Wine of Rome

Revelation 14:8-11

And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 18:1-4

And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying,

Come out of her, My people,

that ye be not partakers of her sins,

and that ye receive not of her plagues.

Reformers' Interpretations
of Anti-Christ

As early as the 12th century, the Waldensian dissentients outside the church identified the “little horn” and “Man of Sin” as the Roman Papacy. But even within the church, among the most learned godly men, Papacy also became increasingly identified as “Anti-Christ” and the “Man of Sin.”

Pre-Reformation Interpretations:

Date	Name	Reference	Interpretation
c. 1310	Dante Alighieri	Rev. 17 Harlot	Roman Church
c. 1331	Michael of Cesena	Rev. 17 Harlot Antichrist	Roman Church Pope
c. 1345	Johannes de Rupescissa	Antichrist Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Harlot	Pope Roman church Roman church
c. 1350	Francesco Petrarch	Rev. 17 Harlot	Papal Court
c. 1367	John Milicz	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Man of Sin	Papacy Papacy Papacy
c. 1379	John Wycliffe	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 17 Harlot	Pope Papacy Popes Papacy Papacy
c. 1388	Matthias of Janow	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Hierarchy Fallen Church Present Church Papacy Hierarchy Popes
c. 1389	R. Wimbledon	Abomination of Desolation	Papacy
c. 1390	John Purvey	Antichrist Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 13 666 Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Pope Papacy Hierarchy Pope Papacy Papacy
c. 1393	Walter Brute	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin	Papacy Bishop of Rome Rome Papacy
c. 1412	John Huss	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Pope Papacy Rome Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
c. 1497	Girolamo Savonarola	Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Pope Papacy Papacy Papacy

Reformation Era Interpretations:

Date	Name	Reference	Interpretation
1522	Martin Luther	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 2nd Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1543	Philipp Melanchthon	Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy
1545	Andreas Osiander	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papal Traditions Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1554	Nicolaus von Amsdorf	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papal Traditions Papacy Papacy Papacy
1558	Johann Funck	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1560	Virgil Solis	Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1570	Georg Nigrinus	Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast	Pope, Turk Papacy Pagan Rome Papal Rome
1572	David Chytraeus	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast	Papacy Papacy Papacy Roman Empire Papacy
1530	Johann Oecolampadius	Antichrist Little Horn	Papacy Papacy
1557	Heinrich Bullinger	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Pagan Rome Papal Rome Roman Church Papacy
1550	William Tyndale	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1545	George Joys	Antichrist Little Horn	Papacy Papacy
1554	Nicholas Ridley	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Beast	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1553	Hugh Latimer	Antichrist	Papacy
1582	Thomas Cranmer	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1550	John Bale	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Beast	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Prelates Papacy Papacy Papacy
1562	John Jewel	Antichrist Abomination of Desolation Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Beast	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Rome
1587	John Foxe	Antichrist Man of Sin	Bishop of Rome Bishop of Rome
1563	Anglican Formulas	Antichrist	Papacy
1547	John Knox	Antichrist Little Horn	Church of Rome Papacy
1593	John Napier	Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon Rev. 17 Beast	Pope Papacy Latin Empire Papacy Papacy Papacy Latin Empire
1614	Thomas Brightman	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Pope Papacy Papacy Early Papacy Later Papacy Papacy Papacy
1618	David Pareus	Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Beast	Pope & Turk Papacy Papacy Papacy Empire

Post-Reformation Interpretations:

Date	Name	Reference	Interpretation
1600	James I of England	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1603	George Downham	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1604	George Pacard	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Rome Papacy Papacy Papacy
1607	Hugh Broughton	Little Horn	Antiochus
1612	Andress Holwig	Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast	Papacy is also Antichrist Papacy
1618	Matthias Hoe	Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy is Antichrist Imperial Rome Papal Rome Papacy
1618	Daniel Cramer	Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Pagan Rome Papal Rome Papacy
1631	Joseph Mede	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Civil Rome Papacy Papacy Papacy
1643	Johannes Gerhard	Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Civil Rome Papal Rome Papacy Papacy
1654	Thomas Goodwin	Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast	Papacy Papacy Protestant Image
1655	John Tillinghast	Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1664	Henry More	Antichrist Little Horn	Papacy Papacy
1670	William Sherwin	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1681	Johann H. Alsted	Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot	Papacy is Antichrist, Little Horn Imperial Rome Papal Rome Papacy
1684	Thomas Beverley	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1685	Jacques Phillipot	Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy also Antichrist Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1687	Pierre Jurieu	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Eccl. Emp. Papacy
1689	Drue Cressener	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Hierarchy Papacy
1699	"Mysteries ... Finished"	Antichrist	Papacy
1700	William Lowth	Antichrist Little Horn	Papacy Papacy
1701	Johannes Cocceius	Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Hierarchy Papacy
1701	Robert Fleming, Jr.	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1702	Georg her. Giblehr	Antichrist Little Horn	Papacy Papacy
1703	Daniel Whitby	Man of Sin Rev. 17 Babylon	Roman Church is Antichrist Papacy
1706	William Whiston	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1712	Heinrich Horch	Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast	Papacy Papacy Papacy
1720	Charles Daubux	Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Civil Rome Eccl Rome Papacy Papacy
1727	Sir Isaac Newton	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy W. Rome Greek Empire Papacy Latin Kingdom
1729	Th. Crinsox de Bionens	Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Roman Empire Popes Papacy
1735	Thomas Pyle	Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy also Little Horn Papacy Papacy
1740	Johann Aal. Bengel	Antichrist Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Jesuitism Papacy Papacy
1743	Berienberg Bible	Antichrist	Papacy
1745	John Willison	Antichrist Little Horn	Papacy Papacy
1754	Thomas Newton	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy W. Rome Papacy Papacy Roman Clergy Papacy
1758	John Gill	Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast	Papacy Papacy also AntichristPapacy
1764	John Wesley	Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy also Antichrist Papacy East Empire Papal Rome Papacy
1768	Johann Ph. Petri	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast	Papacy Turks Papacy Papacy Papacy
1787	R. M.	Antichrist	Papacy
1787	Hans Wood	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy East Empire Papacy Papacy
1793	James Becheno	Antichrist Little Horn Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Louis XIV Papacy
1794	Joseph Priestly	Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1795	George Bell	Antichrist Little Horn	Papacy Papacy
1796	Christian G. Thube	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1797	David Simpson	Antichrist Little Horn	Papacy Papacy
1798	Edward King	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1798	Joseph Galloway	Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 13 2nd Peast Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy France Papacy
1798	Richard Valpy	Antichrist Little Horn Man of Sin Rev. 13 1st Beast Rev. 17 Harlot Rev. 17 Babylon	Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy Papacy
1800	Jean G. de la Flechers	Antichrist Little Horn	Papacy Papacy

The Catholic Counter-Reformation

Why did the “protest” change? In view of the foregoing Reformation interpretations identifying Papacy as the Antichrist and Man of Sin, why do so many Evangelical Protestants today believe the Man of Sin and Antichrist are future individuals?

The Reformation break from Papacy. The Man of Sin had been “revealed,” recognized and proclaimed as the Papacy by the Reformers. Not only the Reformers, but thousands of their followers and their kings agreed with the prophetic interpretations. Their united stand against Papacy gave the Reformers and nations the power to break away from allegiance to the Papal system.
The Papal reaction — the “Counter Reformation.” In an attempt to divert the undermining influence of the Protestant Reformation, a two-pronged counter attack was made.

Praeterist school of interpretation founded by Alcazar, a Spanish Jesuit in 1614.	Futurist school of interpretation founded by Francisco Ribera and Robert Bellarmine
The fulfillment of Revelation is in the past with the Fall of Jerusalem or the Fall of Pagan Rome, before the Popes ever ruled Rome.	The fulfillment of Revelation is in the future with an individual man as the Antichrist, Man of Sin, and a literal rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.

Around 1590, Francisco Ribera published a 500-page book on Revelation. The first chapters of Revelation he applied to the time of the early church. From Revelation chapter 4 onward he applied literally, to a literal 3-1/2 year reign of an individual man, Antichrist. He taught that Antichrist would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, deny Christ, pretend to be God, and conquer the world.
Robert Bellarmine, one of the most renowned Jesuit cardinals, taught that the Antichrist would be an individual Jew, who would reign a literal 3-1/2 years in Jerusalem, in whom would dwell all the power of the devil.

Paving the way for Papal-Protestant Union. The Evangelical Fundamentalist interpretation of Antichrist and Man of Sin as follows Ribera’s and Bellarmine’s Futuristic viewpoints. Not only has the Futuristic interpretation negated the powerful Reformation interpretation against Papacy, but it also allows room for ecumenism between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. If the Papacy is not the Antichrist, then there is no point to the Reformation separation from Papacy.

Other Articles on the Antichrist
Man of Sin

John Paul II - Esteemed World Statesman

Can We Identify Antichrist?

Introduction-"Even so, Come [quickly], Lord Jesus"

1-The Antichrist and the "Little Horn"

2-What Do the Apostles Say?

3-A Search Through History

4-Man of Sin Becomes the Antichrist

5-The Man of Sin Revealed

6-The 1260 Days of Daniel, The Saints are Worn Out

7-Wounded to Death-And Then Healed

8-The Antichrist in the Twentieth Century

9-Antichrist's End-Time Rule

10-Historic Documentation of Antichrist's Rise to Power

Why do the modern churches (leadership) look to the Pope in Rome???

" Paganism, while appearing to be vanquished, became the conqueror. Her spirit controlled the church. Her doctrines, ceremonies, and superstitions were incorporated into the faith and worship of the professed followers of Christ." {GC88 49.2}

" This compromise between paganism and Christianity resulted in the development of the “man of sin” foretold in prophecy as opposing and exalting himself above God. That gigantic system of false religion is a masterpiece of Satan's power,—a monument of his efforts to seat himself upon the throne to rule the earth according to his will."{GC88 50.1}

I couldn't have have said it better. Please read on for more powerful articles.

Elder Timothy Lee Arnett

ARE BABIES BORN IN SIN, AND SHALL THEY SUFFER THE

TORMENT OF HELLFIRE AND THE SECOND DEATH?

The doctrine of babies being born in sin is commonly known as the doctrine of "original sin." It is also known as "hereditary or total depravity." The doctrine simply stated is the belief that Adam's sin (the original sin) is passed on (transmitted) to all who are born into this world.

PLEASE NOTE: THIS STUDY ISN'T CONCERNING BEING BORN IN INIQUITY/WITH A CARNAL NATURE, BUT ABOUT ACTUAL SIN BEING COMMITED BY, OR IMPUTED TO US ALL AT BIRTH). If this is the truth that we are all born with sin at birth, then all babies are lost without hope. The following study from Scripture tells us why.

Question: Do babies understand law? If not, then how do they sin? Let's see what is declared in the following Scriptures.

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1. Sin is transgression of Law, but what Law?

Romans 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

By this unerring testimony we find that the Ten Commandments are God's Law and sin results when these precepts are cast aside by any man. However, even the condition of one being made a sinner, is preceeded by response to temptation.

The Apostle Paul also refers to this in Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. What law is this? It is another law called the law of sin and death (sin and die). It is related to by the Apostle Paul many times and should always be separated from the Law of God as Paul clarifies in Romans 7:

James 1:13,14 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

People become servants of sin why? Because they present themselves as servants of sin.

Rom. 6:16-19

Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

2. Sin is not passed on to others.

Ezekiel 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

There is a difference between inheriting the "guilt" of Adam's sin and inheriting the "consequences" of Adam's sin. Mankind has inherited the consequences of Adam's sin; e.g., pain sickness, and death. However, we do not inherit the "guilt" of Adam's sin. When a man commits murder, we do not put his son on trial for the murder. Why?

Only the guilty are responsible for their own sins.

3. We are to become like little children.

Little children are innocent because they do not know the difference between good and evil.

Isaiah 7:15-16

Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings

Matt. 19:13,14

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.;

Luke 18:16, 17

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.

Is Jesus saying that we should become like little sinners?

Jeremiah 19:4, 5

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:

Psalm 106:37, 38

Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, and shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

Deuteronomy 1:39

Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

In sacrificing babies to idols, they shed innocent blood. If babies inherit Adam's sin, they would not be innocent.

Out of this doctrine comes infant baptism.

1. An infant is not a valid subject of the baptism ordained and described by God in His Holy Word.

Acts 2:22, 37

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

2. He must be taught and he must learn the will of God.

John 6:45

It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

3. Furthermore, one must believe the gospel before being baptized.

Mark 16:16

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

4. Another prerequisite to baptism is repentance.

Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5. A verbal confession of Christ is also necessary before baptism.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Consequently, infants cannot be subjects for baptism because they cannot: (1) Be taught the deep things of God, (2) Believe in Jesus to the saving of their soul, (3) Repent (which mean to turn from a direction that is wrong to God and your conscience), (4) Confess that you understand what sin is, what sin does, and Who came to save you from sin..

Those who baptize infants today are doing so against God's will.

4. Each person will be judged by what he himself has done.

2 Corinthians 5:10 11.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Rom. 14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

Only Adam will give account for what he did. Each of us will give account for ourselves, for what we ourselves have done.

5. Many verses teach that we are able to choose to obey or disobey God.

All passages which give instructions are necessarily implying that man has the power to choose whether to respond or not respond.

Joshua 24:15

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

Revelation 22:17

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Hebrews 11:25

Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

4. Did Jesus Inherit the Guilt of Adam's Sin?

This question is based upon the truth that Jesus Christ was born of our flesh (sarx-Greek for flesh). There is only one type of flesh in Scripture. It is called fallen, sinful, human, flesh. And Jesus Christ had it

Romans 8:3 “God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:”

Heb. 2:14, 15; 4:15

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

If all babies are born into the world totally depraved, why wasn't Jesus born that way? Catholic theologians recognized this problem with reference to Mary the mother of Jesus; thus, they made up the doctrine of "Immaculate conception"; that is, Mary (not Jesus Christ) was free of original sin from the moment of her conception in her mother's womb.

Original sin and

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Romans 5:19 is supposedly the proof text for original sin. It reads, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners...." Hence, they say, "All are made sinners because they have inherited the sin of Adam."

Please notice the remainder of the verse: "...So also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous." Thus, if follows that if all are made sinners because of Adam, all are made righteous because of Christ. Is every single person who ever lived saved because of Christ?

Adam introduced certain things into the world and so did Christ. Adam introduced judgment to condemnation; and we receive it by our own disobedience. Christ introduced justification to life; and we receive it by our own obedience. Adam introduced disease into the world, but it does not mean that all are born with disease. It only means that all are subject to disease. Likewise, we are made liable to sin through Adam because he introduced sin into the world.

Let's remember to read inside the remainder of the context though

Romans 5:14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is supposedly another proof text for original sin.

Please notice that this verse says nothing about Adam, Adam's sin, or that David inherited the guilt of Adam's sin. The verse describes the guilt of his mother. His mother is the one who was guilty of sin and iniquity when she conceived him and brought him forth. The first part of the verse, in Hebrew parallelism, is explained by the last part of the verse.

Consider parallel language in Acts 2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? People were born in a native language or tongue. Did they speak a certain language because they were born with it? No, the people around them spoke it, so they soon learned it. Likewise, David was not guilty of sin from birth, but he was born into a sinful environment and into sinful influences. His mother was guilty of sin and so were all around him; thus, he soon learned to sin like one learns a language.

John 9:33-34 If this man were not of God, he could do nothing. They answered and said unto him, Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And they cast him out.

Are you in a church that teaches this heresy? If so, then you must be in Babylon. Submitted by Brother Blue

The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism

With the advent of the printing press in the15th century, and the resulting explosion of Bibles accessible in the common language from Protestant sources, it became readily apparent to those who could now study the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation in particular, that Bible prophecy identified by symbols a persecuting apostate entity generally known as antichrist. The following table shows the common elements from several places in scripture that aid in identifying this antichrist power:

Characteristics	The Little Horn (Daniel 7)	The Man of Sin (2 Th 2:3)	The Sea Beast (Rev. 13)	Woman on Beast (Rev. 17-18)
Source	grows out of the head of the 10 horned fourth beast (Rome)	owes his rise to removal of a hindering power	comes from the "sea", meaning many people (densely populated Europe)	arises in a city with seven hills (Rome) and rules over many waters (peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues)
Time of Origin	comes up among 10 horns (the divided successors of the Pagan Roman Empire)	revealed only after the fall of the hindering Pagan Roman Empire	receives power, seat and authority from the Dragon (Satan working through Pagan Rome)	arises among the ten horns (divisions of Rome) that will hate her
Religio-political Church-State Power	Diverse power, blasphemes God, exercises authority over the saints, changes times and laws of the most high	political characteristics not mentioned, but demands and receives worship	composite of Daniel's beasts, which are kingdoms, and wear crowns, that demands and receives worship	the woman is an apostate church - the beast is the power of the state, hence this is a religio-political power having a priest-king ruler
Blasphemous Presumption	in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things and words against the most high	exalts himself above God.	has a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies	full of names of blasphemy
Time of Dominance	given power over the saints for a time, times and a dividing of times. (1260 years)	---	given power forty and two months (1260 years)	---
Warring against God's people	made war with the saints and prevailed against them	---	makes war with the saints and overcomes them	this woman (apostate church) is drunk with the blood of the saints - in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
Great Power	looks more stout than his fellows	has all power, signs and lying wonders	who is able to make war with him?	the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.
Demands Divine Homage	sets himself over the saints, times, and laws of the most high	sets himself up as God, above all that is worshipped	causes multitudes to worship him	this woman is the apostate "mother" of harlot churches
End	they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end (the second coming)	the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:	cast into the lake of fire	utterly burned with fire

HISTORICISM
Now if we list and develop the above characteristics of antichrist, the following becomes readily apparent:
1. It will rise to be a great power after the fall of the pagan Roman empire (after 476 A.D.).
2. It will be a geographically small nation (a little horn).
3. It will rule over many people, nations, and tongues (it will be universal).
4. It will be headquartered in the city of seven hills, Rome.
5. It will be a religio-political entity — a political city-state ruled by a priest-king.
6. Its priest-king will make great and blasphemous claims.
7. It will claim authority over all kings.
8. It will claim its power to change the holy times and laws of God as its mark of authority.
9. It will be an apostate church, that makes the nations drink her cup of apostate doctrine.
10. It will be a "mother" church, with apostate daughters coming from her.
11. It will be a persecuting power, killing the faithful saints of Jesus Christ as heretics.
12. It will hold power and authority for 1260 years following the fall of pagan Rome.
13. It will suffer a deadly wound that will end 1260 years of dominance and persecution.
14. It will be revived after the deadly wound, and all the world will wonder at it's revival.
In this the "Historical" interpretation, the antichrist was clearly not merely a single individual, it was a system of apostasy and persecution that would hold sway for over twelve centuries. The inevitable conclusion of those who studied these prophesies in scripture, before and during the Protestant Reformation, was that there was only one entity that fit all the above characteristics: the papal dynasty of the Roman Catholic Church. Is it any wonder that the Catholic Church was so violently opposed to the scriptures being available for everyone to read for themselves? There was such a stir created during the reformation that the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17 A.D.) resorted to strictly forbidding anyone to publish a book without prior censorship, and also prohibited anyone from preaching on the subject of antichrist:
SESSION 10, 4 May 1515, On censorship of books:
... "some printers have the boldness to print and sell to the public, in different parts of the world, books — some translated into Latin from Greek, Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldean as well as some issued directly in Latin or a vernacular language — containing errors opposed to the faith as well as pernicious views contrary to the Christian religion and to the reputation of prominent persons of rank. The readers are not edified. Indeed, they lapse into very great errors not only in the realm of faith but also in that of life and morals. This has often given rise to various scandals, as experience has taught, and there is daily the fear that even greater scandals are developing." ...
... "We therefore establish and ordain that henceforth, for all future time, no one may dare to print or have printed any book or other writing of whatever kind in Rome or in any other cities and dioceses, without the book or writings having first been closely examined, at Rome by our vicar and the master of the sacred palace, in other cities and dioceses by the bishop or some other person who knows about the printing of books and writings of this kind and who has been delegated to this office by the bishop in question, and also by the inquisitor of heresy for the city or diocese where the said printing is to take place, and unless the books or writings have been approved by a warrant signed in their own hand, which must be given, under pain of excommunication, freely and without delay."
"In addition to the printed books being seized and publicly burnt, payment of a hundred ducats to the fabric of the basilica of the prince of the apostles in Rome, without hope of relief, and suspension for a whole year from the possibility of engaging in printing, there is to be imposed upon anyone presuming to act otherwise the sentence of excommunication." ...
SESSION 11, 19 December 1516, On how to preach:
... "We command all who undertake this task of preaching, or will later undertake it, to preach and expound the gospel truth and holy scripture in accordance with the exposition, interpretation and commentaries that the church or long use has approved and has accepted for teaching until now, and will accept in the future, without any addition contrary to its true meaning or in conflict with it. They are always to insist on the meanings which are in harmony with the words of sacred scripture and with the interpretations, properly and wisely understood, of the doctors mentioned above. They are in no way to presume to preach or declare a fixed time for future evils, the coming of antichrist or the precise day of judgment; for Truth says, it is not for us to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed by his own authority. Let it be known that those who have hitherto dared to declare such things are liars, and that because of them not a little authority has been taken away from those who preach the truth." ...
But the Catholic Church eventually came to the conclusion that it would not be able to ban or burn all the Bibles, heretical books, and heretics that possessed or preached from them. This oppressive and crude tactic merely confirmed their identification as the harlot persecuting church of prophecy. A new and more subtle approach was needed in order to effectively counter the application of apocalyptic prophecy to the Catholic Church.

One major identifying characteristic the Catholic Church needed to deal with was the time period of 1260 years that the antichrist power was to rule, according to Protestantism's Historicist interpretation. There simply is only one entity on earth that has ruled for this length of time after the fall of pagan Rome, and that is the Roman Catholic Church (See also Time, Times, and Half a Time? and The Red Dragon and Rome).
A new "interpretation" would have to be found that deflected attention away from the twelve century papal rule of the middle ages. This would fulfill the prophecy of Dan 7:25, that the little horn power would think to change the prophetic set times of the most High, just like king Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon thought to change the prophetic vision of the statue man in Daniel chapter 2, by building an all gold statue in chapter 3. The little horn, Mystery Babylon, would in like manner, try to deny and obscure the meaning of prophecy.

FUTURISM

Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries on Revelation. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse 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. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, 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.

So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time, in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of antichrist into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years.

Recently reprinted: A treatise of Antichrist. Conteyning the defence of Cardinall Bellarmines arguments, which inuincibly demonstrate, that the pope is not Antichrist. Against George Downam by Michael Christopherson priest ..., Volume 1 of 2 by Michael Walpole (1570-1624?), a 1974 reprint of a 1613 edition, by Scolar Press Limited, Ilkley, England, ISBN 0859672042.

Manuel De Lacunza (1731–1801), a Jesuit from Chile, wrote a manuscript in Spanish titled La Venida del Mesías en Gloria y Magestad ("The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty"), under the pen name of Juan Josafa [Rabbi] Ben-Ezra about 1791. Lacunza wrote under an assumed Jewish name to obscure the fact that he was a Catholic, in order to give his book better acceptance in Protestantism, his intended audience. Also an advocate of Futurism, Lacunza was deliberately attempting to take the pressure off the papacy by proposing that the Antichrist was still off in the future. His manuscript was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris between 1811 and 1826.
La Venida del Mesías en Gloria y Magestad online at the National Library of Chile (in Spanish).
Edward Irving (1792-1834), a Scottish Presbyterian and forerunner of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, translated Lacunza's work from Spanish into English in a book titled The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty with a Preliminary Discourse, published in London in 1827 by L.B. Seeley & Sons, which included Irving's own lengthy preface. Here are excerpts from Irving's translation:
Lacunza asserts that Antichrist would appear near the end of time:
That there shall be an Antichrist; that he shall be revealed, and publicly declared, towards the last times; and that he shall commit in the world the greatest evils, making formal war against Christ, and all that pertains to him; —these are three certain things, of which no Christian can doubt. -- Vol. I, Part II, Phenomenon III, pg. 259.
Antichrist, Lacunza concludes, would not be just one man:
ACCORDING to all the signs given in the Holy Scriptures, and others, not equivocal, offered to us by time, which is wont to be the best interpreter of the prophecies, the antichrist, or the contrachrist, with whom we stand threatened in the times immediate upon the coming of the Lord, is nothing but a moral body, composed of innumerable individuals, diverse in themselves, but all morally united and animated with one common spirit, against the Lord and against his Christ; -- Vol. I, Part II, Phenomenon III, pg. 260.
As to the harlot woman riding the beast in Revelation 17, Lacunza acknowledges it is indeed referring to Rome:
... the doctors do all agree, that the woman here spoken of is the city of Rome, in other times the capital of the greatest empire in the world, and now the capital and centre of unity of the true Christian church. On this first point, which is not called in question, there is no occasion to tarry. -- Vol. I, Part II, Phenomenon III, pg. 288.
... it is not present Rome which is at all spoken of here, but future Rome alone to which the prophecy hath its determinate application. -- Vol. I, Part II, Phenomenon III, pg. 295.
Rome yes, Lacunza agrees, but not the Roman Catholic Church of his day, which he calls the true church, rather he pushes this prophecy in Revelation 17 off into the future:
Rome, not idolatrous but Christian, not the head of the Roman empire but the head of Christendom, and centre of unity of the true church of the living God, may very well, without ceasing from this dignity, at some time or other incur the guilt, and before God be held guilty of fornication with the kings of the earth, and amenable to all its consequences. And in this there is not any inconsistency, however much her defenders may shake the head. And this same Rome, in that same state, may receive upon herself the horrible chastisement spoken of in the prophecy; -- Vol. I, Part II, Phenomenon III, pg. 296.
This apostate Christian group termed Antichrist would be:
... slain and destroyed by Christ himself in the great day of his coming in glory and majesty. -- Vol. I, Part II, Phenomenon IV, pg. 321.

Edward Irving's translation of Lacunza's
Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty

Volume I in Adobe 6 PDF format. (1.4 mb)
Volume II in Adobe 6 PDF format. (1.4 mb)
Both Volumes I & II revised on 28 July 2003.
Margaret McDonald, a 15 year old Scottish girl, and member of Edward Irving's congregation, had visions in early 1830 that included a Secret Rapture of believers before the appearance of the Antichrist. She informed Irving of her visions by letter. Irving then attended the prophecy conferences that began in Dublin Ireland in 1830 at Powerscourt Castle, where he promoted both Futurism and a Secret Rapture.
Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792-1866), scholar and librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, further promoted and established Futurism in England after 1826, as a result of reading the work of Manuel De Lacunza.
John Nelson Darby (1800–1882), a Church of Ireland clergyman, later with the Plymouth Brethren, also promoted Futurism and a secret rapture. Darby attended the series of meetings on Bible Prophecy that began in 1830 at Powerscourt, Ireland, and at these conferences Darby apparently learned about the secret rapture as revealed by vision to Margaret McDonald, and promoted by Edward Irving, and he soon visited Margaret MacDonald at her home in Port Glasgow, Scotland. Darby later visited America several times between 1859 and 1874, where his Futurist theology was readily accepted.
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875), formerly with the Plymouth Brethren, he became Presbyterian, and published The Hope Of Christ's Second Coming in 1864, in which he gave the following testimony on the origin of the secret rapture:
"I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there would be a secret rapture of the Church at a secret coming, until this was given forth as an "utterance" in Mr. Irving’s Church, from what was there received as being the voice of the Spirit. But whether any one ever asserted such a thing or not, it was from that supposed revelation that the modern doctrine and the modern phraseology respecting it arose. It came not from Holy Scripture, but from that which falsely pretended to be the Spirit of God, while not owning the true doctrine of our Lord’s incarnation in the same flesh and blood as His brethren, but without taint of sin." -- Footnote 1 for Chapter 9, pg 35.
Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), greatly influenced by the writings of J. N. Darby, incorporated Futurism in the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible. First published by Oxford University Press in 1909, one million copies were printed by 1930. The Scofield Bible was instrumental in firmly establishing the Jesuit inspired Futurist interpretation in the Protestant Bible schools of the United States in the 20th century.
The Jesuit Inspired Futurist Lie Spreads
To America's Protestant Seminaries
These seminaries and ministries have wholly abandoned the historical Protestant and biblical teaching that the Roman Catholic Church is the apostate church, the harlot of Revelation, with the Antichrist papacy at its head, and instead serve to screen the papal Antichrist power from being perceived by their students or viewers. They are accurately described as false prophets!
Dallas Theological Seminary (a nondenominational Protestant school): Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952), a student of Cyrus Scofield, founded Evangelical Theological College (now DTS) in 1924, which is likely the most influential seminary in the United States today. Futurism, and the secret rapture (which they call the blessed hope), are covered in articles 18-20 of the DTS Full Doctrinal Statement.

Some of the more well known alumni and faculty of DTS:

John Walvoord (Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology, President of Dallas Theological Seminary from 1952 to 1986, Chancellor of DTS since 1986), author of The Rapture Question (1957), and member of the revision committee for The New Scofield Reference Bible.
Chuck Swindoll (Insight for Living), President of Dallas Theological Seminary since July of 1994.
Charles C. Ryrie (Professor Emeritus Dallas Theological Seminary), author of The Ryrie Study Bible, which has been characterized as the updated Scofield Reference Bible for the end of the twentieth century.
Hal Lindsey, (hallindsey.com - hallindseyoracle.com) author of The Rapture: Truth or Consequences (1983), perhaps the best known prophecy author of the last 30 years. Sole credited Bible authority for Trinity Broadcasting's recent Futurist antichrist movie Omega Code.
J. Vernon McGee (1904-1988), Through the Bible Radio series.
Kenneth N. Taylor (former director of Moody Press, founder of Tyndale House Publishing), author of The Living Bible. Tyndale House publishes the hugely popular Left Behind Futurist series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins.
Thomas Ice (Executive Director of the Pre-trib Research Center), Th.M. from DTS, co-founder of Pre-trib Research Center with Tim LaHaye.
Renald Showers, Most High God: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel.

Moody Bible Institute of Chicago: In 1890, C. I. Scofield began a Comprehensive Bible Correspondence Course, later taken over about 1914 by the Moody Bible Institute (Dwight. L. Moody, founder of the Moody Church, had converted Scofield, and Scofield preached and presided at Moody's funeral in 1899).

Moody Press supplied Sunday School lessons to the Assembly of God churches about 1914, introducing Pentecostals to Futurism and the secret rapture theory.
The Ryrie Study Bible, by Charles C. Ryrie, a graduate Dallas Theological Seminary, boasts 10,000+ study notes and is listed among the best selling books published by Moody Press.
Jerry B. Jenkins, co-author of the Left Behind series, is the former vice president for publishing of Moody Bible Institute, and former editor of Moody Magazine. Currently he is Moody Bible Institute's writer-at-large.

Western Theological Seminary (Reformed Church in America).

Alma Mater of Tim LaHaye, founder of the Pre-trib Research Center, co-author of the Left Behind series of books, by far the most popular series promoting Futurism and the secret rapture, which has sold 20+ million copies. Published by Tyndale House, at least 12 titles are planned for the series. The film version of the first book in the series has been produced by prophecy authors Peter and Paul Lalonde of Cloud Ten Pictures. Released first on video cassette, and then in theaters in early 2001, people who have seen Left Behind say it is confusing, and lacks a Gospel presentation of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, making it of little (if any) evangelistic value, much like TBN's Omega Code and Megiddo (Omega Code II).

Tim LaHaye School of Prophecy - opens in January 2002 on the campus of Liberty University
Lynchburg, V.A., Dr. Jerry Falwell - Chancellor. Tim LaHaye says he was impressed by the prophecy conferences of Albury Park and Powerscourt held in Britain in the 1820's and 1830's and this led directly to his co-founding the Pre-trib Research Center. Edward Irving and J. N. Darby attended, and apparently greatly influenced, these 19th century British prophecy conferences where the secret rapture and futurism gained in acceptance among Protestant prophecy scholars.
Well known ministries teaching Futurism and the Secret Rapture:
Trinity Broadcasting - perhaps the largest Christian TV Broadcasting Network, TBN has produced two futurist themed movies: Omega Code and Megiddo (Omega Code II). TBN also airs the following movies with end-times, secret rapture / futurism themes:
The Moment After - TMA Productions.
Two FBI agents investigate the reason for the sudden mysterious disappearance of millions of people.
The Gathering - DRC Productions.
Two unbelieving women and a believing husband have disturbing visions of the impending tribulation and sudden rapture of Christians.
End of the Harvest - Christiano Film Group.
A college student, who experiences strange dreams of a farmer harvesting wheat, reluctantly defends end-time Bible prophecy when another student fails to give the presentation to a group of die-hard atheists in a philosophy club. Subtly promotes spiritualism (communications from the dead).
Jack Van Impe Ministries - Author of The Jack Van Impe Prophecy Bible and a verse-by-verse commentary on the book of Revelation entitled Revelation Revealed. On his TV program, Jack claims that God Himself has shown him the error of previous Bible interpreters and given him the absolutely correct interpretation of the book of Revelation. Producer of the following futurist-themed movies:
Apocalypse I: Caught in the Eye of the Storm.
Apocalypse II: Revelation.
Apocalypse III: Tribulation.
Apocalypse IV: Judgment.

Jerry Falwell Ministries - heavily promotes the Tim LaHaye School of Bible Prophecy, which opened in January 2002 on the campus of Falwell's Liberty University.

John Hagee Ministries - Offers the John Hagee Prophecy Study Bible, billed as "the only Prophecy Study Bible of its kind", with over 300 pages of Bible Prophecy study notes and having unique Bible Prophecy charts. John Hagee has strongly promoted the Left Behind books and movie with hour long infomercial TV programs.

The King is Coming, World Prophetic Ministry, Colton, California, Ed Hindson President. Founded by Dr. Howard C. Estep (1916-1986), author of The Catching Away (1967). Committed to the literal interpretation of the Bible. Dr. Dave Breese, former President of W.P.M. and Teacher on "The King is Coming." referred to Scofield's margin notes when teaching the Futurist interpretation of Daniel's 70 weeks on The King is Coming. Contributed to the Tim LaHaye Study Bible, billed as "the most complete study Bible ever!". Tim LaHaye has been guest speaker for a series of programs on the "The King is Coming".

Grant R. Jeffrey (Prophecy Online)

Hilton Sutton World Ministries

Zola Levitt - Zola Levitt Ministries "holds to a strictly literal and inerrant Bible interpretation, salvation through Christ alone, a soon pre-tribulation Rapture of all believers and the establishment of a thousand-year kingdom on Earth."

John Ankerberg (Ankerberg Theological Research Institute), (Harbor Lighthouse)

Perry Stone (Manna Fest), Founder and President of Voice of Evangelism Ministries Inc.

Chuck Missler (Koinonia House). Questions Continue: The Great Snatch?

Dave Hunt (The Berean Call) - author of A Woman Rides the Beast, remarkably enough, teaches the secret rapture and future antichrist.

PRETERISM

Another counter-interpretation to the Historicism held by Protestantism was proposed by the Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613), who also wrote a commentary called Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse, which ran to some 900 pages. In it he proposed that it all of Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome and the first six centuries of Christianity. According to Alcazar (or Alcasar):

Revelation chapters 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Revelation chapters 12 - 19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the great harlot) and the conversion of the empire to the church.
Revelation 20 describe the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified as Cæsar Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
Revelation 21 -22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, Alcazar found no application of prophecy to the middle ages or to the papacy. That his interpretation differed so greatly from that put forth by Francisco Ribera or Cardinal Bellarmine, mattered little. Catholicism, the supposedly divine and infallible interpreter of scripture, was presenting two vastly different and quite incompatible interpretations of prophecy in a desperate effort to counter the claims of the reformers.
THE GREAT CATHOLIC DIVERSION REVEALED

The intent of both Futurism and Preterism was to be diversionary, to counter or offset the Protestant Historical interpretation, and present alternatives, no matter how implausible they might be. The result is evident from the following chart, which illustrates the three schools of interpretation regarding antichrist:

THE REIGN OF ANTICHRIST

ANTICHRIST IS MOVED EITHER FORWARD OR BACKWARD IN TIME

Ribera's Futurism Puts the Antichrist Into A Future Three and One-half Literal Years.
Alcazar's Preterism Identifies the Antichrist as Nero.
Both of Them Put Antichrist Outside the Middle Ages and the Reformation Period,
Identified by Protestant Historicists as Antichrist's Reign of 1260 Prophetic Years.

Now the truly amazing part of all this is that the Futurist theory dominates Protestant teaching today. About all you hear or read about today is the yet-to-appear antichrist, who will be unveiled in the last 3 1/2 years of Daniel's 70th week, when he declares himself to be God in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. That scenario, as you can now see, is directly traceable back to the pen of the Jesuit Francisco Ribera. Note what one Protestant writer had to say over one hundred years ago:
    Next we come to consider the time of the rise of the Futurist system as we now have it, and the occasion which led to it.
    So great a 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 endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men's minds from perceiving the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system. The Jesuit Alcasar devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method of interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus endeavoured to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled in 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 be making 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."
From Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation, by Joseph Tanner, published in London by Hodder and Stoughton, 1898, pages 16,17.
In what could only be described as a stunning reversal, Protestants have over time actually become the papacy's greatest ally by spreading its Jesuit spawned propaganda. What irony that Protestants, who originally broke away from what they clearly recognized to be the harlot antichrist led church of prophecy, now champion the Futurist interpretation from high profile global ministries. Futurism has without doubt, been successful beyond the wildest dreams of its Jesuit authors. The same can be said for the Preterist interpretation of Luis De Alcazar, although to a lesser degree.
What Does The Word VATICAN Mean?
Papal Claims To Authority
The Red Dragon and Rome
Daniel's 70th week
Left Behind by the Jesuits
The above article is based primarily on information obtained from The PROPHETIC FAITH OF OUR FATHERS, The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, by Le Roy Edwin Froom, Volume II, Pre-Reformation and Reformation Restoration, and Second Departure, published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington D.C., Copyright 1948, Chapters 21-23 in particular.

House Built Upon the Rock Jesus Christ

To the Law and to the Testimony, if they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no Light in them. Isaiah 8:20