Jesuit Eschatology and the American Pulpit

This is chapter 4 of The Effect of the Jesuit Eschatologies on America Today – by Dr. Ronald Cooke

Eschatology is the doctrine of last things, from the Greek word ESCHATOS meaning last. It is usually the last doctrine studied in Systematic theology. However, we are dealing with it in this study because of the great impact that the Jesuit eschatologies have made upon almost all of Protestant and non-catholic teachers today in North America. I now use the term non-catholic because there are so few Protestants left. With the demise of Protestant eschatology the field of eschatology is now dominated by the Jesuits.

Malachi Martin speaks of the Jesuits going everywhere, even where they were not welcome, and also underground, and in disguise. So it is not a far reach then to say that Jesuits went into Protestant schools in disguise as Protestant teachers. Certainly Jesuit teachings have spread far and wide in Protestant academic circles today.

For example, Clarence Larkin, the Dispensational writer, tells of how Jesuit eschatology was at first only followed by Roman Catholics, but then was wonderfully revived among Protestants.

In its present form (that is Futurism in its present form) it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit (Francisco) Ribera, who actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit (Luis) Alcasar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the “Antichrist,” and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church, and was FOR A LONG TIME CONFINED TO IT, but STRANGE TO SAY, it has been WONDERFULLY REVIVED since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that AMONG PROTESTANTS. ¹ (emphasis added)

Three things need to be noted here with regard to Larkin’s statement.

1. The Roman Catholic church wanted to rid itself of the stigma that the Reformers, and most of the Puritans, had branded her with: that the papacy was the Antichrist.

2, The Jesuit scholars did this by either putting Antichrist off into the future. This was done by the Jesuit Francisco Ribera; or by putting Antichrist back into the first century only. This was done by the Jesuit Luis Aleasar.

3. The wonderful revival of Rivera’s antichrist at the beginning of the nineteenth century was brought about by a third Jesuit, Emanuel Lacunza.

Larkin briefly mentions the position of the Protestant Reformers on the Man of Sin. He notes that,

They claim that “Antichrist” is a “System” rather than a “Person,” and is represented by the Harlot Church of Rome. This School has had some very able and ingenious advocates. This view was unknown to the early church… It was adopted and applied to the Pope by the forerunners and leaders of the Reformation… It is frequently called the Protestant interpretation because it regards Popery as exhausting all that has been predicted of the Antichristian power. Tt was a powerful and formidable weapon in the hands of the leaders of the Reformation, and the conviction of its truthfulness nerved them to “love not their lives unto the death.” It was the secret of the martyr heroism of the Sixteenth Century. ²

Larkin mentions that this view was unknown to the early church. This is true. Some of the Reformers note that the early church was already overrun by many of the seeds of what became known as popery. The true gospel was lost very early in many churches. The Galatians were already in danger of perverting the gospel when Paul wrote to them.

The Reformers and the Puritans set forth the Man of Sin as a kingdom or empire. They certainly had the words of Daniel the Prophet to back up what they believed, as we will see in more detail later. Whereas those who claim that the Man of Sin is one man must go against the clear teaching of Scripture when they do.