Futurism is NOT a Jesuit Heresy
There is a current controversy among the Protestant circles that are already deviating from what the Bible really teaches on the end times. Like it or not, Christian prophecy involves the historicist and futurist views. One cannot do without the other. Prophecy is always involved with things that have happened, things that are happening, and things that are yet to happen.
First, handling the objections
1.) There is no pretribulation Rapture and that the Rapture is just a Jesuit invention. The Bible says no such thing.
Refute:
1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 says, "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God and the dead in Christ shall rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall we ever be with the Lord.".
Matthew 24 fits perfectly with the idea of a pre-Tribulation rapture. There are already troubled times then the Rapture comes for those remaining, note that Matthew 24:13 should fit with 1 John 2:19 and NOT with works salvation. Today there is tribulation before the Lord returns but it is not yet the Tribulation period where the Antichrist will rule the world for seven 1,260 days!
2.) The Antichrist is a dynasty of Popes and the False Prophet is a dynasty of cardinals. Anybody who says the Antichrist is one man is just dreaming. The idea of a New World Order is Jesuit futurism and by Nelson Darby.
Refute:
They hastily point out Matthew 24:5, Matthew 24:24 and 1 John 2:18 to point out the idea that the Antichrist is not one man but a dynasty. However failed to analyze are the following facts in the verse:
- Matthew 24:5 does not refer to a dynasty. The Popes are NOT the only antichrists that exist. Many more than the Popes claim to be Christ. The Catholic has many of false christs aside from the Popes and priests. The Mormon Jesus is an antichrist. The Jehovah's Witness Jesus is a false christ. There are MANY more counterfeit christs.
- Matthew 24:24 like Matthew 24:5 does not refer to a dynasty. There are more false prophets than just the Popes and priests of Catholicism. Many founders of false religions are false prophets too!
- 1 John 2:18 says "Antichrist will come" and that now there are "many antichrists". Refer to the fact that Antichrist is coming and he is different from the many antichrists.
Also, the idea of the Antichrist being a dynasty will totally contradict Revelation. Why? Revelation 13 shows a singular person, the beast out of the sea. Revelation 19 describes the battle of Armageddon in which it ends with both the Antichrist and his False Prophet cast into the lake of fire and they are individual persons!
3.) That there will be no Jewish Temple for the Antichrist to sit in during the Tribulation Period
Refute:
We would like to suggest critics who label anyone as "futurist heretics" to start READING the newspapers especially on Israel and the European Union. Right now, Israel is at the point of restoration. Jews are now preparing to return to Israel and the plans to build a new Jewish Temple are at hand. The Vatican is NOT the Temple of God, never was. 2 Thessalonians 2:8-9 describes the Antichrist to be sitting in the "Temple of God" which can only fit the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem REBUILT! Type "Jewish Temple" on Youtube and GET a whole load of it!
Second, did the Jesuits really invent futurism to counter the Reformation?
The Protestant Reformation brought a lot of good stuff like the Puritans and some templates for the King James Bible. However, I did present some erroneous views that the Reformers did count the Papacy as the Antichrist rather than as a singular person. I don't doubt that the Pope is indeed an antichrist and its dynasty is a line of antichrists. Did they forget to reread 1 John 2:18? Sadly, Charles H. Spurgeon a great expositor still stuck to the historicist view of Antichrist.
The controversy also has the Spanish Jesuit priest known as Francisco Ribera who supposedly introduced futurism. The issue is the use of Ad Hominem (attacking persons instead of the argument) and genetic fallacy in their arguments. The genetic fallacy argument is to dismiss something simply because of its source rather than its validity. For example, the calendar we use today was introduced by Pope Gregory. Scientists today use a lot of principles contributed by heathens which also include Gregor Mendel. Just because Mendel was an unsaved heretic doesn't mean he was wrong about genetics. Martin Luther King Jr. may have been a Vatican coadjutor but he has many sound quotes that anyone can live by. Unfortunately, the site Reformation.org really is so full of nonsense mixed with the facts I don't know whether or not they are right or wrong about something. Iconbusters too has sadly maligned John F. MacArthur and Robert C. Sproul Sr. as heretics who drink from the "Jesuit cup of futurism".
The controversy also has the Spanish Jesuit priest known as Francisco Ribera who supposedly introduced futurism. The issue is the use of Ad Hominem (attacking persons instead of the argument) and genetic fallacy in their arguments. The genetic fallacy argument is to dismiss something simply because of its source rather than its validity. For example, the calendar we use today was introduced by Pope Gregory. Scientists today use a lot of principles contributed by heathens which also include Gregor Mendel. Just because Mendel was an unsaved heretic doesn't mean he was wrong about genetics. Martin Luther King Jr. may have been a Vatican coadjutor but he has many sound quotes that anyone can live by. Unfortunately, the site Reformation.org really is so full of nonsense mixed with the facts I don't know whether or not they are right or wrong about something. Iconbusters too has sadly maligned John F. MacArthur and Robert C. Sproul Sr. as heretics who drink from the "Jesuit cup of futurism".
The Jesuit priest Ribera was allegedly the one who introduced futurism because of his famous commentary on Revelation. From what I heard, his commentary wasn't translated into other languages and it was meant for the hierarchy only. Did God suddenly allow Ribera to have the knowledge of the truth like he did to the false prophet Balaam? Remember God will seldom allow false prophets to utter the truth to test the people (Deuteronomy 13:1-3). God has a purpose as to why sometimes false prophets such as fortune-tellers can be right. Remember that Balaam was a heathen man but he was definitely right about the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (Numbers 24:17). Caiaphas would later predict the death of Jesus on the cross (John 18:14). These were false prophets but they did utter some truth even if they were workers of iniquity.
What should be interesting is that Ribera wasn't even made declared a blessed or even a saint. It's been several centuries so why hasn't he even been made a saint if he supposedly countered the Counter-Reformation - unlike Charles Borromeo who was a big figure in that event? Ribera was contradicting the amillennialism view that rejected the idea of Jesus' literal 1,000-year reign. Remember the Roman Catholics and Protestants were both getting the idea of amillennialism from the Christian theologian Augustine. Was it because Ribera's book was controversial because it may have predicted the final Pope will be the Antichrist? Maybe, maybe not but certainly nobody should say that Ribera supposedly invented futurism.