Jesuits Fabricated the Rapture
The following is a response to a post from GuessN that claims that RAPTURE is a lie invented by Catholics and clandestinely fed to Protestants as their own, thus reducing their teachings to utter disrepute. Andrew's reaction is minimal since Catholicism does not make a big deal about the notion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GuessN writes:
The Catholic church INVENTED the Rapture (7 year) lie
The following is a response to a post from GuessN that claims that RAPTURE is a lie invented by Catholics and clandestinely fed to Protestants as their own, thus reducing their teachings to utter disrepute. Andrew's reaction is minimal since Catholicism does not make a big deal about the notion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GuessN writes:
The Catholic church INVENTED the Rapture (7 year) lie
Rooted in Catholicism
The foundation of the rapture theory was laid over 400 years ago upon the specific orders of the Catholic Church. Every Christian needs to understand how this fabrication of error was designed to neutralize the great Protestant Reformation.
If the facts of history were known by Protestants today who defend with such great emotion the rapture theory and the futurist antichrist doctrine, they would be horrified.Luther and his fellow reformers boldly identified the pope as the "man of sin," and labeled the Catholic Church as the antichrist of prophecy. In response to those charges, the hierarchy assigned two Jesuit priests to develop counter-interpretations which would turn the onus away from the Catholic Church.
In spite of the fact that the two men founded opposing schools of interpretation, their theories have survived to form the basis of most modern Protestant theology today. Not only did they effectively blunt Luther's assessment of the papacy as the antichrist, but they cleverly divided and diluted the "protest" of all the churches which grew out of the Reformation movement.
Andrew responds:
The Catholic faith has had a line of her own would-be prophets speaking about the Last Days. Regardless whether or not their testimonies are absolutely true, much of it remains speculation and private revelation. No one is obliged to believe even those supplementary elements that are in keeping with the deposit of faith.
The Catholic faith has had a line of her own would-be prophets speaking about the Last Days. Regardless whether or not their testimonies are absolutely true, much of it remains speculation and private revelation. No one is obliged to believe even those supplementary elements that are in keeping with the deposit of faith.
The fact that certain Protestant groups borrowed from Catholic eschatology does not constitute a conspiracy on her part. Further, Luther's impassioned invective against the papacy can in no way be construed as serious theological deputation. It was rhetoric, pure and simple, from a reformer who often used foul and abusive language to win his arguments.
What blunted Luther's assessment of the papacy were the more sober men with peaceful spirits that followed and interpreted him. They would restore the New Testament canon after Luther's egotistical abrogation of important sections and seek civilized ways of living in Europe with their Catholic brethren. War and violence still took place, but the voice of sanity had not been utterly silenced.
GuessN writes:
Modern religious observers were astounded in January, 1984, when men like Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell meekly accepted and defended the establishment of United States political ties with the Vatican.
Modern religious observers were astounded in January, 1984, when men like Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell meekly accepted and defended the establishment of United States political ties with the Vatican.
Why could those famous Protestant spokesmen see no danger in being allied with the Church of Rome? Because they are deceived, along with millions of others, by the Catholic-contrived theories of those two priests which have almost eclipsed the historic, biblical position of the Reformers.
If the spiritual descendants of Luther and Wesley now had the same doctrine which they taught, not a single Lutheran or Methodist would favor any kind of alliance with the papacy today.
Now let's take a look at these two Spanish priests who flooded the sixteenth century with their counter-Reformation propaganda. Alcazar of Seville applied all the beast prophecies to Antiochus Epiphanes, who lived long before the popes began to rule in Rome. His system of interpretation came to be known as the Preterist School of prophecy.On the other hand, Jesuit Francisco Ribera invented a system known as the Futurist School of interpretation.
He taught that the antichrist was to be some future superman who would appear near the end of time and continue in power for three and a half years. It is his clever, unscriptural theory which has been resurrected by modern evangelical Protestant Christians. And today millions of Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc., hold this anti-Protestant concoction of the Jesuits as some kind of infallible doctrine.
Yet, those same denominations claim to be faithful supporters of Protestant theology. Luther and other stalwart protestors against Catholic errors would be astounded if they were suddenly resurrected to hear what is being taught in the name of Protestantism.
In the early 1800s the futurist view of Jesuit Ribera passed through certain refinements and additions, including the seven-year tribulation and the snatching away of the saints. For the first time, it was espoused by Protestant teachers who were seeking ways of reconciliation with Rome. Through the influence and writings of John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren Church in England, the new doctrine spread to the United States. During the middle and latter nineteenth century, it received its biggest boost from Cyrus Scofield, who incorporated it into the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909.
Andrew responds:
It is interesting that rapture is made the scapegoat for what the critic sees as unwarranted compromise with the Church of Rome. The Protestant view of rapture is not even officially espoused by Catholicism. It does not matter, because his starting point is not really rapture or the bible itself, rather it is a deep-seated hatred of the Catholic Church. Everything-- bible interpretation, religious speculation, and political alliances-- everything has to be judged in the light of this abiding prejudice.
It is interesting that rapture is made the scapegoat for what the critic sees as unwarranted compromise with the Church of Rome. The Protestant view of rapture is not even officially espoused by Catholicism. It does not matter, because his starting point is not really rapture or the bible itself, rather it is a deep-seated hatred of the Catholic Church. Everything-- bible interpretation, religious speculation, and political alliances-- everything has to be judged in the light of this abiding prejudice.
It would not surprise me to learn that the critic is a former Catholic, such people often were ignorant of the faith initially and allow their pride and passions to pollute clear reasoning and charity. It should be said that some anti-Catholics if not most still accept the misbegotten theory of rapture. They would suggest that the identity of the anti-Christ is no secret, and that it is the Pope.
This is all very unfortunate because if the bishop of Rome is actually the visible head of the Church and Vicar of Christ, then THEY are the ones in league with the anti-Christ in human history. Just as the Roman emperors persecuted the Catholic Christian Church, they perpetuate the slander against and the martyrdom of the saints.
.
.
.
.
