The Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s prophecies regarding the Antichrist to the Roman Catholic Church. All the reformers’ studies pointed the finger directly at the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist power described in Daniel as the “little horn.”
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, answered Papacy’s call. Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the little horn, the man of sin, and the beast of Revelation.
He then developed the doctrine of futurism. His explanation was that the prophecies apply only to a single sinister man who will arise up at the end of time. Rome quickly adopted this viewpoint as the Church’s official position on the Antichrist.
In 1590 Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation to the end time rather than to the history of the church. Antichrist, he taught, would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and who would rebuild Jerusalem.1
Ribera denied the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God-asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther, and many reformers. He set on an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God.2
The result of [Ribera’s] work was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth.3
Following close behind Francisco Ribera was another brilliant Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine of Rome (1542-1621). Between 1581-1593, Cardinal Bellarmine agreed with Ribera in his work Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of this Time.
The futurist teachings of Ribera were further popularized by an Italian cardinal and the most renowned Jesuit controversialists. His writings claimed that Paul, Daniel, and John had nothing whatsoever to say about the Papal power. The futurists’ school won general acceptance among
Catholics. They were taught that antichrist was a single individual who would not rule until the very end of time.4
Through the work of these two clever Jesuit scholars, Jesuit futurism was born.
For almost 300 years after the Council of Trent, Jesuit futurism remained largely within Catholicism, but the plan of the Jesuits was that Protestants would adopt this doctrine. This adoption process actually began in the early 1800s in England, and from there it spread to America.
The story of how this happened is both fascinating and tragic. Many individuals were genuine Christians but unknowingly became channels of error.
The Futurism of Ribera never posed a positive threat to Protestants worldwide for three centuries. It did stop the Reformation in Eastern Europe. However, largely, it was virtually confined to the Roman Church. But earlier in the nineteenth century it sprang forth with vehemence as it latched on to Protestants of the Established Church of England.5
Key Players
Dr. Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792-1866), a lawyer and Bible scholar, became a librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1826 he published a book attacking the Reformation and supporting Ribera’s idea of a future one-man Antichrist. For the next ten years, in tract after tract, he continued his anti-Reformation rhetoric. As a result of his zeal and strong attacks against the Reformation, the Protestantism of England—the very nation that produced the King James Bible in 1611—received a crushing blow.
After Maitland came James H. Todd, a professor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin. Todd accepted the futuristic ideas of Maitland, publishing his own supportive pamphlets and books.
Then came John Henry Newman (1801-1890), a member of the Church of England and a leader of the famous Oxford movement. In 1850, Newman wrote his Letter on Anglican Difficulties, revealing that one of his goals in the Oxford movement was to absorb “the various English denominations and parties” back into the Church of Rome. After publishing a pamphlet endorsing Todd’s futurism about a one-man Antichrist, Newman became a Roman Catholic, and later even a highly-honored cardinal.
Through the influence of Maitland, Todd, Newman, and others, a definite “Romeward movement was already arising, destined to sweep away the old Protestant landmarks, as with a flood.”6
As the doctrine of futurism was spreading across Europe,
The much-respected Scottish Presbyterian minister Edward Irving
(1792-1834), the acknowledged forerunner of both the Pentecostal and
charismatic movements, came onto the scene. Irving pastored the large
Chalcedonian Chapel in London with over 1000 members.
When Irving turned to the prophecies, he eventually accepted the one-man
Antichrist ideas of Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera. But Irving
went a step further. Around 1830, Edward Irving began to teach the
unique idea of a two-phase return of Christ, the first phase being a secret rapture prior to the rise of the Antichrist.
In the midst of this growing anti-Protestant climate in England arose
John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). A brilliant lawyer, pastor, and
theologian, Darby wrote more than 50 books on Bible subjects. A
much-respected Christian and a man of deep piety, he took a strong stand
in favor of the infallibility of the Bible in contrast with the
liberalism of his day.
However, John Nelson Darby, like Edward Irving, also became a strong
promoter of a pre-tribulation rapture followed by a one-man Antichrist.
In fact, his teaching has become a hallmark of dispensationalism.
John Nelson Darby laid much of the foundation for the present popular idea of removing Daniel’s seventieth week from its historical context in the time of Jesus Christ and applying it to a future tribulation after the rapture.
In spite of all the positives of his ministry, Darby followed Maitland,
Todd, Bellarmine, and Ribera by incorporating the teachings of futurism
into his theology. Thus, a link was created between John Nelson
Darby—the father of dispensationalism—and the Jesuit Francisco Ribera—the
father of futurism. Darby visited America six times between 1859 and
1874, preaching in all of its major cities, during which time he planted
the seeds of futurism in American soil.
One of the most important figures in the spread of these false doctrines is Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921),
a lawyer from Kansas who was greatly influenced by the writings of
Darby. In 1909, Scofield published the first edition of his famous
Scofield Reference Bible.
Throughout the 20th century, futurism and dispensationalism became popular through books marketed to Christians.
The Scofield Bible
In the early 1900s, the Scofield Bible became so popular among American
Protestants that it was necessary to print millions of copies. Yet, in
the much-respected footnotes of this very Bible, Scofield injected large
doses of futurism also found in the writings of Darby, Todd, Maitland,
Bellarmine, and Ribera.
Through the Scofield Bible, Jesuit futurism spread successfully across
America. The doctrine of an Antichrist still to come was becoming firmly
established inside twentieth-century American Protestantism.
The Late Great Planet Earth
The Moody Bible Institute and the Dallas Theological Seminary have
strongly supported the teachings of John Nelson Darby, and this has
continued to fuel futurism’s growth. Then in the 1970s, pastor Hal
Lindsey, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, released his
blockbuster book The Late Great Planet Earth. This volume brought futurism to the masses of American Christianity and beyond. The New York Times
labeled it, “The number one bestseller of the decade.” Over 30 million
copies have been sold, and it has been translated into more than 30
languages.
The Left Behind Series
Then cameLeft Behind. In the 1990s, Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins took the future one-man Antichrist idea of Lindsey, Scofield, Darby, Irving, Newman, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, and turned it into “The most successful Christian-fiction series ever,” according to Publishers Weekly.
Hal Lindsey’s book was largely theological, which limited its appeal, while Left Behind is a sequence of highly imaginative novels. According to Entertainment Weekly,
the series is “overflowing with suspense, action and adventure,” a
“Christian thriller” with a label its creators could never have
predicted: “blockbuster success.”
The television ministries of Jack Van Impel, Peter and Paul Lalonde, and Pastor John Hagee have all worked together to produce Left Behind: The Movie. The entire project has even caught the attention of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, resulting in an interview of Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins on Larry King Live.
The authors of Left Behind and the leaders of these television
ministries are genuine Christians who are doing their best to influence
people for God’s Kingdom. Yet, in the full light of Scripture, prophecy,
and the Protestant Reformation, something is terribly wrong.
Left Behind teaches much of the same Jesuit futurism of Francisco Ribera, hiding the real truth about the Antichrist. Through Left Behind,
the floodgates of futurism have been opened, unleashing a massive tidal
wave of false prophecy, which is now sweeping over America.
As we have already seen, the theological foundation for the entire Left Behind series is the application of the seven years of Daniel 9:27 to a future period of tribulation. This separates the 70th week away from the first 69 weeks in the 70-week prophecy, putting it at the end of time. Remember, one of the first people to do this was Jesuit Francisco Ribera:
Ribera’s primary apparatus was the seventy weeks. He taught that
Daniel’s seventieth week was still in the future…It was as though God
put a giant rubber band on this Messianic time measure. Does this
supposition sound familiar? This is exactly the scenario used by Hal
Lindsey and a multitude of other current prophecy teachers.7
When most Christians look at the last 1500 years, how much fulfilled prophecy do they see? None. Because almost everything is now being applied to a future time period after the rapture.
As we have seen,
this idea of separating the weeks originated with the Jesuits, and its
insertion into the majority of 21st-century prophetic teaching is now
blinding millions of hearts and eyes to what has happened and is
happening in the Church.
It is this theory that permeates Futurism’s interpretation of all apocalyptic prophecy.8Jesuit futurism
has now become like a 300-pound boxer with spiked gloves. With an
apparently all-powerful punch, it has almost knocked Protestant
historicism entirely out of the ring:
The proper eschatological term for the view most taught today is
futurism…which fuels the confusion of dispensationalism. The futuristic
school of Bible prophecy came from the Roman Catholic Church,
specifically her Jesuit theologians…However the alternative has been
believed for centuries. It is known as historicism.9
It is a matter of 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.10
Who had the right theology—those who were burned at the stake for Jesus Christ or those who lit the fires?
Who had the true Bible doctrine—the martyrs or their persecutors?
Who had the correct interpretation of the Antichrist—those who died trusting in the blood of Christ or those who shed the blood of God’s dear saints?
Jesuit futurism’s aim is to deny the Protestant Reformation’s application of prophecy, giving the Vatican an alternative doctrine:
The futurist school of Bible prophecy was created for one reason and one reason only: to counter the Protestant Reformation!11
In fact, Jesuit futurism is at war with the prophecies of the Word of
God itself. And if that’s not enough, consider this: Jesuit futurism
originated with the Roman Catholic Church, which makes it the very
doctrine of the Antichrist. When Christian ministries and movies like A Thief in the Night, Apocalypse, Revelation, Tribulation, and Left Behind: The Movie
proclaim an Antichrist who comes only after the rapture, what are they
really doing? They are sincerely and unknowingly teaching the doctrine
of the Antichrist.
We live in a time when obedience is characterized as legalism, prophecy
is viewed as some sort of optional study because no one can accurately
understand it, and the love of Jesus over rides any rational reasoning,
essentially voiding the Word of God.
Along with the relativistic attitude so popular today, it is no wonder
that, according to a Barna Group study, 55% of American pastors do not
believe in the Bible anymore as the unerring Word of God.
While the
Bible has its good points, they say, it is not to be taken too
literally.
The sad truth is, however, that rarely does a congregation rise much
above the pastor or church leadership. Most people simply accept what
comes from the pulpit without checking its accuracy in the Word of God.
We are no longer people of the Book. Instead we follow the majority.
There is a perceived safety in numbers. The majority of Christians can’t
be wrong, can they? Hasn’t God appointed these pastors to their
positions? But sadly, church leadership throughout Bible history has
often been wrong.
Although futurism may be a comforting doctrine, it demands a faith that
has no justification or fulfillment in the Bible or any history book.
The Bible must be its own expositor. Letting the Bible explain itself
allows for no other private interpretation. The Bible calls itself a
double-edged sword:
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12 NKJV).
God loves everyone and calls us to love everyone
It is never comfortable to have error exposed—not to the one having to
say it nor to the one listening. It is always much easier to compromise
or to say nothing. God has patience with each one us, and leads us to
truth as we are able. All Christians are growing as God leads them.
God loves everyone and calls us to love everyone as well. Part of loving
other is to speak the truth in love. We must accept the truth no matter
what others may think, and no matter how deep it cuts us (2 Thessalonians 2:10).
By Jim Holdeman. Jim writes from Oklahoma. If
you enjoyed this article, share it with a friend. To learn more, check out our media
site—Amazing Discoveries™ TV—or visit our webstore.
1. George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope. A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and Rapture (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1956): 37-38.
2. Ronald Charles Thompson, Champions of Christianity in Search of Truth (TEACH Services, 1996): 89.
3. Robert Caringola, Seventy Weeks: An Historical Alternative (Destiny Image Publishers, 1991): 32.
4. Ralph Woodrow, Great Prophecies of the Bible (1971): 198.
9. Robert Caringola, Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative (Abundant Life Ministries Reformed Press, 1991): 6.
10. Joseph Tanner, Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898): 16.
11. Robert Caringola, Seventy Weeks: The Historical Alternative (Abundant Life Ministries Reformed Press, 1991): 34.
"Be alert to give service. What counts a great deal in life is what we do for others."
Police officers stood outside the apartment of Dr. Craig Spencer on West 147th Street in Harlem on Thursday. Credit
Jennifer S. Altman for The New York Times
A doctor in New York City who recently returned from treating Ebola
patients in Guinea tested positive for the Ebola virus Thursday,
becoming the city’s first diagnosed case.
The doctor, Craig Spencer, was rushed to Bellevue Hospital on Thursday and
placed in isolation while health care workers spread out across the city
to trace anyone he might have come into contact with in recent days. A
further test will be conducted by the federal Centers for Disease
Control to confirm the initial test.
While officials have said they expected isolated cases of the disease to
arrive in New York eventually, and had been preparing for this moment
for months, the first case highlighted the challenges surrounding
containment of the virus, especially in a crowded metropolis.
Even as the authorities worked to confirm that Mr. Spencer was infected with
Ebola, it emerged that he traveled from Manhattan to Brooklyn on the
subway on Wednesday night, when he went to a bowling alley and then took
a taxi home.
The next morning, he reported having a temperature of 103 degrees, raising
questions about his health while he was out in public.
Photo
A photo of Dr. Spencer posted on his Facebook page.
A person infected with Ebola cannot spread the disease until they begin
to display symptoms, and it cannot be spread through the air. As the
person becomes sicker, the viral load in the body builds, and they
become more and more contagious.
Dr. Spencer’s travel history and the timing of the onset of his symptoms
led health officials to dispatch “disease detectives immediately began
to actively trace all of the patient’s contacts to identify anyone who
may be at potential risk,” according to a statement released by the department.
It was unclear if the city was trying to find people who might have come
into contact with Dr. Spencer on the subway. The Metropolitan
Transportation Authority directed all questions to the health
department, which did not immediately respond to requests for comment on
the issue.
At Dr. Spencer’s apartment in Harlem, his home was sealed off and workers
distributed informational fliers about the disease. It was not clear if
anyone was being quarantined.
Health authorities declined to say how many people in total might have come
into contact with Dr. Spencer while he was symptomatic.
Mayor Bill de Blasio, speaking at a press conference Thursday evening before
the diagnosis, said Dr. Spencer has given health workers a detailed
accounting of his activities over the last few days.
“Our understanding is that very few people were in direct contact with him,” Mr. de Blasio said.
Dr. Spencer had been working with Doctors Without Borders in Guinea,
treating Ebola patients, before returning to New York City on Oct. 14,
according to a city official.
Photo
A photograph of Dr. Spencer on his LinkedIn page.
He told the authorities that he did not believe the protective gear he
wore while working with Ebola patients had been breached but had been
monitoring his own health.
Doctors Without Borders, in a statement, said it provides guidelines for its
staff on their return from Ebola assignments, but did not elaborate on
those protocols.
“The individual engaged in regular health monitoring and reported this development immediately,” the group said in a statement.
Dr. Spencer began to feel sluggish on Tuesday but did not develop a fever
until Thursday morning, he told the authorities. At 11 a.m., the doctor
found that he had a 103-degree temperature and alerted the staff of
Doctors Without Borders, according to the official.
The staff of Doctors Without Borders called the city’s health department, which in turn called the Fire Department.
Emergency medical workers, wearing full personal protective gear, rushed to Dr.
Spencer’s apartment, on West 147th Street. He was transported to
Bellevue and arrived shortly after 1 p.m.
He was placed in a special isolation unit and is being seen by the
pre-designated medical critical care team. They are in personal
protective equipment with undergarment air ventilation systems.
Bellevue doctors have prepared for an Ebola patient with numerous drills and
tests using “test patients” as well as actual treatment of suspected
cases that turned out to be false alarms.
Photo
Bellevue Hospital has been designated the center for treatment of the Ebola virus in New York City. Credit
Joshua Bright for The New York Times
A health care worker at the hospital said that Dr. Spencer seemed very
sick and it was unclear to the medical staff why he had not gone to the
hospital earlier, since his fever was high, at 103.
Dr. Spencer is a fellow of international emergency medicine at
NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, and an
instructor in clinical medicine at Columbia University.
“He is a committed and responsible physician who always puts his patients
first,” the hospital said in a statement. “He has not been to work at
our hospital and has not seen any patients at our hospital since his
return from overseas.”
Even before the diagnosis, the federal Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention dispatched a team of experts to assist in the case, before
the test results were even known.
More than 30 people have gone to city hospitals and raised suspicions of
Ebola, but in all those cases, health workers were able to rule it out
without a blood test.
While the city stepped up its laboratory capacity so it can get test results
within four to six hours, because of the precautions that need to be
taken when drawing blood and treating a person possibly sick with Ebola,
it took until late in the evening to confirm the diagnosis.
But doctors said that even before the results came in, it seemed likely
that he was infected. Symptoms usually occur within eight to 10 days of
infection and Dr. Spencer was home nine days when he reported feeling
ill.
Ebola is transmitted through bodily fluids and secretions, including blood, mucus, feces and vomit.
Where the Patient Is Being Treated
A doctor, who was recently in West Africa treating Ebola
patients, was taken Thursday from his apartment in Harlem to Bellevue
Hospital Center after he reported a high fever.
The patient is in one of four isolation rooms
in the infectious disease ward on an upper floor of this building. The
rooms have been designated for high-probability or confirmed Ebola
cases. The ward also has a lab to handle Ebola blood samples.
Bellevue
Hospital
Center
Doctor’s
apartment
manhattan
Bellevue
Because of its high mortality rate — Ebola kills more than half of the people
it infects — the disease spreads fear along with infection.
The authorities have been on high alert ever since Thomas Eric Duncan
traveled to the United States in September from Liberia, and was later
given a diagnosis of Ebola.
Several days after his death, a nurse who helped care for Mr. Duncan learned
she had Ebola. Two nurses who treated Mr. Duncan fell ill but have since
recovered.
That single case led to hundreds of people being quarantined or being asked to remain isolated from the general public.
The missteps by both local and federal authorities in handling the nation’s
first Ebola case raised questions about the ability of health care
workers to safely treat those with the disease.
In the New York City region, hospitals and emergency workers have been preparing for the appearance of the virus for months.
Dr. Irwin Redlener, the director of the National Center for Disaster
Preparedness at Columbia University and a special adviser to Mayor de
Blasio, said that the risk to the general public was minimal, but
depended on a city moving swiftly.
“New York has mobilized not only a world class health department, but has
full engagement of many other agencies that need to be on the response
team,” he said.
Matt Flegenheimer, J. David Goodman, Kia Gregory and Anemona Hartocollis contributed reporting. Elisa Cho contributed research.
The only time Church Hierarchy or the Church Body should be able to vote on something is when Scripture remains silent on the subject! Scripture is unchangeable and not up to vote on by men!
Adventist Church Vice President Mike Ryan chairs Annual Council
on Tuesday, October 14 as delegates overwhelmingly voted to place an
item on the agenda of next year's General Conference Session asking if
regional divisions may allow women to be ordained as ministers. The vote
was 243 to 44, with 3 abstaining. [photo: Viviene Martinelli]
Annual Council asks Session to consider letting divisions decide on ordination
October 14, 2014 | Silver Spring, Maryland, United States | Edwin Manuel Garcia/ANN
The Seventh-day Adventist Church as early as next July may decide to take a historic vote on whether to allow women to be ordained ministers.
The decision to allow for a vote was made today by the General Conference Executive Committee at the Church’s world headquarters during the 2014 Annual Council. A vote on women’s ordination could put an end to—or further prolong—a decades-old debate that has threatened to divide the denomination, according to those on both sides of the issue.
With 243 votes in favor and 44 against, and at the end of daylong deliberation, the Executive Committee agreed to place the following question on the agenda of the 2015 General Conference Session in July, which sets policy for the entire Church:
"Whereas, The unity for which Jesus prayed is vitally important to the witness of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and;
"Whereas, The Seventh-day Adventist Church seeks to engage every member in its worldwide mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ among people from every nation, culture and ethnicity, and;
"Whereas, Various groups appointed by the General Conference and its divisions have carefully studied the Bible and Ellen G White writings with respect to the ordination of women and have not arrived at consensus as to whether ministerial ordination for women is unilaterally affirmed or denied, and;
"Whereas, The Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms that “God has ordained that the representatives of His Church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference Session, shall have authority”
"Therefore, The General Conference Executive Committee requests delegates in their sacred responsibility to God at the 2015 General Conference Session to respond to the following question:
"After your prayerful study on ordination from the Bible, the writings of Ellen G White, and the reports of the study commissions, and;
"After your careful consideration of what is best for the Church and the fulfillment of its mission,
"Is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No"[.]
If the question about the theology of ordination is put up for vote, and passes, then leaders in each of the church’s 13 world regions may decide whether to ordain women in their territory.
The proposal voted by the Executive Committee today was brought to the assembly floor as a recommendation from the Church’s top officials and could be considered a creative way of dealing with a thorny issue by taking a neutral-leaning stance.
Some proponents of women’s ordination voted in favor of the motion but expressed strong concerns that the proposal before the Executive Committee lacked a formal recommendation for or against ordination. Proponents fear the issue will carry less weight when the question comes up at the General Conference Session that meets July 2-11 in San Antonio, Texas, United States.
“I think this body needs to give direction to the world church,” said David Weigley, president of the North American Division’s Columbia Union Conference. “We are missing a golden opportunity to give direction. Leaders lead, they give direction,” he said.
“Based on what I see from the history of this particular issue, it seems that the Annual Council has always played a very prominent role in what is passed onto the GC session,” said Heather-Dawn Small, Women’s Ministries director for the Adventist world church. “I’ve seen from the past that what this Annual Council decides influences the GC Session.”
Today's Annual Council’s chairman, Vice President Mike Ryan, suggested that the recommendation needed to be unbiased, and that the ordination question was best suited for the delegation at Session.
More than 20 people spoke on varying sides of the issue.
Alberto C. Gulfan Jr., president of the Southern Asia-Pacific Division, said he appreciates the contribution of female evangelists, but that his region’s constituency “is not ready to move towards the ordination of women pastors.” He added: “We are also supporting this recommendation to bring this to the General Conference in Session and let the world decide on the issue once and for all.”
General Conference President Ted N. C. Wilson, who has opposed recent moves for women's ordination that have come before Annual Council, did not express his opinion during the meeting, but indicated before the discussion that he would be willing to adjust his stance.
“If this body accepts the recommendation to place a question before the General Conference Session and that Session after prayerful consideration and review votes something,” Wilson announced, “I pledge to you I will follow what the General Conference votes. I want to ask each of you to do the same.”
The discussion over women’s ordination began more than 130 years ago, according to Church archives, and has intensified since the 1970s, especially where members are calling for change, including the United States, parts of Europe, and the South Pacific. The General Conference Sessions in 1990 and 1995 voted down proposals that would have allowed women’s ordination, and the matter has not returned to a Session agenda since then.
However, at the 2010 Session in Atlanta, Georgia, United States, a delegate from the U.S. state of Pennsylvania made a request “for the Adventist Church to develop and articulate a theology of ordination.”
That question led to a commitment from General Conference leaders to open the discussion and appoint the Theology of Ordination Study Committee, or TOSC. The 106-member committee was asked to take a profound look at ordination and provide information to help the General Conference decide how to handle the matter.
TOSC’s response was a 127-page report that was the basis for today’s discussion.
The report acknowledged that committee members—who hailed from around the world and met four times, for several days each time—were unable to come to agreement on whether to support or oppose women’s ordination.
TOSC produced three separate statements to summarize members’ viewpoints. Those positions were then explained by three different scholars in a presentation before the Executive Committee; the statements also were printed in the TOSC report.
One position, labeled Statement No. 1, said that only men could be ordained throughout the world church. Statement No. 2 said that entities responsible for hiring pastors should be able to make their own decisions on whether to ordain female ministers. Statement No. 3 said the decision should be left to the leadership “at a proper level” to determine whether ordination “may be appropriate for their area or region.”
While the theology of ordination will be placed on the General Conference Session agenda, the measure’s outcome is far from certain. The nearly 2,600 voting delegates may decide to adopt, reject, or amend the proposal.
The Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s prophecies regarding the Antichrist to the Roman Catholic Church. All the reformers’ studies pointed the finger directly at the Roman Catholic Church as the Antichrist power described in Daniel as the “little horn.” 
Then came John Henry Newman (1801-1890), a member of the Church of England and a leader of the famous Oxford movement. In 1850, Newman wrote his Letter on Anglican Difficulties, revealing that one of his goals in the Oxford movement was to absorb “the various English denominations and parties” back into the Church of Rome. After publishing a pamphlet endorsing Todd’s futurism about a one-man Antichrist, Newman became a Roman Catholic, and later even a highly-honored cardinal. 
As the doctrine of futurism was spreading across Europe,
The much-respected Scottish Presbyterian minister Edward Irving
(1792-1834), the acknowledged forerunner of both the Pentecostal and
charismatic movements, came onto the scene. Irving pastored the large
Chalcedonian Chapel in London with over 1000 members. 
Then came Left Behind. In the 1990s, Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins took the future one-man Antichrist idea of Lindsey, Scofield, Darby, Irving, Newman, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, and turned it into “The most successful Christian-fiction series ever,” according to Publishers Weekly.
In fact, Jesuit futurism is at war with the prophecies of the Word of
God itself. And if that’s not enough, consider this: Jesuit futurism
originated with the Roman Catholic Church, which makes it the very
doctrine of the Antichrist. When Christian ministries and movies like A Thief in the Night, Apocalypse, Revelation, Tribulation, and Left Behind: The Movie
proclaim an Antichrist who comes only after the rapture, what are they
really doing? They are sincerely and unknowingly teaching the doctrine
of the Antichrist.
As the doctrine of futurism was spreading across Europe,
The much-respected Scottish Presbyterian minister Edward Irving
(1792-1834), the acknowledged forerunner of both the Pentecostal and
charismatic movements, came onto the scene. Irving pastored the large
Chalcedonian Chapel in London with over 1000 members. 
Then came Left Behind. In the 1990s, Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins took the future one-man Antichrist idea of Lindsey, Scofield, Darby, Irving, Newman, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, and turned it into “The most successful Christian-fiction series ever,” according to Publishers Weekly.
In fact, Jesuit futurism is at war with the prophecies of the Word of
God itself. And if that’s not enough, consider this: Jesuit futurism
originated with the Roman Catholic Church, which makes it the very
doctrine of the Antichrist. When Christian ministries and movies like A Thief in the Night, Apocalypse, Revelation, Tribulation, and Left Behind: The Movie
proclaim an Antichrist who comes only after the rapture, what are they
really doing? They are sincerely and unknowingly teaching the doctrine
of the Antichrist.
