any meaning of significance, Paul made certain that it was placed in the category of darkness as a whole, not a mythical devil man. We concur with the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT :
Copyright 8/27/03
35

This name for the devil is found in the NT only at 2 Cor. 6:15. It cannot be determined with any certainty whether Paul had particular reasons for the choice of this unusual name. Though it might be a title for Antichrist, this is not likely (THE THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Vol. 1, art. Beliar. p. 607).
Beliar Comes From Persian Mythology Two to three centuries before the birth of Christ, the term Beliar was developed from Beliyaal to depict the devil himself. The attributing of Beliar to an anti-messiah was developed through the indoctrination of Zoroastrianism, a pagan monotheistic/polytheistic kind of religion, which paralleled the true religion of Jehovah during the Persian supremacy. This religion taught that God was both good and evil (Persian Dualism). The Good god was Ahura Mazda, and the evil god was Angra Mainyu. It was believed in this Pagan system that Mazda created all material things all things of substance. On the other hand, Mainyu had no material form, neither could he or his demons manifest themselves as physical things, for Mazda created all matter. The only way Mainyu couldin a sensebecome material was through infesting somethingas parasites reside in men or animals (See John R. Hinnells, The Persian Mythology, From The Library Of The Worlds Myths and Legends). Said another way, he could only embrace the material through possession. The spiritualism of the incarnation of evil in the material world was conceptualized through the seven-fold dualism of Zoroastrianism. It was believed that Mazda watched humanity through the sun, and he wore the stars like a garment. Mazda, it was believed, had six offspring, which governed his creation. Mazda with his offspring represented the Amesha Spentas. The Amesha Spentas were believed to be seven immortals that protected the creation. Each one of these guardians represented a facet in nature and protected that part of naturekeeping balance in the world. Angra Mainyu was the exact counterpart to Mazda. He had a counterpart for each of Mazdas offspring. It was believed that the seven evil immortals were constantly attempting to possess that which the seven good immortals protected. Because many Jews and Christians came to believe and propagate the Beliar myth, this has led different writers to conclude that the entire concept of Satan found in Judaism and Christianity comes from Zoroastrianism. Will Durant explains:
But just as these angels and the immortal holy ones helped men to virtue, so, according to the pious Persian (influenced, presumably, by Babylonian demonology), seven devas, or evil spirits, hovered in the air, always tempting men to crime and sin, and forever engaged in a war upon Ahura-Mazda and every form of righteousness. The leader of these devils was Angro-Mainyus or Ahriman, Prince of Darkness and ruler of the nether world, prototype of that busy Satan whom the Jews appear to have adopted from Persia and bequeathed to ChristianityZarathustra [Zoroaster] seems to have regarded these evil spirits as spurious deities, popular and superstitious incarnations of the abstract forces that resist the progress of man (Our Oriental Heritage, 367. Emphasis mine).
Another writer says: By D. S. Farris
36
The Zoroastrian idea of the co-existence of good and evil in the world greatly influenced the Gnostic schools of thought. We can also see its influence in Judaism (after the Babylonian exile), Christianity, and Islam in the notion of Satan, the eternal enemy of God (Georg Feuerstein, Spirituality by the Numbers, 26).
The entire concept of Satan is not derived from Zoroastrianism (The book of Job makes this clear). The reason that certain writers come to this conclusion, is simply because, both Jews and Christians have adopted the Persian mythology of evil. The truth of the matter is thus: the description of Satan is in the Bible and has been coated with Persian Dualism. Like Nimrods Dragon worship through the seven astrological godsthe sun being the primary representation of the dragonMazda was worshiped through the sun and the other six governors. In truth Zoroastrianism was Mithraism. Durant says, And the Undying Fire of the skies, the Sun, was adored as the highest and most characteristic embodiment of Ahura-Mazda or Mithra(Our Oriental Heritage, 369, 370). As the Babylonians believed that their god was both good and evil, this was the same in Zoroastrianism. The concept of evil becoming material through possession in the religion of Zoroastrianism found some acceptance among the mystical Jews. Mystical Jews began to mix Zoroastrianism with their own beliefs concerning the warfare between God and Satan. They applied the Zoroastrian dualism to the battle between Jehovah and Satan. Jewish mystics began to reshape the term Beliyaal into a mythical devil-man, an antimessiah of this nature. We completely agree with Edward Gibbon where he says, To the authority of Scripture the Pharisees added that of tradition, and they accepted, under the name of traditions, several speculative tenets from the philosophy or religion of the eastern nations (The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. Vol. 1, 402). In Paganism, as we have seen in chapter six, it was believed that the pagan kings were incarnations of the sun god. Zoroastrianism borrowed this concept and fixated it to the Powers of Darkness. The sun king in Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt with the application of Persian Dualism was applied, by the Jews, to a devil kingan incarnation of Satan in a manas the oppressor of Israel before the messianic age. The Beliar myth is inextricably connected to the myths of the sun king. We agree with Harnack where he says, The Jewish Apocalyptic literature, especially as it flourished since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, was impregnated with new elements borrowed from an ethicoreligious philosophy, as well as with Babylonian and Persian myths (History Of Dogma, Vol. 1, 100). When dispensationalists tell us that they believe the following about Antichrist: Clarence Larkin says:
And as Christ was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, so Antichrist will be born of a woman (not necessarily a virgin ) by Satan. This is no new view, for it has been held by many of Gods spiritually minded children since the days of the Apostle John, who have been looking for a man to be born among men who should be a Demon Man, upon whose mother Satan would descend, and fill her totally, and surround her totally, and possess her totally within and without,
Copyright 8/27/03
37

so that the creature born of her would be totally depraved (The Book Of Daniel, 142).
John Hagee says:

Though many people throughout the years have been anti-Christ, there is coming a man who is the devil incarnate, the son of Satan, evil personified (Beginning Of The End, 118)
Tim Lahaye says,

. . .it appears that Satan will actually indwell the body of the Antichrist . . . during the last three-and-a -half years, he will actually be Satan himself, clothed with the Antichrists body (Revelation, 181).
We are not impressed, for this concept has its origin in Persian Dualism and was made to register through the pseudepigraphal writings. The view of Hippolytus, making the 70 th week of Daniel 9 a period for the Antichrist, was based on two pseudepigraphal concepts: (1) the 6,000 year theory and (2) the connection of Beliar with the 70 weeksthrough THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS. 2 Esdras and the Syriac Baruchwith the seven day period preceding the millennium and the two part week preceding the millenniumcan easily supply making the 70th week of Daniel 9 a period for the Antichrist. The Ascension of Isaiah with its three and half years of Beliar persecution also played a role in shaping a predilection for interpreting the 1, 260 days and 42 months as literal time. Is dispensational futurism a product of the early church? As we are going to see, the idea of dispensationalism was unheard of in the early church. So are modern Futurists a product of the early church fathers? Modern futurists are oriented to some of the elements of the early church fathers, for it would be a misplacement of conceptual importance to make the early church something that did not exist until the Council of Trent. The Jesuits grabbed only the views that were suitable for destroying Protestantisms identification of the Papacy as the Antichrist of Bible prophecy. The Jesuits did not grab onto pre-millennialism, for theylike the Protestantsbelieved that the millennium was being fulfilled during the Church period; and at the end of this period, the Antichrist was to come. The Jesuits grabbed onto what was wieldable into a device to free the Papacy from further investigation. The Jesuits specifically grabbed onto certain views of the early fathers, the very views that come from the extra-biblical influence. The Jesuits developed a system of futurism out of the pseudepigraphal writings, not merely small prophetical constructs like that of Hippolytus. Trent Justified Pseudepigraphal Writings To Sustain Futurism What did the Council of Trent and the Jesuits say about the Apocryphal writings? They made the Latin Vulgate the only authentic version of the Bible. In The First Decree of the Fourth Session of April 5, 1546 they canonizedthough not allmost of the Apocryphal books that came out of the Septuagint. In this session, the council declared:
If anyone does not accept these books whole, with all their parts, as they have customarily been read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the Vulgate Latin edition, as sacred and canonical, and knowingly and intentionally despises
By D. S. Farris
38
the above named traditions, let him be anathema (Martin Chemnitz and Fred Kramer, translator. EXAMINATION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT part 1, 38).
Why did the Papacy need to canonize extra-biblical writings? They did this, because their arguments were being drawn from men who had borrowed ideas from these sources. In the session of the Council cited above, we further learn:
Furthermore, in order to restrain willful spirits, the synod decrees that no one, relying on his own wisdom in matters of faith and morals that pertain to the upholding of Christian doctrine, may twist the Holy Scripture according to his own opinions and presume to interpret Holy Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church has held and holds, whose right is to judge concerning the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or contrary to the unanimous consensus of the fathers . . . (Martin Chemnitz and Fred Kramer, translator. EXAMINATION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT part 1, 38).
The Papacy needed the canonizing of extra-biblical writings to authenticate their Futurist system which, in its essence, contained views that are traceable tonot so much the early fathersbut to the pseudepigraphal writings, the very ken to the Apocrypha. Well did the author of the book cited above reveal:
For these very decrees of the fourth session give out the resounding confession before the whole world that the papalists have in their church many, yes, mostly such things which they can in no way prove, establish, and defend with testimonies and proofs from the canonical Scripture. Therefore they seek other proofs outside of and beyond the Scripture, in order that, when they are pressed and attacked with testimonies from scripture, they may not be compelled to yield to the truth but may have other aids ready for use, a refuge, as it were, to which they may turn (Martin Chemnitz and Fred Kramer, translator. EXAMINATION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, 40).
The refuge of the Jesuit futurists were some of the Ante-Nicene fathers; and since these fathers had formed their views of Antichrist on the basis of extra-biblical concepts, extrabiblical books had to be canonized. What is futurism? Futurism is a system developed by the Jesuits to hide the identity of Catholicisms true character in prophecy. Where did the elements of futurism come from? Some of the basic elements came from the AnteNicene Fathers, namely, Irenaeus and Hippolytus. Where did the fantastical views of these fathers come from? These views have proceeded from extra biblical sources sources that we cannot use as the divine word of God. Early Protestants Were Not Impressed With Beliar It is not difficult to understand the reasons that the Protestant Reformers rejected the views of the early church fathers on the Antichrist. Walter Brute, fourteenth-century British and Lollard scholar knew about the concept of a one-man antichrist that was to rule for three and a half literal years:
Copyright 8/27/03
39

Wherefore it is an unfit thing to assign the 42 months, being appointed to the power of the Beast, unto three years and a half, for the Reign of the fantastical and imagined Antichrist (John Foxe. Acts and Monuments of Matters Most Special and Memorable, Happening in the Church. 9th ed., Vol. 1, 550).
Why did Brute call this antichrist, a fantastical and imagined Antichrist? Brute says this, because he was versed in the writings of the fathers; and he knew the sources of their interpretationsthe Beliar myth. The Lollards were a group of preachers who continued the teachings of John Wycliff, and Wycliff himself was aware of this make-believe antichrist. When Wycliff elucidated on the Papacy as being the power that arose amongst the divided kingdoms, he began his elucidation by saying, Why is it necessary in unbelief to look for another Antichrist? (Cited in Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 55. Emphasis mine). Other reformers put off from their teachings Beliar and everything he was said to be. The Bavarian Reformer, Andreas Osiander (1498 1552) emphasized the danger of Overlooking The Real Antichrist While Awaiting The Fictitious One (Cited in Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 2, 299. Emphasis mine). These reformers knew that the early fathers could not have ascertained from their restricted point of view that the bishop of Rome would become the great man of lawlessness over a corrupted church. The English Puritan, William Fulke (1538 1589), was a student of theology and law. He knew science and the languages of the Orient and Hebrew. This opponent of the Papacyin dealing with the views of the early fathers explains:
And although none within that compass had pointed out the see of Rome, yet the fulfilling of the prophecy in the latter times did sufficiently declare who it should be. And most of the ancient writers name Rome to be the see of Antichrist; although they could not foresee that the bishoprick of that see should degenerate into the tyranny of Antichrist (William Fulke. [Works vol. 2] A Discovery of the Dangerous Rock of the Popish Church Commended by Sanders, edited for the Parker Society by Richard Gibbings, 371).
When the Protestants came to realize that the seat of Antichrist was not to be locked into the life of only man at one point of time, but rather, the seat of Antichrist represented a position that was constantly being filled by men, they realized that the time of Antichrists rule could not be literal time. This is another reason that the early Protestants did not by into the Jesuit scheme of futurism. Such was the case of the German Evangelical theologian, Georg Nigrinus (1530 1602) who repudiated the Jesuit view of three and a half literal years:
This Jesuit further contends that the papacy cannot be antichrist because the papacy has lasted for centuries, but that the antichrist is supposed to reign only 3 . 5 years. . . . But no one doubts today that Daniel spoke of year-days, not literal days . . . . The prophetic time-periods of forty-two months, 1,260 days, [time, times, and half] times are prophetic, and according to Ezekiel 4, a day must be taken for a year (Georg Nigrinus. Antichrists Grundtliche Offenbarung.( [n.p.: n.n], 1586), fols. 28v, 29r).
By D. S. Farris
40
The Jesuits PERSONALLY Transformed The Views Of Many Protestants Note: The following web site by Michael Sheifler: The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism, not only explains the origins of Futurism, but also lists the different dispensational ministries in America that teach the Jesuit system. The Counter Reformation with its futurist system of prophetic interpretation has successfully caused the subversion of much of Protestantismin Europe and America through the Jesuits. Many evangelicals are now teaching Catholic doctrine. This is the reason Pope John XXIIIin the Second Vatican Council (1962 1965)focused on ecumenism and called the evangelicals: Separated Brethren. It was legal for the Papacy to come to this conclusion about much of Protestantism, because much of the Protestant churches gave up the prophetic views of the Reformers and enjoined the Catholic system from Trent. Question: Why does Protestantism, today, look like Rome? Answer: In the 1830s Samuel R. Maitland (1792 1866), James H. Todd (1805 1869), and William Burgh (1800 1866) of the Anglican Church were behind a great wave of Jesuit futurism that overcame England. We are told:
But now, for the first time, Catholic Futurism, initially projected by Ribera about 1585, began to obtain a foothold and then gain momentum among Protestants in Britain. Thus the same concept that sought to break the force of the Reformation view of the papal Antichrist, by assuming a future infidel antichrist, was again invoked to weaken the force of the great evangelical advent and prophetic awakening. Protestant expositors, some leaning toward Rome and some prompted by rationalistic concepts, joined hands in the attemptperhaps unwittinglyto promote the Jesuit position. This, moreover, came to be tied inseparably with the Oxford Tractarian Movement of the Anglican Church, wherein ninety tracts were scattered by the hundreds of thousands to favor Rome and to disprove the Protestant concept of Antichrist (Leroy Froom, Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, 655, 656. Emphasis mine).
Maitland and his companions are accredited as being the progenitors of the great Oxford Futurist movement. Maitlands teachings inevitablywhether direct or indirect influenced a man by the name of Edward Irving (1792 1834) who, in 1832, founded the church called, The Holy Catholic Apostolic Churchalso known as the Church of the Irvingites. Edward Irving, prior to 1830, attended the Albury Park Conference (1826 1830) in which Historicism dominated as the prophetic teaching; however, during this conference Irving attemptedwith little to no successto bring elements of futurism into the conference. In 1826, Irving translated the work of a Jesuit by the name of Ben-Ezra or Manuel De Lacunza. Evidently Lacunza held, as a prophetic position, a combination of Historicism and Futurism. Irvings love of Lucunzas work eventually opened the door
Copyright 8/27/03
41
for studying other Jesuitical theologies. During the time frame that Irving was studying Lacunzain 1826 when Albury Park Conference commencedMaitland made war on Historicism by putting out a 72-page pamphlet-supporting futurism. This pamphlet eventually transformed into 90 tracts that filled English Protestantism. Because Irving was so impressed by the Jesuit Lacunza, this led him to consider with more openness Maitlands studies of Ribera and Belarmine. Irving himself was predominately a Historicist during Albury Park, but he soon accepted the futurist scheme of interpretation. When a so called out pouring of the Holy Spirit was poured out on his Church, Irving more completely changed his views. In the year 1830, prior to Irvings Holy Ghost experience, another prophetic conference began in Dublin, Ireland, at the Powerscourt Castle through Nelson Darby (1800 1882) and the Plymouth Brethren. Darby did not have a set prophetic standard at the commencement of the Powerscourt Conference; Darby was purely a dispensationalist or Zionist. Irving attended these meetings and brought his understanding of futurism to the new Conference. At the Powerscourt Conference, Irvings futurism was intermingled with Darbys Dispensationalism; thus, there was the birth of Dispensational Futurism. The Powerscourt Conference was not only influenced by Irving, it was influenced by the Oxford Movement or Tractarian Movement in which 90 tracts were published between the years 1833 1845 repudiating the Historicist view on Prophecy. This information on Darby, Irving, and the Tractarian Movement is a very basic illustration of what is available on this topichow the progenitors of the popular dispensational movement in Europe andmainlyAmerica borrowed the Jesuit system. The information on Darby and Irving is well known and available, not only in books, but on the Internet. (See following web sites: Edward Irving and John Nelson DarbyJ). For this reason, we need not spend too much time elucidating on these characters. It is the Tractarian Movement itself, which largely influenced the men popularly argued against, that needs more analysis. Far too many evangelicals today do not realize who was behind the work of Maitland, Todd, Burgh, and the whole Tractarian Movement. The reason that futurism made its way to Irving and Darbyand latter Scofieldis because it flourished in the Anglican Church, and the reason futurism flourished in Anglicanism is for the simple reason that the Jesuits were personally behind this work (5 Deadly English Jesuits!!). Luigi Desanctis, back in 1865, was well aware of what the Jesuits were doing in England:
Take England, for example, there they [The Jesuits] do not legally exist; nevertheless, they have not given up that country, and I assure you that they are more numerous in England than in Italy, and this because all the English, Scotch, and Irish Catholic priests are pupils of the Jesuits, and depend upon them . . .They proselytize in all classes of society, so there are Jesuits in the Parliament, amongst the Anglican clergy, amongst the Bishops, and perhaps also in still higher places. Since the Anglican clergy were scrupulously attached in religious matters to the Bible, it was an impossibility to lead them directly to Catholicism; it was necessary to distract them from that study, and to present to them another that might form a stepping-stone to the Roman Church. The Jesuits inveigled them into the study of ecclesiastical antiquity, making them see what advantage would accrue to their Church, if, by the monuments of sacred antiquity, it
By D. S. Farris
42
could be proved that their doctrines and their customs were precisely those of the Church of the first centuries. The English fell into the snare, and gave themselves up to the long, laborious, difficult study of antiquity, and thus they did not entirely leave the Bible, but interpreted it by certain monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity. In the meantime the English Jesuits continued to excite the Anglican clergy to the study of these antiquities, and made them wish to go to Rome to see them with their own eyes. The Roman Jesuits were cautious about the conversion of those who were sent; but being masters of the Catacombs and of a magnificent museum in the Roman College, they exited in them more and more a longing for the study, and made many apostles of antiquities; and thus the Jesuits of England and those of Rome are united in urging on a great number of the clergy and of the English aristocracy towards that sect which is called Puseyism [Tractarianism], and which is the gnawing worm of the Anglican Church (Popery, Puseyism, and Jesuitism, 135, 136. Emphasis mine).
Desanctis perspicuously describes that the Jesuits were behind Puseyism or Tractarianism. The Jesuits were behind the work of the whole Tractarian Movement. Concerning Luigi Desanctis and his analysis of the part the Jesuits played in the Oxford futurist movement, Walter Walsh emphasizes the following:
I am not one of those who suffer from Jesuitism on the brain, and I do not, so to speak, see a Jesuit round every street corner. But I certainly am inclined to attach a good deal of importance to the revelations made by the late Rev. Dr. Desanctis, formerly parish priest of the Madallena, Rome, Professor of Theology, Officially Theological Censor of the Inquisition, and subsequently Minister of the Reformed Italian Church at Geneva. Desanctis was a man of high personal character, and from the offices he held while at Rome was enabled to obtain an intimate acquaintance with the inner working of Romanism and Jesuitism. In his work on Popery and Jesuitism in Rome in the Nineteenth Century, a translation of valuable information concerning the secret and inner working of Tractarianism, which, at that period, was popularly known in England and abroad as Puesyism (The Secret History Of The Oxford Movement, 23).
Notice, in the preceding citation from Desanctis, that the Jesuits deceived the Anglican clergy by taking them back to the Early Church Fathers. Without a clear understanding of the pseudepigraphal background in the writings of the Church fathers, this is very deceptive. The Jesuits took the scheme of Ribera and Bellarmine of going back to the early fathers, and personally deceived the Anglican Clergy; thus, the Jesuits were very much behind the deceptions that took place at Powerscourt. Froom tells us:
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. It was espoused by opposite partiesby those who, though Protestants, disavowed the Reformation and referred to it as an unwarrantable schism. These leaned strongly toward Rome (Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, 656).
Copyright 8/27/03
43
Notice that Dispensationalism, in its inception, was a movement going back to Rome. Who was John Henry Newman? Newman (1801 1890) was high up in the Anglican Church and converted to Catholicism, and he was one of the main people behind the whole Oxford Tractarian Movement. Concerning Newman and his companions, A. J. Scott tells us:
Professors Pusey, Newman, Palmer, Keble, and Hook of the University of Oxford, initiated the state of matters through their ogling with Catholicism, which afterwards got the name Puseyism; but Vice-Chancellor Newman led the way to the complete passing over to Rome, and, in a short time, no fewer than 867 men of great consideration followed his example, among whom were some very wealthy Peers, as the Marquis of Bute and others, with 243 who had hitherto been Protestant clergymen (The Jesuits: A Complete History Of Their Open And Secret Proceedings From The Foundation Of The Order To The Present Time, 720).
Why did Newman along with many of the Anglican clergy convert to Catholicism? They converted because the Jesuits undoubtedly deceived them into thinking that the Catholic Church, in its prophetic position, resembles the Church closest to Christ as Desanctis explained the Jesuits were doing. The movement of Puseyism or Tractarianism was, from its inception, the scheme of the Jesuits to transform Protestantism back into Catholicism through subtleties. Very factually does Walter wash say, Much of that which in the early history of Tractarianism was kept a profound secret; and concerning the leaders of Tractarianism, Walter Wash continues: In the Lives of these men are now to be read their most confidential communications one with the other, in which their love of Popish doctrines, and their desire for Corporate Reunion with Rome, appear in the clearest possible light (The Secret History Of The Oxford Movement, 184). The deceitful scheme of the Jesuit Oxford Movementto transform Protestantism back to Catholicism is seen in a letter from Father Enrico to Eugenio describing what purpose Puseyism served. Desanctis reveals:
There is nothing easier, my son, than the conversion of a Puseyite; if he wishes to be logical he must become a Catholic. Admitting, for example, that the only true Church is that which has the Apostolical succession in its ministry, succession that is transmitted by the hands of the bishops, what is the consequence? It can be only this. The Roman Church is the true Church, because this has such succession; But do you think it would be for the greater glory of God to seek to convert the Puseyites to Catholicism? No, my son, the Puseyite movement must not be destroyed, but preserved and nourished; it has already been well received among the English aristocracy, by the Anglican clergy, in Parliament, and, perhaps, also in a still higher circle. . . . But suppose that all the Puseyites became Catholics, that would do little good, but great evil; the Protestants would be alarmed, and our hopes and our endeavors by this means to bring back the English nation to the bosom of Holy Mother Church would be dissipated, and all our gain would be reduced to causing some thousand individuals to declare themselves Catholics, who are already so in heart, without having made explicit declaration. . . . Puseyism is a living testimony, in the midst of our enemies, of the necessity of Catholicism; it is a worm that, carefully preserved, as we strive to
By D. S. Farris
44
preserve it, will eat up the old Protestantism until it has destroyed it (Popery, Puseyism, Jesuitism, 26. Emphasis mine).
This preceding citation blatantly demonstrates the purpose of the Tractarian Movement: to gradually subvert Protestantism until Protestantismas a wholeis homogeneous to the Papacy. And what was the doctrine of this scheme? Dispensationalism and futurism was the doctrine of Puseyism. The whole Anglican Tractarian movement not only adopted Jesuit theology from Trent, but they also had Jesuits to personally assist them in their conversion. Well did Desanctis say that the Anglican clergy became students of the Jesuits. We completely agree with Michael de Semlyen where he says that Tractarianism is the continuance of the Counter Reformation:
The Reformed faith of Anglicans and Free Churchmen had been eroded over the centuries by the Counter Reformation, and particularly in the nineteenth century, after the 1833 launch of the Oxford Movement in the Anglican Church, by John Henry Newman and the other Tractarians (All Roads Lead To Rome: The Ecumenical Movement, 20. Emphasis mine).
The fact of the matter is clear: The whole Oxford movement with its birth of modern day dispensational futurism was, from its inception, a movement going back to Rome. Nicolini summed up Tractarianism well:
What we know, and what ought to be well considered and borne in mind by all English Protestants, is, that the Jesuits are loud in their praises of the Puseyites, and that they frankly confess that this Anglican sect will be the means of bringing back England to the Roman communion. May God avert the ill-omened prediction! Let our reader well ponder upon the following extract from Cretineau, who, after having traced the history of the Puseyites from its origin, and exalted to the skies their principal leader, says: -The Puseyites, carried away against their wills, by the force of evidence, towards the Roman faith, pretended, it is true, that they would never go over to Rome. Nevertheless they, in fact, embraced one part of her dogmas and even her practices. A certain number of their disciples went frankly back to Catholicism This school (Puseyism), in its pacific progress, shakes Anglicism from its base. It exercises an immense influence for the extent of its reports and its literature, and makes numberless proselytes. Many Puseyites, carried away by the truth, were not long in renouncing their theories. They sought a logical unity: the Church of Rome offered it to them, and they accepted of it! (History Of The Jesuits, 464, 465).
At the Powerscourt Conference under Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, Irvings futurism was confirmed, not only by the Jesuit inspired Tractarian Movement, but a so called manifestation of the Holy Spirit through a so called gift of tongues. Between the years 1830 1832, a fifteen-year-old Scottish girl by the name of Margaret McDonald allegedly spoke in tongues and received revelation that confirmed the futurist system. She had a vision that Christ would come secretly and take His Church out of the world. Samuel P. Tregelles who participated in the Powerscourt Conference asserts:
This is the doctrine of the secret coming of Christ, which many now preach as if
Copyright 8/27/03
45

it were the acknowledged truth of God, . . Not only is this doctrine of the coming of Christ not taught in the Word of God, but if, in what has been previously said, there is any point of truth, then this whole system stands in distinct contradiction of what the Scriptures reveal. . . . When the theory of the secret coming of Christ was first brought forward about the year 1832, it was adopted with eagerness; it suited certain preconceived opinions, and was accepted by some as that which harmonized contradictory thoughts. . . I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there should be a Secret Rapture of the Church at a secret coming until this was given forth as an utterance in Mr. Irvings church from what was then received as being the voice of the Spirit. But whether anyone ever asserted such a thing or not it was from that supposed revelation that the modern doctrine and the modern phraseology respecting it arose. It came not from the Holy Scripture, but from that which falsely pretended to be the spirit of God (The Hope of Christs Second Coming, 31, 32). (Margaret MacDonald's
Originial Pretribulational Vision)
In 1832, the cherry was placed on top of the dispensational futurist pie. This is the year that the concept of the Two phased second coming of Christ was born. In this year the following idea was put into effect: Christs second coming will be divided into two parts; The first part will be a secret rapture of the Church before the seven-year tribulation; The second part will be the Glorious return of Christwith the Churchback to the earth after the seven years. Thus, the Secret Rapture concept was made to justify the futurist system. All of this compounded theology did not become popular in American Protestantism until Darby visited America several times between the years 1859 and 1874. During this time frame he managed to inspire Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843 1921). Scofield made dispensationalism popular. Cyrus Scofield made the Southern Baptist Church, and changed the face of Protestantism in America. Scofield, after studying with Darby, took dispensational futurism and polished it up even more. He took out what appeared to be incongruities in the theology. He then bound this new theology into a Bible called the Scofield Reference Bible. Much of Protestantism, today, has accepted this New Theology as being the word of God. OH MY, this may be unbelievable, but it is true: Much of evangelical Protestantism has accepted the teachings of the Beast of Revelation 13. The Jesuit operated Oxford Movement and the Powerscourt conference were simply a prototype of the modern day ecumenical movement. Very factually does Wash emphasize:
This leavening of the Church of England with the so-called Catholic principles and practicesin other words, the infusion into her system of more or less of Poperycommenced with the Tractarian Movement, in 1833, and has been going on ever since (The Secret History Of The Oxford Movement, 184).
Indeed the Tractarian Movement commenced in 1833 and has been going on ever since, as Walsh says, for the doctrines of this Movement are popularized through the prominent dispensational speakers of today. It is imperative that modern dispensationalists heed the warning of Tanner where he emphasizes:
It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system
By D. S. Farris
46
at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that Futurism tends to obliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon Popery. More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the Papal Antichrist seems to be making an expiring effort to regain his former hold on mens minds (Daniel and the Revelation, 17).
Today, we have the so called authentication of Jesuit futurism through the worldwide tongues movement. This was prototyped in the Irvingite church with its Pentecostal authentication of the private revelation of McDonaldthe secret rapture. From one side down the other the Jesuits are the architects of modern day dispensational futurism and its new baptism of Neo Pentecostalism. Were The Early Fathers Dispensationalists? Now we need to ask more questions: Have modern dispensationalists received their dispensational system from the early fathers? For the sake of clarity we will ask again; what is dispensationalism? Charles Ryrie says, The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church (Dispensationalism Today, 47). Lewis S. Chafer says, The distinction between the purpose for Israel and the purpose for the Church is about as important as that which exists between the two testaments (Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, 47). As we have seen, the dispensational doctrine of the distinction between Israel and the Church leads them to teach, The church is not fulfilling in any sense the promises to Israel (Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, 136). Chafer says, That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in scripture (Systematic Theology, Vol. 4, 316). Did the early fathers believe any of these propositions? No! The following brief examples will suffice to prove the point. Concerning the temple, the early Church father, Barnabas, says in the Epistle Of Barnabas:
Moreover, I will also tell you concerning the temple, how the wretched [Jews], wandering in error, trusted not in God Himself, but in the temple, as being the house of God. For almost after the manner of the Gentiles they worshipped Him in the temple. But learn how the speaks when abolishing it: Who hath meted out heaven with a span, and the earth with his palm? Have not I? Thus saith the Lord, Heaven is My Throne, and the earth My footstool: what kind of house will ye build to Me, or what is the place of My rest? Ye perceive that their hope is vain (The Epistle Of Barnabas chap. XVI, The Spiritual Temple Of God in ANF, Vol. 1, 147).
Barnabas goes on to say in lengthy words that the temple of God is the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Christian. Barnabas teaches: The New Covenant, Founded on The Sufferings of Christ, tends to our [the Church] salvation, but to the Jews destruction (The Epistle Of Barnabas chap. V, The Spiritual Temple Of God in ANF, Vol. 1, 139). In ANF Vol. 1the source we are citing these Church fatherswe see it as bright as the sunshine that they were not dispensationalists. In chapter VI Barnabas teaches that the New Covenant for the Church was foreseen by the prophets. Barnabas teaches in chap. XIII Christians, and not Jews, [are] the heirs of the Covenant (The Epistle Of
Copyright 8/27/03
47
Barnabas chap. XIII, The Spiritual Temple Of God in ANF, Vol. 1, 145). In chap. XIV he teaches that the Church received the Testament which Moses received and broke. Barnabas says, Learn now how we have received it (the covenant). Moses, as a servant, received it; but the Lord himself, having suffered in our behalf, hath given it to us, that we should be the people of inheritance (The Epistle Of Barnabas chap. XIV, The Spiritual Temple Of God in ANF, Vol. 1, 146). Justin Martyr says in his Dialogue With Tryphoa Jew:
For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucifed Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed (Dialogue With Trypho. chap. XI in ANF vol. 1, 200. Emphasis mine).
Justin went as far as to say in chap. XXV that the Jews boast in vain that they are sons of Abraham (Dialogue With Trypho. chap. XI in ANF vol. 1, 206. Emphasis mine). Justin says concerning Jacob and his seed:
But Israel was His name from the beginning, to which He altered the name of the blessed Jacob when He blessed him with His own name, proclaiming thereby that all who through Him have fled for refuge to the Father, constitute the blessed Israel. But you, having understood none of this, and not being prepared to understand, since you are the children of Jacob after the fleshly seed, expect that you shall be assuredly saved. But that you deceive yourselves in such matters, I proved by many words (Dialogue With Trypho. chap. CXXV in ANF vol. 1, 262).
The Ante-Nicene Father, Irenaeus says, and He (Christ) gathered into one faith of Abraham those who, from either covenant, are eligible for Gods building (Irenaeus Against Heresies book IV chap. XXV in ANF, vol. 1, 496). Irenaeus also says:
When ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of heaven, but you yourselves cast out. This, then, is a clear point, that those who disallow his salvation, and frame the idea of another God besides Him who made the promise to Abraham, are outside the kingdom of God, and are disinherited from [the gift of] incorruption, setting at naught and blaspheming God, who introduces, through Jesus Christ, Abraham to the kingdom of heaven, and his seed, that is, the Church, upon which also is conferred the adoption and the inheritance promised to Abraham (Irenaeus Against Heresies book VIII chap. XXV in ANF, vol. 1, 470, 471 Emphasis mine)
In chap. XXVI Irenaeus teaches: the treasure hid in scriptures is Christ; the true exposition of the scriptures is to be found in the church alone (ANF, vol. 1, 496). Irenaeus says that the Church was foreseen by the Prophets: Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed (ANF, vol. 1, 526).
By D. S. Farris
48 Every one of these samples is a complete repudiation to any notion that these Church fathers were dispensationalists by the definitions of C.C. Ryrie and L. S. Chafer. There are other Church fathers who essentially say the same things as the ones we have cited. It was universally believed by the Church fathers that the Church is the Israel of God. In the following chapter, we are going to reveal the true origins of dispensationalism. Throughout this course, we have used this term loosely to represent the whole Pre-Tribulation Dispensational Futurist system, for it is common practice in Christendom to speak of the whole system by that term. However, when we are attempting to isolate the sources of each part of this system, we must be more meticulous at distinguishing these terms. Conclusions We have discovered that futurism is a system of interpretation developed by the Jesuits, and basic ideas of this system are found in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytusbequeathed to them from the pseudepigraphal writings. Moreover, the foundation of the pseudo antichrist can be traced to Zoroastrian dualismtraced back to the sun king of Paganism. We now know that modern futurists are the recipients of the Jesuit, pseudepigraphal, pagan system of interpretation designed to relieve pressure off of Rome. It must be emphatically stated that dispensationalists have argued the following: That historicists try to make their case against modern futurism because of the fact the modern evangelicals and the Jesuits share the same view on prophecy. They argue that the mere fact the Jesuits hold futurism, as a system, does not make the system faulty. They argue that Catholicism has some views in common with Protestants, views such as the deity of Christ, and Protestants would not eliminate that view because Catholicism happens to believe the same thing. We are in agreement that ultimately the Bible must decide what doctrine is true or false; this is why chapters 1 4, in this course, are based solely on what the Bible teaches concerning the FOUR PILLARS of Dispensationalism: and we find that the Bible does not support that system. Now, while we agree that the Bible is the ultimate authority for deciphering truth from error, we do not dare ignore the events of history. Yes, we agree the mere fact that the Jesuits believe in futurism, does not make futurism false. However, we have come to understand the character of the Jesuit Order. We have seen that their agenda is to remove religious liberty from the world, for they intend on making the whole world an automaton of the Papacy. We have seen the reasons why the Jesuits developed the system of futurismto destroy the testimony of Scripture concerning the Antichrist. The argument of Historicism against futurism looks into much more of the big picture of cause to effect in the great controversy between Good and Evilmuch more than modern futurists are willing to look into. Modern futurists lack perspicacious insight into the multifarious nature of the battle between Good and Evil. Well does J. A. Wylie emphasize:
The system of Popery is worthy of being made the subject of profound study. It is no crude, ill-digested, and clumsily constructed scheme. It possesses an amazing subtlety and depth. It is pervaded by a spirit of fearful potency. It is the product of the combined intellects of many successive ages, acute, powerful, and
Copyright 8/27/03
49

crafty, intently occupied in its elaboration, and aided by Satanic cunning and power (The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects, Book 2, 168).
When modern futurists make assertions of the insufficiency of Historicism, it does not reflect on Historicism, but rather it shows that futurists lack knowledge of the larger picture of prophecya historical knowledge that is infinitely superior and infinitely more reliable than the Jesuit, Pseudepigraphal, Pagan system of futurism. Dispensational futurists have not been able to put together the facts; that the Jesuits were developed to destroy Protestantism; that the Jesuits are very focused on taking liberty of conscience away from the world; that the Jesuits are responsible for the deaths of multitudes of people; that the Jesuit order is, in actuality, diabolical by nature; that whatever the Jesuits do, it does not serve the interests of the evangelicals; that the Jesuits created a system of prophecy from sources that are clearly recognized as unbiblical; that the Jesuits developed futurism to destroy the Protestant heritage; that the Jesuits personally and bodily deceived the Anglican Churchthe progenitor of modern dispensationalism. Modern evangelical futurists have not looked into the depths of the issues involved in their cherished system of Prophecy; consequently, they promulgate shallow arguments to sustain their connection to a prophetic system that was developed for the sole purpose of destroying them. Well did E.G. White observe:
It is not without reason that the claim has been put forth in Protestant countries, that Catholicism differs less widely from Protestantism than in former times. There has been a change; but the change is not in the papacy. Catholicism indeed resembles much of the Protestantism that now exists, because Protestantism has so greatly degenerated since the days of the reformers. [The Great Controversy, p. 500]
Futurism is the work of the Jesuits to destroy the prophetic foundation that is needed for Protestants today to see and understand the subversive elements of the Papacy in our country and throughout the world. Too many evangelicals today cant see the big picture, because Loyola has successfully captured their minds for the Pope. Futurism, today, is considered orthodox theology. This proves that the label orthodoxy in mans estimation of things does not amount to much. When we cut through the illusion of superficial scholasticism in what is called orthodox, and look deep into the foundations looking beyond jugglerywe see that dispensational futurism is a fantastic myth. Today evangelical futurist are accepting laurels on a system which they think to be auspicious, but in truth, this system is an incendiary to what is truth in Gods estimation. When historicists are invidiously portrayed by dispensationalists as being heterodox, we feel a sense of poignancy, for dispensationalists have not looked into their own system enough to realize that they are a component of deception, a deception that is blinding millions into a false alliance with Rome. We can only pray that people in this Jesuit constructed movement will stop credulously listening to this masterpiece of deception from Rome.
By D. S. Farris
50
Works Cited
Rev. Alexander Roberts, D. D., and James Donaldson, LL.D., eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1886), Vol. 1, and Vol. 5 Dr. Adolph Harnack, History Of Dogma: Translated From The Third German Edition by Neil Buchanan, 6 Vols. (Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1895) Buttrick, George Arthur; Kepler, Thomas Samuel; John Knox, Herbert GorDon May, Samuel Terrien, Emory Stevens Bucke ed. The Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible (New York: Abingdon Press Nashville, 1962) Vol. 1 Chemnitz, Martin and Kramer, Fred. translator. EXAMINATION OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT part 1 (St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Pub. House, 1971) Charles, R. H. Apocrypha And Pseudepigrapha Of The Old Testament (Oxford: At The Clarendon Press, 1913), Vol. 2 Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology (Dallas Texas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), Vol. 4 Durant, Will. Our Oriental Heritage (New York: Simon And Schuster, 1954) Desanctis, Luigi. Popery, Puseyism, and Jesuitism (London: D. Catt, 1865, 1905) Froom, Leroy Edwin. The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Washington D.C.: Review And Herald Pub. Assoc., 1948), Vol. 2 Froom, Leroy Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers (Washington D.C.: Review And Herald, 1946), Vol. 3 Freedman, David Noel; Herion, Garry A.; David F. Graf, John David Pleins, Astrid B. Beck eds. THE ANCHOR BIBLE DICTIONARY ( New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland: DOUBLEDAY, 1992) Vol. 1 Feuerstein, Georg Spirituality by the Numbers (New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1994) Gibbon, Edward. The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire. Vol. 1 (New York: The Modern Library, first written between 1737 1794 ) Hagee, John. Beginning Of The End (Nashville . Atlanta . London . Vancouver: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996) Hall, Manly P. The Secret Teachings of All Ages: Diamond Jubilee Edition (3910 Los Feliz Boulevard, Los Angeles, Cal.: The Philosophical Research Society Inc. 1998)
Copyright 8/27/03
51
Hinnells, John R. The Persian Mythology, From The Library Of The Worlds Myths and Legends (New York: Peter Bedrick Books, 1973, 1985) Kittel, Gerhard. and Bromiley, Geoffrey W. eds. THE THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (Grand Rapids, Mich./London: WM. B. EERDMANS Pub. Company, 1964) Vol. 1 Lahaye, Tim. Revelation Illustrated And Made Plain, (Lamplighter Books, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1973, 75) Larkin, Clarence. Dispensational Truth (Philadelphia, Pa.: Clarence Larkin Est. 1918, 20) Larkin, Clarence. The Book Of Revelation (Philadelphia, Pa: Erwin W. Moyer Co., 1919) Larkin, Clarence. The Book Of Daniel, (Philadelphia, Pa.: Moyer & Lotter, Printers Phil, 1929) Latourette, Kenneth Scott. A History of The Expansion Of Christianity: The First Five Centuries. 4th edition (New York and London: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1937) Vol. 1 Nicolini, G. B. History Of The Jesuits: Their Origin, Progress, Doctrines, and Designs (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854) Paris, Edmond. The Secret History Of The Jesuits (Ontario, CA: Chick Publications, Translated from the French 1975) Ryrie, C. C. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, N. J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953) Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965) Scott, A. J. The Jesuits: A Complete History Of Their Open And Secret Proceedings From The Foundation Of The Order To The Present Time: Third Edition (London: W. H. Allen & Co. 1903) Semlyen, Michael de. All Roads Lead To Rome: The Ecumenical Movement. (England: Dorchester House Publications, 1993) Wash, Walter. The Secret History Of The Oxford Movement (London: Swan Sonnenschein And Co., Lim, Paternoster Square, E.C., 1899)
By D. S. Farris
52 Wylie, J. A. The Papacy: History, Dogmas, Genius, And Prospects: Being The Evangelical Alliance First Prize Essay On Popery. 4 books (London: Hamilton, Adams, And Co. Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot. 1867) Sources cited from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. 2: Blasius Viegas. Commentarii Exegetici in Apocalypsim Ioannis Apostoli. (Eborae: Apud Emmanuelem de Lyra, 1601) George S. Hitchcock, The Beast and the Little Horn. In Catholic Truth Society (London Publications, 1911) John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1936), Vol. 2 Joseph Tanner. Daniel and the Revelation: The chart of prophecy and our place in it. A study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation. (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898) John Foxe. Acts and Monuments of Matters Most Special and Memorable, Happening in the Church. 9th ed. (London: Company of Stationers, 1684) vol. 1 Dr. Martin Luthers, Sammtliche Schriften. Edited by Joh[ann] Georg Walch. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1881 -1910.) Samuel P. Tregelles, The Hope of Christs Second Coming Thomas Brightman A Revelation of the Apocalypse in The Workes of That Famous, Reverend, and Learned Divine, Mr. Tho: Brightman. (London: Printed by John Field for Samuel Cartwright, 1644) William Fulke. [Works vol. 2] A Discovery of the Dangerous Rock of the Popish Church Commended by Sanders, edited for the Parker Society by Richard Gibbings. (Cambridge: The University Press, 1843 - 47)
Next Chapter
Main Page
Copyright 8/27/03

Prophetic Tool Chest Chapter 8

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Prophetic Tool Chest Chapter 8

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

FUTURISM: THE COUNTERFEIT PROPHECY

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

The Protestant writer, Joseph Tanner, tells us:

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

Gap Theory Of Dispensationalsim

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

Rev. 11 (The two witnesses)

Most Holy Place

Rev. 13 Antichrist Rules Rev. 12 Remnant Flees

Note: The following is the Dispensational Futurist Construct:

Dispensational Futurist Construct

6th seal 144, 000 sealed under this seal.

7th seal ( Trumpets ) 3 4 5 6

Antichrist sits in the Most Holy

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

(7) Concerning the Antichrist, Larkin declares:

This too was the Jesuit argument. Bellarmine argues:

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

(6) Antichrist will be from Dan:

Second Coming of Christ

6000 From Creation A. D 500

Millennium ( 1, 000 years )

A. D. 534 Vandals Destroyed

A. D. 538 Ostrogoths Removed From Rome

Early Father's View on Antichrist

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

Froom tells us:

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

Barnabas went on to say further in this paragraph:

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

( T. Levi 18: 2 - 14; T. Dan 5: 10 - 13 ) Beliar is bound by the Messiah

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

( T. Levi 18: 2 - 14; T. Dan 5: 10 - 13 ) Beliar is bound by the Messiah

Messiah and all men die 7 DAYS MESSIANIC KINGDOM

Second Coming of Christ

6000 From Creation A. D 500

Millennium ( 1, 000 years )

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

These writers go on to say:

( T. Levi 18: 2 - 14; T. Dan 5: 10 - 13 ) Beliar is bound by the Messiah

Messiah and all men die

ASCENSION OF ISAIAH Beliar Comes Against The Church

Rev. 11 (The two witnesses)

Second Coming of Christ

5500 From Creation Christ

6000 From Creation A. D 500

Irenaeus ( 130 - 202 )

Hippolytus ( 236 ) 3.5

Millennium ( 1, 000 years )

7 Bowl Judgements Saints flee in wilderness Cruel reign of Antichrist.

Most Holy Place

6th seal 144, 000 sealed under this seal.

7th seal ( Trumpets ) 3 4 5 6

Very factually Adolph Harnack says:

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST

Another writer says: By D. S. Farris

PROPHETIC TOOL CHEST