The Father Of (Partial Preterism) A Catholic Jesuit "Luis De Alcasar" (1554-1613)

[jgr]

You are now adding weasel words to your previous allegations. It is easy to claim that 'so-and-so was not a "well known Christian scholar," and trying to limit the discussion to what took place in the United States is merely an attempt to dodge the proof you have already seen.

An obvious example is found in those whom you claim espoused dispensational doctrine during the Reformation period.

Not one is found in any enumeration of those recognized as Reformers, or those recognized for their contributions to the Reformation movement.

They are relative unknowns in the historic annals of true Church prophetic orthodoxy.

 

[Biblewriter]

An obvious example is found in those whom you claim espoused dispensational doctrine during the Reformation period.

Not one is found in any enumeration of those recognized as Reformers, or those recognized for their contributions to the Reformation movement.

They are relative unknowns in the historic annals of true Church prophetic orthodoxy.

Orthoodoxy is believing what the Bible actually says, rather than what you can wrest it to mean as is required for Historicism.

 

[BABerean2]

Orthoodoxy is believing what the Bible actually says, rather than what you can wrest it to mean as is required for Historicism.

John Nelson Darby's 1829 paper was written from the standpoint of Historicism, and the amill viewpoint.
Was Darby attempting to "wrest" the scriptures.

There is also no hint of the pretrib doctrine in the paper.

However, he did reference "The Morning Watch", which was the periodical of the Irvingites.

Darby would not adopt the "Secret Rapture" doctrine of the Irvingites until after Irving died in 1834.
After that Darby would adopt the doctrine and claim it as his own.
Darby apologists like Thomas Ice claim that Darby came up with the doctrine after a fall from his horse in 1827.
Darby's 1829 paper proves otherwise.


Darby, J. N., Reflections (1829), Prophetic No. 1
http://www.stempublishing.com/authors...


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

.

 

[jgr]

Orthoodoxy is believing what the Bible actually says, rather than what you can wrest it to mean as is required for Historicism.

And "believing what the Bible actually says" is exactly what the Reformers did.

 

[Biblewriter]

And "believing what the Bible actually says" is exactly what the Reformers did.

Historicism absolutely requires simply ignoring most of the details of what the Bible actually says, and assuming that prophecies mean things entirely different from what they actually say.

A typical example of this is applying the words that the man of sin "as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," to Popery.

As bad as Popery is, not even one Pope every actually claimed to BE God. So this interpretation REQUIRES assuming that the words in the Bible do not actually mean what they say.

 

[jgr]

Historicism absolutely requires simply ignoring most of the details of what the Bible actually says, and assuming that prophecies mean things entirely different from what they actually say.

A typical example of this is applying the words that the man of sin "as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God," to Popery.

As bad as Popery is, not even one Pope every actually claimed to BE God. So this interpretation REQUIRES assuming that the words in the Bible do not actually mean what they say.

Are you a closet Jesuit?

In predictable fashion, you know not whereof you speak.


Pius X: "The Pope...is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."

Pius XI: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth."

Pius IX was described as "the living Christ", and "the Lamb of the Vatican".

The Canon Law in the Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII, AD 1316-1334, calls the Roman pontiff "Our Lord God the Pope."

Martin V was addressed as: "The most holy and most blessed, who holds the celestial jurisdiction, who is Lord over all the earth...the anointed...the ruler of the universe, the father of kings, the Light of the World."

During the Vatican Council, 9 January 1870, it was stated: "The Pope is Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power...we bow down before thy voice, O Pius, as before the voice of Christ, the God of truth; in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ."

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning said: "He [the Roman pope] was elevated to be, in his Divine Master's Name, King of kings and Lord of lords." (Manning, Temporal Power, Preface, 42-46)

“All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17 Bellarmine (1542-1621), a professor and rector at the Jesuit Gregorian University in Rome, is generally considered to have been one of the outstanding Jesuit instructors in the history of this organization.

“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II” (Ferraris was an Italian Catholic canonist and consultor to the Holy Office in Rome.)

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

 

[Biblewriter]

Are you a closet Jesuit?

In predictable fashion, you know not whereof you speak.


Pius X: "The Pope...is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of flesh."

Pius XI: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth."

Pius IX was described as "the living Christ", and "the Lamb of the Vatican".

The Canon Law in the Gloss on the Extravaganza of John XXII, AD 1316-1334, calls the Roman pontiff "Our Lord God the Pope."

Martin V was addressed as: "The most holy and most blessed, who holds the celestial jurisdiction, who is Lord over all the earth...the anointed...the ruler of the universe, the father of kings, the Light of the World."

During the Vatican Council, 9 January 1870, it was stated: "The Pope is Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power...we bow down before thy voice, O Pius, as before the voice of Christ, the God of truth; in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ."

Cardinal Henry Edward Manning said: "He [the Roman pope] was elevated to be, in his Divine Master's Name, King of kings and Lord of lords." (Manning, Temporal Power, Preface, 42-46)

“All the names which in the Scripture are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.” Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, De Conciliorum Auctoriatate (On the Authority of the Councils) Bk 2, chap. 17 Bellarmine (1542-1621), a professor and rector at the Jesuit Gregorian University in Rome, is generally considered to have been one of the outstanding Jesuit instructors in the history of this organization.

“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God. He is the divine monarch and supreme emperor, and king of kings. Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as King of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.” Lucius Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, vol.6, art. “Papa II” (Ferraris was an Italian Catholic canonist and consultor to the Holy Office in Rome.)

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII, p. 304.

Claiming to hold the place of God Almighty, is simply NOT claiming to BE God. And no, I am NOT a "closet Jesuit," nor do I have ANY Catholic sympathies. I am simply pointing out the unquestionable fact that even though the Pope is AN Antichrist, he most certinly is NOT "the Antichrist," of scripture.

 

[BABerean2]

Claiming to hold the place of God Almighty, is simply NOT claiming to BE God. And no, I am NOT a "closet Jesuit," nor do I have ANY Catholic sympathies. I am simply pointing out the unquestionable fact that even though the Pope is AN Antichrist, he most certinly is NOT "the Antichrist," of scripture.

2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

None of the Reformers would agree with you, based on the following.

.

 

[jgr]

Claiming to hold the place of God Almighty, is simply NOT claiming to BE God. And no, I am NOT a "closet Jesuit," nor do I have ANY Catholic sympathies. I am simply pointing out the unquestionable fact that even though the Pope is AN Antichrist, he most certinly is NOT "the Antichrist," of scripture.

Pius XI: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth."

What would you call that if not claiming to BE God? Pius was a "duotheist" in that regard in the sense of believing in two Gods, the God in heaven, and the God on earth, i.e. himself.

Nowhere in KJV Scripture do you find the specific expression "the Antichrist".

The Reformers were well aware of 1 John 2:18. They believed the Pope and papacy to be the predominant antichrist of their era and the time leading up to it, without denying the existence of other antichrists at other times. Various of them thus declared the Pope and papacy to be antichrist generically, in addition to being the antichrist, at various times.

The doctrine was integral and indispensable to the ultimate success of the Reformation.

On this its 500th anniversary, give thanks for that.

 

[Biblewriter]

Pius XI: "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth."

What would you call that if not claiming to BE God? Pius was a "duotheist" in that regard in the sense of believing in two Gods, the God in heaven, and the God on earth, i.e. himself.

You are choosing to ignore the exact words n the statement you are quoting. ""I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth."

So his claim to be God "on the earth" was based on his claim th=o be "the representative of God." And while his statement was indeed blasphemous, claiming to be "the representative of God" is not claiming to actually BE God.



Although there were indeed prophecies in the Bible that concerned events that took place in ancient times, when such prophecies were explicitly stated in plain, non symbolic language, the fulfillment was always literally precise, down to the tiniest detail. But I have yet to see the very first claim by a Historicist that such-and- such an end time prophecy was fulfilled by such-and-such a historic event, that was not based on wresting the actual words used by the Holy Spirit in giving the prophecy in question. And the prophecies about the Antichrist have been systematically treated in the same cavalier way. The many prophecies about a specific individual that would come at a specific time, have been wrested into generalized statements about a system that has now existed for well over a thousand years.

I am not minimizing the evil of the system so designated. I am simply pointing out the wresting of the actual words used by the Holy Spirit, required to come to the conclusion that this evil system is the Antichrist of Bible prophecy.

 

[BABerean2]

I am not minimizing the evil of the system so designated. I am simply pointing out the wresting of the actual words used by the Holy Spirit, required to come to the conclusion that this evil system is the Antichrist of Bible prophecy.

You are looking for Nicolae Carpathia in the "Left Behind" movies...

.

 

[Biblewriter]

You are looking for Nicolae Carpathia in the "Left Behind" movies...

.

The "Left Behind" series is fictional, and highly imaginative. And it is based on numerous errors in the interpretation of Bible prophecy.But it did have one thing absolutely correct. And that is that the end time personage that the scriptures all the "man of sin," and also all "the son of perdition," is a specific individual.

 

[jgr]

You are choosing to ignore the exact words n the statement you are quoting. ""I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on the earth."

And the prophecies about the Antichrist have been systematically treated in the same cavalier way.

I am simply pointing out the wresting of the actual words used by the Holy Spirit, required to come to the conclusion that this evil system is the Antichrist of Bible prophecy.

You are choosing to ignore this declaration:
"I am the Holy Father".
Who is the Holy Father? Is it God (John 17:11), or is it the pope?
How is that anything but a claim to be God?

You are choosing to ignore the unequivocal conclusion of Pius' previous claims:
"I am God on the earth."
Is there not only one God, of both earth and heaven?
How is that anything but a claim to be God?

There is a virtually perfect match with 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

If you are claiming that Pius did not say about himself what he did say about himself, then I would be convinced that Pius better understood what he said about himself, then what someone else claims to understand about what he said about himself.

No one is going to be cavalier about something for which there is a high probability that they could burn at the stake. The Reformers were dead serious, dead accurate, and often dead period, about and because of their declarations.

I've pointed out earlier that "the Antichrist" is not found in KJV Scripture, which also makes it plain that antichrist is a plurality. (1 John 2:18)

 

[BABerean2]

The "Left Behind" series is fictional, and highly imaginative. And it is based on numerous errors in the interpretation of Bible prophecy.But it did have one thing absolutely correct. And that is that the end time personage that the scriptures all the "man of sin," and also all "the son of perdition," is a specific individual.

The New Covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27 has been converted into a treaty broken by an antichrist not found in the chapter by adding a "gap" of time not mentioned by the angel Gabriel.

It is truly the "antichrist" interpretation, since it takes away from Christ the fulfillment of the New Covenant found in Matthew 26:28, and Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18.

We are supposed to believe that the angel Gabriel came to reveal the timeline of the New Covenant Messiah and then he forgot to even mention the New Covenant.

And we are told this is a "literal" interpretation of the passage...

.

 

[Biblewriter]

You are choosing to ignore this declaration:
"I am the Holy Father".
Who is the Holy Father? Is it God (John 17:11), or is it the pope?
How is that anything but a claim to be God?

You are choosing to ignore the unequivocal conclusion of Pius' previous claims:
"I am God on the earth."
Is there not only one God, of both earth and heaven?
How is that anything but a claim to be God?

There is a virtually perfect match with 2 Thessalonians 2:4.

If you are claiming that Pius did not say about himself what he did say about himself, then I would be convinced that Pius better understood what he said about himself, then what someone else claims to understand about what he said about himself.

No one is going to be cavalier about something for which there is a high probability that they could burn at the stake. The Reformers were dead serious, dead accurate, and often dead period, about and because of their declarations.

I've pointed out earlier that "the Antichrist" is not found in KJV Scripture, which also makes it plain that antichrist is a plurality. (1 John 2:18)

When he very plainly stated that he was the representative of God on the earth, that completely destroyed your entire argument about the Pope.

But your argument about a plural Antichrist is typical of the carelessness about the exact wording of scripture that is so very typical of essentially all Historicist arguments. For the wording of a particular translation is meaningless when the exact wording of the original Greek is so easily available to anyone. And in 1 John 2:18 the Greek text very plainly says "kai kathos ekousate hoti o antichristos erchetai." These Greek words literally translate as follows:
kai=and
kathos=according-as
ekousate=you-hear
hoti=that
o=the
antichristos=instead-annointed
erchetai=will-come.

So the Greek text, which is the only one that actually counts, explicitly says "the antichrist will come." And, in case you are not actually familiar with the Greek language, the definite article is optional. It may or may not be included in any particular statement. Bnd when it is used, in scripture it is normally used for stress. That is, when it is included, the Holy Spirit was stressing that He was speaking of a particular thing. So in specifically using the Greek word "o" in this place in the sentence, the Holy Spirit was unquestionably applying this word to a particular future human being, not just to some generalized evil power.

This was also done in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where the terms "the man of sin" and "the son of perdition" were used of this same specific future individual. For in both of these cases, the Greek word "o," which is pronounced ho, was used.

So there is simply zero excuse for wresting these scriptures which unquestionably refer, three times over, to a specific future individual, into an indistinct future power.

 

[jgr]

When he very plainly stated that he was the representative of God on the earth, that completely destroyed your entire argument about the Pope.

But your argument about a plural Antichrist is typical of the carelessness about the exact wording of scripture that is so very typical of essentially all Historicist arguments. For the wording of a particular translation is meaningless when the exact wording of the original Greek is so easily available to anyone. And in 1 John 2:18 the Greek text very plainly says "kai kathos ekousate hoti o antichristos erchetai." These Greek words literally translate as follows:
kai=and
kathos=according-as
ekousate=you-hear
hoti=that
o=the
antichristos=instead-annointed
erchetai=will-come.

So the Greek text, which is the only one that actually counts, explicitly says "the antichrist will come." And, in case you are not actually familiar with the Greek language, the definite article is optional. It may or may not be included in any particular statement. Bnd when it is used, in scripture it is normally used for stress. That is, when it is included, the Holy Spirit was stressing that He was speaking of a particular thing. So in specifically using the Greek word "o" in this place in the sentence, the Holy Spirit was unquestionably applying this word to a particular future human being, not just to some generalized evil power.

This was also done in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, where the terms "the man of sin" and "the son of perdition" were used of this same specific future individual. For in both of these cases, the Greek word "o," which is pronounced ho, was used.

So there is simply zero excuse for wresting these scriptures which unquestionably refer, three times over, to a specific future individual, into an indistinct future power.

When he very plainly stated that he was the Holy Father (God), and God on the earth (God), that utterly demolished your argument.


In this Greek interlinear of 1 John 2:18, there is no "o".

But even if there were, it would make no difference, for John immediately corrects any misunderstanding that there is only one antichrist, by informing us that there are many, and that they were already present.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 there is an "o", which is appropriate, for at any given point in time, there is "the" one pope in office, and thus "the" one man of sin and son of perdition, with each one being ultimately succeeded by the next appointee.

These scriptures are fully consistent, and there is simply zero excuse for attempting to malform them otherwise.

 

[Biblewriter]

When he very plainly stated that he was the Holy Father (God), and God on the earth (God), that utterly demolished your argument.


In this Greek interlinear of 1 John 2:18, there is no "o".

But even if there were, it would make no difference, for John immediately corrects any misunderstanding that there is only one antichrist, by informing us that there are many, and that they were already present.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 there is an "o", which is appropriate, for at any given point in time, there is "the" one pope in office, and thus "the" one man of sin and son of perdition, with each one being ultimately succeeded by the next appointee.

These scriptures are fully consistent, and there is simply zero excuse for attempting to malform them otherwise.

1 John 2:18 very clearly states that there is coming an individual that the Holy Spirit calls the Antichrist, and then He says that even now there are many Antichrists. ("kai nun antichristoi polloi gegonasin") These Greek words literally translate as:
kai=and
nun=now
antichristoi=instead-anointeds (the plural form of this word)
polloi=many
gegonasin=have-become

So the Holy Spirit, (and not just John) clearly stated two things. First, that there is a particular evil individual coming, whom He here called "the Antichrist," even as in other places he called this same future individual "the man of sin" and "the son of perdition." Then, second, He added that even now there are many Antichrists.

That is why I answered you some time ago that the Pope was indeed an Antichrist, but he was most certainly not the Antichrist. I am sorry that you are too lazy to actually look this up for yourself. But your ignorance on this subject is self chosen. If you did bother to actually look this up, you would see that what I have said here is absolutely correct.

I must also note that Jesus himself, when He referred to this future evil individual as "the hireling" who flees when he sees the wolf coming, because he does not care for the sheep. For the Greek definite article "o" is used in every reference to this future individual in John 10:12-13. And likewise, every action verb used in regard to actions of this future evil individual in the Old Testament is in the masculine singular. (Daniel 11:36-39, Zechariah 11:16-17)

 

[jgr]

1 John 2:18 very clearly states that there is coming an individual that the Holy Spirit calls the Antichrist, and then He says that even now there are many Antichrists. ("kai nun antichristoi polloi gegonasin") These Greek words literally translate as:
kai=and
nun=now
antichristoi=instead-anointeds (the plural form of this word)
polloi=many
gegonasin=have-become

So the Holy Spirit, (and not just John) clearly stated two things. First, that there is a particular evil individual coming, whom He here called "the Antichrist," even as in other places he called this same future individual "the man of sin" and "the son of perdition." Then, second, He added that even now there are many Antichrists.

That is why I answered you some time ago that the Pope was indeed an Antichrist, but he was most certainly not the Antichrist. I am sorry that you are too lazy to actually look this up for yourself. But your ignorance on this subject is self chosen. If you did bother to actually look this up, you would see that what I have said here is absolutely correct.

I must also note that Jesus himself, when He referred to this future evil individual as "the hireling" who flees when he sees the wolf coming, because he does not care for the sheep. For the Greek definite article "o" is used in every reference to this future individual in John 10:12-13. And likewise, every action verb used in regard to actions of this future evil individual in the Old Testament is in the masculine singular. (Daniel 11:36-39, Zechariah 11:16-17)

You really need to visit your optometrist; I didn't say "see" him or her, because you apparently cannot.

You continue to throw "the" in front of antichrist, even when the Greek original of 1 John 2:18 includes no "the".

You continue to capitalize the "A" in antichrist, even when the Greek original of 1 John 2:18 does not.

You continue to futurize "there is coming", when John states that "you have heard there is coming" (big difference), and then proceeds to inform them that what they had heard was actually an extant reality, and in fact a plurality of realities, i.e. antichrists. So much for the one man fallacious futurization fantasy.

I've already elaborated on "the man of sin". If that means there is only the one man of sin, then there is also only the one man of God:

2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Whoever would he be?

The ASV link to John 10:12-13 reads "a hireling", not "the hireling". The KJV reads "an hireling" in two of three appearances, and tells us that "the hireling" is in fact "an hireling".

Your citations in Daniel and Zechariah have nothing to do with antichrist, other than in your imagination.

 

[Biblewriter]

You really need to visit your optometrist; I didn't say "see" him or her, because you apparently cannot.

You continue to throw "the" in front of antichrist, even when the Greek original of 1 John 2:18 includes no "the".

After seeing all the HARD PROOF I have posted, responding with such a blatant lie as this simply demonstrates your total unwillingness to submit to any proof of any kind whatsoever.

I have produced sufficient evidence to convince any unprejudiced mind. But your prejudice will not allow you to admit it. I therefore see zero profit in continuing this fruitless discussion.

 

[jgr]

After seeing all the HARD PROOF I have posted, responding with such a blatant lie as this simply demonstrates your total unwillingness to submit to any proof of any kind whatsoever.

I have produced sufficient evidence to convince any unprejudiced mind. But your prejudice will not allow you to admit it. I therefore see zero profit in continuing this fruitless discussion.

What "blatant lie" is that?

In the enduring words of our favorite Bunny, Bugs, it is to laugh.

I've had fun. I'm sorry that you haven't.

Our readers can decide.