Ribera and Lacunza and the Doctrine of the Distant Future Anti-Christ

Ribera and Lacunza and the Doctrine of the Distant Future Anti-Christ

Many Protestants during and soon after the Reformation were saying that the Catholic Church was the Anti-Christ.

But two Jesuit priests wrote books which changed the time of the anticipated appearance of the Anti-Christ to some time in the distant future just before the end of the world.

This change was established by dispensationalism in response to the works of the two Jesuits and had the effect of removing the Catholic Church from being seen as the Anti-Christ. This change in the position of most Protestant denominations toward Rome was the direct result of this change in interpretation of I John 2: 18-19 and I John 4: 1-3 brought about by the Jesuit writers.

Sometimes its hard to tell whether Christians at the time of the Reformation or afterwards - but before dispensationalism - mean a one man super anti-Christ figure, as in dispensationalist fable, or if they are using the singular "Anti-Christ" to represent the spirit of anti-Christ of I John 4: 3, with there being many anti-Christs with the spirit of anti-Christ, which is what John is teaching.

Francisco Ribera, 1537-1591, was a Jesuit Priest who wrote in 1585 Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij. He did not write this book to add to Catholic doctrine but to change protestant theology about when the anti-Christ or the spirit of anti-Christ was to appear.

So Ribera wrote that the Anti-Christ would not appear until way off in the future, hopefully changing the Protestant theology on Anti-Christ so that the Protestants would no longer claim that the Pope and the Catholic Church were the Anti-Christ..In order to remove the Catholic Church from being seen as the Anti-Christ by the Protestants, Ribera said that the first few chapters of Revelation applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming.. Then, Ribera claimed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:

Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God

.Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.

Abolish the Christian religion.

Deny Jesus Christ.

Be received by the Jews.

Pretend to be God

.Kill the two witnesses of God

.Conquer the world."

Then another Jesuit priest, Emmanuel Lacunza, 1731-1801, wrote The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty (1790). Lacunza said that before Christ appeared the second time there would be a general apostasy of the Catholic Church which would make it part of the Anti-Christ apostasy. . What is important also is that Lacunza'a book was based upon a futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy.

According to http://www.theologue.org/Theory-JPEby.html Lacunza the Jesuit also claimed that Jesus will return twice, and on his first return return He "raptures" the Church so they can escape the reign of the "future antichrist." This interpretation of a future Anti-Christ as one man was apparently meant to steer the Protestants away from saying the Pope was the present Anti-Christ.

Edward Irving, an associate of John Darby and the English Plymouth Brethren, discovered Lacunza's book and was influenced by it. He translated it into English, and it was published in 1827.

So, it took a while, but the Jesuit effort to change the Protestant theology on when the Anti-Christ was to come, placing his appearance in the far distant future, finally worked. It worked in the Protestant theology called dispensationalism which began in the 19th century.

William Tyndale taught that anti-Christ has succeeded in his deception of turning attention away from himself, and caused Christians to look for him some time in the future when all along "he" - as the spirit of anti-Christ (I John 4: 3) - is here in the inner life of many believers. Tyndale saw that the Jews missed the Messiah when he came, and they are still looking for him to come later. In like manner, Christians fail to correctly identify anti-Christ because they are looking for him to come later, and "he" is not one man but a spirit, which is taught by the huge number of false prophets (Matthew 24: 11, II Peter 2: 1-3).

Tyndale says "The Jews look for Christ, and he came fifteen hundred years ago and they are not aware of it. And we also have looked for Antichrist, and he hath reigned as long, and we are not aware – and that because we both look carnally for him, and not in the places where we ought … The Jews would have found Christ verily if they had sought him in the law and the prophets, whither Christ sendeth them to seek. (John v.) We also would have spied out Antichrist long ago if we had looked in the doctrine of Christ and his apostles." Tyndale, Parable of the Wicked Mammon, (Benedicton Classics facsimile reprint, 2008) p 5.

This is basically what I know of the counterreformation.

Humanly speaking, if I were stuck in 1800s England in between Protestants fighting Catholics (who were considered Anti-Christ by many Protestants), I might be tempted to come up with another definition of Anti-Christ. I have seen this kind of sectarian violence in Moldova (Orthodox on Baptists).

lol - more of northwye's and Interplanner's half-baked, books based ignorance.

Lacunza's book - which actually teaches a rapture of sorts way before Darby - was banned by the RCC Pope then in power, back in Lacunza's day.

Your incompetence about his having been a Jesuit Priest would assert Martin Luther was also pawn of the RCC - for he too had remained RCC for a time after his awareness of those things that differ in Scripture that he had come to through the Scripture, but that the RCC had long buried in it's traditions of men.

You, northwye, are just another - "uh oh, a demon under every bush!" - extrmist. :chuckle:

One would think that the fact that you are not given any slack by various extremists on here - some of who would even ban you, if they could - one would think their extremism against you would inspire you not to be one yourself.

Nevertheless, Romans 5:8 towards you...there is always...that.

Has anyone ever noticed how much Interplanner's and northwye's "book reports" are just that "book reports" and not actually their own research?

In other words, they are merely posting the hearsay of the writers they quote - writers who also did nothing but parrot the hearsay of writers prior to them, all the way back to when their first number turned from Scripture to hearsay, for their self-deluded "expertise."

Talk about "store bought theologians."

:chuckle:

Thank God for Romans 5:8 towards you - one, and all...

northwye said:

Ribera and Lacunza and the Doctrine of the Distant Future Anti-Christ

Many Protestants during and soon after the Reformation were saying that the Catholic Church was the Anti-Christ.

But two Jesuit priests wrote books which changed the time of the anticipated appearance of the Anti-Christ to some time in the distant future just before the end of the world.

This change was established by dispensationalism in response to the works of the two Jesuits and had the effect of removing the Catholic Church from being seen as the Anti-Christ. This change in the position of most Protestant denominations toward Rome was the direct result of this change in interpretation of I John 2: 18-19 and I John 4: 1-3 brought about by the Jesuit writers.

Sometimes its hard to tell whether Christians at the time of the Reformation or afterwards - but before dispensationalism - mean a one man super anti-Christ figure, as in dispensationalist fable, or if they are using the singular "Anti-Christ" to represent the spirit of anti-Christ of I John 4: 3, with there being many anti-Christs with the spirit of anti-Christ, which is what John is teaching.

Francisco Ribera, 1537-1591, was a Jesuit Priest who wrote in 1585 Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij. He did not write this book to add to Catholic doctrine but to change protestant theology about when the anti-Christ or the spirit of anti-Christ was to appear.

So Ribera wrote that the Anti-Christ would not appear until way off in the future, hopefully changing the Protestant theology on Anti-Christ so that the Protestants would no longer claim that the Pope and the Catholic Church were the Anti-Christ..In order to remove the Catholic Church from being seen as the Anti-Christ by the Protestants, Ribera said that the first few chapters of Revelation applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming.. Then, Ribera claimed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:

Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God

.Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.

Abolish the Christian religion.

Deny Jesus Christ.

Be received by the Jews.

Pretend to be God

.Kill the two witnesses of God

.Conquer the world."

Then another Jesuit priest, Emmanuel Lacunza, 1731-1801, wrote The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty (1790). Lacunza said that before Christ appeared the second time there would be a general apostasy of the Catholic Church which would make it part of the Anti-Christ apostasy. . What is important also is that Lacunza'a book was based upon a futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy.

According to http://www.theologue.org/Theory-JPEby.html Lacunza the Jesuit also claimed that Jesus will return twice, and on his first return return He "raptures" the Church so they can escape the reign of the "future antichrist." This interpretation of a future Anti-Christ as one man was apparently meant to steer the Protestants away from saying the Pope was the present Anti-Christ.

Edward Irving, an associate of John Darby and the English Plymouth Brethren, discovered Lacunza's book and was influenced by it. He translated it into English, and it was published in 1827.

So, it took a while, but the Jesuit effort to change the Protestant theology on when the Anti-Christ was to come, placing his appearance in the far distant future, finally worked. It worked in the Protestant theology called dispensationalism which began in the 19th century.

Click to expand...

I said
That is interesting.

Fearless Dave MacPhearson says that Lacanza did not promote the pre-tribulation rapture doctrine. See: https://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/2003_macpherson_lacunza.html

"Interestingly, even Tim LaHaye's 1992 book "No Fear of the Storm" (alias "Rapture Under Attack," alias "The Rapture"), p. 169, admits that "Lacunza never taught a pre-Trib Rapture!"

"If Lacunza's 1812 book contains pretrib, as McDougall and Bray have claimed, why was such doctrine unknown before 1830? It wasn't that John Darby and Edward Irving were unaware of Lacunza's work, for both discussed it in their pre-1830 writings. And it wasn't that Darby and Irving were opposed to novel ideas, for both began to embrace pretrib after it emerged in 1830."

Lacanza did promote futurism in the prophecy of the coming of Anti-Christ, which was the point of the Jesuit work within the Counter-Reformastion.

On another site MacPhearson comments on the origins of the pre-trib rapture doctrine. See: https://www.preteristarchive.com/dEmEnTiA/2001_macpherson_deceiving.html

He says "I won't tell you that after Darby's death in 1882, the editor of his many books, William Kelly, plotted to steal credit for pretrib away from the Macdonald/Irvingite connection and give it posthumously to Darby, that he achieved this between 1889 and 1903 by changing and covering up portions of early Irvingite and Brethren documents, and that 20th century British and American publishers have conspired to continue this historical revisionism in order to enjoy phenomenal sales of pretrib rapture material!"

"And I won't tell you that during the past century and a half, some of the most influential pretrib rapture books, by British as well as American authors, have been filled with sloppy scholarship and, what's worse, breathtaking amounts of plagiarism and even occultic teachings mixed in with evangelical theology!"

"Or that my PLOT book and my later book THE THREE R'S reveal, with comparison quotes and in more or less chronological order, embarrassing plagiarism in writings by John Darby, Joseph Seiss, E. W. Bullinger, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Merrill Unger, Jerry Falwell, Ed Dobson, Ed Hindson, Charles Ryrie, David Jeremiah, C. C. Carlson, Paul Tan, Chuck Missler, and Jack Van Impe, for starters!"

"Finally, let me say that although I've been researching rapture roots more than 30 years now, I've been into computers only a relatively short time. The discovery of the extent to which misinformation about the pretrib origin has been circling the earth at computer speed still boggles my mind!"

On https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/fearless+dave+mcpherson/138cac3cdc660ca4 MacPhearson says ""When I began my research in 1970 into the exact beginnings of the
pretribulation rapture belief still held by many evangelicals, I
assumed that the rapture debate involved only "godly scholars with
honest differences." The paper you are now reading reveals why I gave
up that assumption many years ago. With this introduction-of-sorts in
mind, let's take a long look at the pervasive dishonesty throughout
the history of the 179-year-old pretrib rapture theory:"

This thread is not necessarily about the origin of he pre-trib rapture theory. It is focused on the work of the two Jesuits within the Catholic effort of the Counter-Reformation to change the Protestant doctrine on when the Anti-Christ would appear.

On the origin of the pre-trib rapture theory, MacPhearson believes that it had its beginning with Margaret MacDonald and her vision. Her vision is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_MacDonald_(visionary) Its published by wikipedia.

Whether the pre-trib rapture theory is really in MacDonale's vision or not, the idea of such a pre-trib rapture as it is now taught came out of John Darby in the 19th century and out of C.I. Scofield in the early 20th century.

Look At: https://christianity.stackexchange....-recorded-account-of-pre-tribulation-teaching

"John Darby (1800-1882), often considered the father of dispensationalism and one of the founders of the Plymouth Brethren, tends to be given credit for inventing the doctrine, or at least for having "provided the intellectual mantle that helped make it respectable."

"Darby systematized the teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture, which Scofield helped rocket to popularity."

Dave MacPhearson has long been proven an individual sloppy in the more minute details of one thing or another; when not outright simply distorting of another's words.

All the early church Fathers were futurists who believed in a literal restoration of Israel at the end of time with a literal restoration of the old covenant sacrificial system in a rebuilt temple that would be presided over by a literal antichrist or 'beast power'. The dispensational futurists do not believe this as they have the church being raptured out which is unbiblical and Israel being the 'good guy' at the end of time. The main difference between authentic futurists and Dispy futurists is that the authentic futurist sees Jerusalem as Babylon where the Dispy/Preterist/Historicist sees Rome as Babylon.

We have anti-christ's among us today.

Bradley D said:

We have anti-christ's among us today.

Click to expand...

We had antichrists among us 2,000 years ago. See 1 John 2:18 KJV and 1 John 4:3 KJV.

So, who was the man of sin?
Details please.

Squeaky said:

I said
That is interesting.

Click to expand...

I said

That is for itching ears.

SaulToPaul said:

So, who was the man of sin?
Details please.

Click to expand...

The antichrist is a spirit 1John 4:3. The only spiritual entity who was active in the 1st century and will appear at the end is Satan when he will claim to be god. The man of sin or little horn power will preside over the tribulation temple and will most likely be a Jewish high priest. The final pope will be the Gentile horn or the false prophet of the beast. I call it the anti-trinity of evil in the last days. Jerusalem and Rome will unite at the end just like they united in the 1st century to destroy Christ.

SaulToPaul said:

So, who was the man of sin?
Details please.

Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_of_sin

Epoisses said:

The final pope will be the Gentile horn or the false prophet of the beast. I call it the anti-trinity of evil in the last days. Jerusalem and Rome will unite at the end just like they united in the 1st century to destroy Christ.

Click to expand...

Highly unlikely, considering that Catholic teaching is fully in accord with 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 7, so there is no way that a pope could violate this most essential of Catholic doctrines and still remain a pope.

User Name said:

Highly unlikely, considering that Catholic teaching is fully in accord with 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 7, so there is no way that a pope could violate this most essential of Catholic doctrines and still remain a pope.

Click to expand...

He will confess Satan as Christ at the very end which would be a violation of Catholic teaching. Do you think the antichrist will appear and say - 'hey everybody I'm the devil'. No, he will impersonate Christ. In the Olivet discourse Jesus warned that false Christs and false prophets will appear at the end and deceive many.