Truth Denied

FACTS OF FAITH By Christian Edwardson

JESUITS UNDERMINE THE TRUTH

     (201) The Rev. Joseph Tanner, B. A., says:

     "So great hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men, that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.

     "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 men's 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,...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 properly 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.

     "It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system 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 make an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men's minds. Now once again, as at the Reformation, it is especially necessary that his true character should be recognized, by all who would be faithful to 'the testimony of Jesus.'" - "Daniel and the Revelation," pp. 16, 17. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898.

     (202) To undermine the work of the Reformers, these Jesuits, Alcasar and Ribera, gathered a mass of material from the writings of the Church Fathers concerning Antichrist. This gave their works the appearance of scientific research, which appealed to many Protestant leaders. (An example of this can be seen in Encyclopaedia Biblica, art. "Antichrist.") but statements from the Church Fathers which speak of the coming of Antichrist as an event then in the future, could be no proof for Ribera's "futurist" theory, for the reign of the papal Antichrist was then still in the future. The 1260 years of the papal persecution, called the Dark Ages, had not yet begun when these Fathers wrote. The theories of Ribera and Alcasar were diametrically opposed to each other, and yet both were taught as Catholic truths, taken from the Church Fathers. From this we see how untrustworthy are these sources. Dr. Adam Clarke is evidently right when he says of the Fathers:

     "We may safely state, that there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed, that cannot be proven by their authority; nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish Church that may not challenge them as its abetters. In points of doctrine, their authority is, with me, nothing. The Word of God alone contains my creed." - Commentary on Proverbs 8.

BIBLE PROPHECY OF ANTICHRIST IS PLAIN

     The prophecies of the Bible regarding Antichrist are so plain that even Roman Catholics cannot evade them all. The seventh chapter of Daniel foretells the rise of four world empires, which the Douay Bible explains to be "the Chaldean, Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires." The Roman Empire was broken up into ten smaller kingdoms between the years 351 and 476 A.D. And among them there should grow up another power, symbolized by a "little horn." Of this the Douay Bible says: "Another little horn. This is commonly understood of Antichrist." Daniel 7:7, 8. The Papacy is the only power that came up just at that time, and which fits all the specifications of the symbol.

     (203) We have seen on page 195 how clearly the Papacy is pointed out in 2 Thess. 2:3-7. This prophecy states that the apostolic church would be gradually "falling away" until a "man" would exalt himself to take the place of God in the church. This "mystery of iniquity" was already at work in Paul's day, but something was holding it back. (Vs. 6, 7.) As long as the Roman Empire was heathen, and persecuted the Christians, there was no incentive to join the church for worldly gain; but during the time of Constantine the church became popular, and the worldly ambitious struggled for the highest ecclesiastical offices, because of the great honor and emolument connected with them; and when finally the Roman State was abolished, the bishop of Rome seated himself upon the throne of the Caesars. It was therefore heathen Rome that had to "be taken out of the way," before the papal Antichrist could come into power. Speaking of this point the Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The impediment is the Roman Empire; the main event impeded is the 'man of sin.'" - Vol. I, p. 560, art. "Antichrist."

     The Douay Bible says: "The Roman Empire,...was first to be destroyed, before the coming of Antichrist." - Note on 2 Thess. 2:3.

TWO POINTS MADE CLEAR

     There were two arguments used against the position taken by the Reformers which have puzzled many:

     (1) It was claimed that the Apostle John used two distinctions: and Antichrist" to designate the false teachers of his day, and "the Antichrist," referring to some superhuman monster of Jewish extraction that would appear just before Christ's second coming. But on this point Dr. C. H. H. Wright truthfully remarks: "St. John, the only New Testament writer who employs the term, makes no distinction whatever between 'an Antichrist' and 'the Antichrist.' That distinction was in the main an invention of the learned Jesuit interpreters." - "Daniel and His Prophecies," p. 165. London. 1906.

     (204) (2) The second objection was that while "the Antichrist" would deny the incarnation, for he would deny that "Christ is come in the flesh" (2 John 7), the pope does not deny this, therefore he cannot be the Antichrist. This argument has seemed so logical and conclusive that Protestants, to a large extent, have given up the Protestant doctrine that the Papacy is Antichrist, and have ceased to protest.

     This argument, however, is based on a misunderstanding, caused by overlooking one word in the text. Antichrist was not to deny that Christ had come in flesh, but was to deny that He had "come in the flesh," in "the same" kind of flesh, as the human race He came to save. (See 1 John 4:3; 2 John 7, and Hebrews 2:14, 17.) On this vital difference hinges the real "truth of the gospel." Did Christ come all the way down to make contact with the fallen race, or only part way, so that we must have saints, popes, and priests intercede for us with a Christ who is removed too far from fallen humanity and its needs to make direct contact with the individual sinner? Right here lies the great divide that parts Protestantism from Roman Catholicism. In order to understand this point clearly, let us briefly consider the gospel of Christ.