Serendipitous events, two discussion of the Book of Revelagion dropped in my path, so I guess it's time for another post on that subject. It's frustrating because I don't like popposing the best teachers out there and that's what happens with this subject. Well, also creationism I have to admit. I hope I'm not just a gadfly but I suppose Im at least that. Just thinking things through on my own I arrive at opinions these other guys don't arrive at and find myself in opposition to thejm. Qell, I'm trying to follow the leading of the Lord and if I'm wrong I'm wrong, but maybe I'm not wrong. He'll have to be the one to promote what He wantsa to promote in the end, that's not up to me.
John MacArthur, one of my favorites, and the guys at Understanding the Times Radio now that Jan Martell has left, and others who work from the Pre Trib Pre Mill eschatology. I guess it's because they've concluded that Revelation Four shows the Rapture of the Church, which puts the Church in heven during Revelation four and five, and the opining of the seals after that, all of it being pushed to the verny end of the tend times.
But it doesn't make any obvious sense to suppose that the seven seals are opening only tghat late in history. Jesus of course qualified to open them after His ascension in the first century, what would be the reason to wait two thousand years? His own teaching in Matthew Twenty four covers the same events as described in the first four seals, the so called Four Horsewment of the Apocalypse, the sequence of false Christs, wars, famines and death from all sorts of causes as the "beginning of sorrorws, after which, He tells us, comes the End, starting from the Abomination of Desolation standing in the Holy Place and continuing for three and a half years. All that is of course found in Revelation and not earlier, but the BVeginning of Sorrows includes the sort of things we've seen throughout history and has no spewcial reason to be confined to the Book of Revelation, the false Chrissts, wars, famines, pesilences and martyrdomes. So if the seals reveal God's judgments on the earth, these could have beguin right after Jesus' ascension to heaven. Qhy not? That's how I've been tentatively thinking of it.
And it firtrts with my having been persuaded that the Protestant Reformers weere right to identify the papacy as the seat of the Antichrist, each successive Pope ascending to that role in the world for timethje time of his reign. Now we have Leo. QWill he be the Final Ancichrist, the one of Daniel twenlve? or is it nine? "They" are waiting for this Antichrist to be revealed at the very end, but I'm confinced by the Reformers that he was revealed wway back ion 606 AD when the Bishop of Rome took on the title Universal Bishop, essentially usurping power to himself over all the other bishops. Even one of the Popes hismelf said that was the taking on of the role of the Antichrist, and here were many Chirstians outside the Roan Church doewn the centuries who identified the opopes as CAnctichrist. Chris Pinto has a DvD on that subject.
Leo just recently, for the second time I think, had the effrontery to denounce the US for our supposed mistreatment of "migrants," meaning of course illegal aliens who don't belong here and must be deported. They are not mistreated at all. He wants to be sure they get Catholic rites or some suich, hoo boy. In ;my mind, this efforontery makes Leo a solid Antichrist already. But I thought Francis was dgoing to be the Final Antichrist, so I'm not oing to stick my neck out atgain and say the same about Leo. I don't know. He might not be the Final one. Wait and see. If he makes a deal with Israel for seven years, I'd say that's the sign that he is definitely the one.
I do not get why MacArthur thinks Daiel Eleven is about the Roman Anctichrist. Isn't it very clearly about the Greek version, that is, Anticiohes Epiphanes, who was the abomination of desolation dealt with by the Macabbees? As I understandi it , all those military movements describe that Greek or Seleucid leader and theree are some who can describe them all in historical terms. Not the Roman Antichrist. A preucurser, a harbinger, not the One.
MacAerthur explains the jsixth seal of Revelation as showing the people of the world finally getting around to realizing that the world is coming under God's judgment. Seems to me if you just read it straight, in order, it is the point at which the final wrath of God begins, or the seven year tribulation peierios, the previous seals bieng he Beginning of solorrow but not the tribulation wrath. The martyrs of the fifth seal would be the millions killed under the Popes and their various inquisitions. They are told to wait for the martyrs yet to be made under the Tribulation. And since they are described as "souls" and clearly not yet in their glorified bodies, they were not rapituresd, and if anyuthing I'm saying is right, the rapture does not occur in Revelation four. I don't like being in this posisiton, but there you have it. I don't as yet have a clear idea of where in the historical sequence the rapture occurs, but it has to be after the sixth seal.
Seems to me, if you stop and think about it anyway, that it's pretty obvious that the papacy has no place in true Chrsitain history. And since he takes on titles that belong only to Christ and even the Father and the Holy Spirit as well, he's clearly a usurper of high degree. Yet Catholics have no idea. Most of them were born into their religion and have no knowledge of the hstiroy of any of it, and of course feel offended if you suggest their Church isn't the true Church. But it isn't, and the wosonnooner they learn that the better for them. Years ago,, when I was reading my way to becoming a Christian, I went through a phase where I thought I would be a Catholic. I was reading a Catholic theologian who said that the Pope is the ehad of the Church, and I knew there was something frwrong with that idea, in fact it disturbed me quite a bit. It's standard in Romanism though. But ehre are two places in scripture where it is clearly said that Christ is the Head of the CHurch. Not the OPope, and the Lord showed mew both those places ina amiraculous way one day, which is what ended any idea I had had of becoming a Catholic.
It is veruy disturbing to reaslize how little anyone knows any more about the false claims of the Roman CHurch. It's all been forgotten by the majority of Protestantsm, although there was a time when it was pretty well known. It's the reason the pilgrims came to America of course. You could start there. And then you can find John Adams, our second Presicdnet saying that the Jesuits are the most evil organization on earth. Long long time since any such sentiment was heard in America. Sad and dangerous. And you'll hear naive statemewnts like how it makes no sense for us to critizie Catholicsm because the docgtrinal disgferences are so small and inconsequential. That is a monumental historical blindness since it may have been millions of proto Protestants who died under the Inquisition for their refusla to affirm the idea of Transsubstantiation. No minor disctrinal difference to them. And then I found out that Charlie Kirk, who I thought was pretty good at arguing against Catholicism, was found to have a "St. Michael's medal attached to the chain around his neck on which he also wore a cross. Very distrubing to think he had a Catholic talisman like that on him.
There are plenty of deceptions fogging up the atmosphere we live in these days, but obne of theworlse is no doubt this acceptance of the Antichrist system, the Roman CHurch.
