Date: Sat, 11 Dec 99 12:01PM PST

From: "Rand Winburn" <rand@iconbusters.com>

To: "Stephen P. Haws" <sphaws@netscape.net>

Subject: Your Historicist View & New Web Page

Protestant Reformation Publications

Hello Steve,

How are you? Well, I'm finally able to review your work. I enjoyed your new web page very much. I believe you have a gift in organization. Your site is very well organized. It is a wealth of information - giving several sides to the issues. This is necessary to formulate any opinion. I'm curious - what line of work are you involved?

I'm glad you enjoyed my new page and thank you for the kind comment. Actually, I sometimes think my site is not all that well organized.

Let's deal with the "Mark of the Beast" issue.

"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 14:9-11 KJV

That's it then...we Catholics simply CANNOT be saved! It makes no difference whether we leave the Catholic Church; it makes no difference whether we convert to Protestantism; it makes no difference whether we accept your Historicist theory; it makes no difference how much we love God & Christ. We have the "Mark of the Beast" and cannot be saved - period!

There is no point in even TRYING to convert us. You would be better off directing your proselytization efforts at pagans.

Of course, David McAllister pointed this out in your debate. I notice that you did not respond or disagree.

That's because you cannot disagree.

But David McAllister didn't take the point far enough. Look at others who have the "Mark of the Beast": Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer, Knox and all of the other Reformers - as well as all of their original followers - all of whom were former Catholics who had received the "Mark of the Beast". None of these people can be saved, according to your view.

Yet these people, Calvin especially, you praise as having restored the "true Gospel" and having the Holy Spirit. How can that be, since they had the "Mark of the Beast"?

We're not finished yet. We have your own words:

The apostate evangelical Church takes the mark of the Beast in its right hand when it extends the right hand of fellowship to Antichrist and his false prophets.

These "apostate" Protestants simply cannot be saved and there is no point in even trying to evangelize them. Since you consider yourself a remnant, the "apostate" Protestant group must be very large indeed.

You face an awful dilemma, Rand. You are forced to either: 1) admit that Catholics, "apostate" Protestants and even the Reformers, all of whom have received the "Mark of the Beast", have no chance for salvation whatsoever, or; 2) admit that your Historicist theory is wrong.

The answer is self-evident. You, yourself, provide the answer by your praise and glory of the Reformers.

I'm so sorry to see your Christian life's work go up in fire and brimstone.

No, really, I am. ;)

That leaves only the Preterist and Futurist theories.

And my Historicist theory.

Historical "coincidence" is the stock of trade for all apocalyptic theories, perhaps none more so than in the Historicist theories. You rely extensively on "coincidence" to support your view.

You like coincidence as an argument and proof?

Then, my Protestant friend, prepare to have your mind blown as I further develop my Historicist theory:

********************

Gog & Magog possibly refer to Protestantism and the Enlightenment/Modernism.

Magog specifically represents a force from the North:

Where was Luther from? Where did the Reformation break out? Wittenberg, Germany. The Reformation broke out in Germany and its stronghold was in Northern Europe and England...the North!

A "coincidence"? Let's continue.

Possibly refers to Protestantism & the Enlightenment, which have in fact surrounded and batter at the Church built on Peter. Scene is one of siege; Church built on Peter has, since the Reformation, been described as a "fortress" Church. Another "coincidence"?

Satan, released from his 1,000 year bonds following the Middle Ages - the Age of Faith - goes on the attack. Musters Gog & Magog (Protestantism & Enlightenment/Modernism) to attack, surround, batter at and attempt to destroy the Church built on Peter. Counter-Reformation Church becomes a "fortress" Church. Titanic struggle is sometimes physical...but is mostly a spiritual war over men's souls.

Yet, "fortress" Counter-Reformation Church is strong compared with today. Gog & Magog (Protestantism & Modernism) not only surround and batter at Church built on Peter, they threaten to breach her walls and invade from within.

Church built on Peter under siege as never before.

********************

Well, what did you think?

Hey, I'm going to have to add this to my Historicist theory on my page. :)

______________________

According to my theory, we are already well into Revelation 20, verse 9.

Look up what comes next!

In reading your treatise, I was struck at your application of the fall of Mystery Babylon to the fall of the Roman Empire. That is a Preterist view, not Historicist. Preterists also use the fall of Jerusalem as their model of Mystery Babylon. There are several reasons why Historicist Protestants do not hold to the fallen Roman Empire view here.

As an amateur, I didn't really know what to call my theory. That's why I called it a combination of Preterism, Historicism and Amillennalism...but I really just see it as a Historicist theory (what some might call "partial Preterism".)

Mr. Akin apparently treats the events beginning with Revelation 19:11 similar to my theory.

First, the identity of the ancient pagan Roman Empire is no mystery - not even to St. John, who lived during that era. The fact that out of the pagan Roman Empire would emerge the worldwide Christian Church who would be responsible for the slaughter of many more millions of true Christians (called martyrs and saints by the Holy Spirit) was shocking, mind-boggling and unfathomable. The fact that today her centuries of blood-letting, torture, and extermination would be "forgotten" and "swept under the carpet" by the world, in general, and by Evangelicals, in general, is, indeed, a mystery! But this is the very picture painted by the Holy Spirit: the kings of the earth - evangelical church leaders included - all drink from her cup; i.e., all have communion and warm relations with her.

I assume you are speaking of events beginning with Constantine and thereafter. What Protestants call the great apostasy of the Church; what I call the conquest of nations leading into the millennial Age of Faith.

"And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." Revelation 19:15 KJV

What do you think ruling them with a "rod of iron" means?[1]

I know that today it isn't politically correct to defend these seemingly atrocious actions (and I question your statistics), but there once was a time when heresy was a very, very serious matter.[2]

Rather than destroying my theory, your objection only strengthens it.

Second, we know this Mother of all harlots is the Church of Rome because the Holy Spirit predicted she would call herself, "Holy Mother, the Church." This incredible "coincidence" is prophecy fulfilled.

It says all THAT in Scripture! No, I don't think so. I think your incredible, prophecy fulfilled coincidence is your anti-Catholic bias and wishful thinking.

The Church of Rome views herself as Holy Mother, but the Spirit of God views her as The Great Whore, the Mother of all harlots. These two points of view could not be more diametrically opposed! The evidence of her whoredom, not chastity, is manifested, in part, by her idols (spiritual fornication as defined in the Bible and history of Israel) and in her unchaste priesthood, who claim the vow of celibacy.

Not long ago a LDS friend on CARM's Mormonism board e-mailed me, wondering who Protestants thought were the harlot daughters - if the Catholic Church were the "whore".

Indeed!

Well. How much of THAT do you agree with? :)

Your apparent definition of what constitutes the "harlot daughters" is very convenient - in that you make sure it doesn't include YOU! That's one of the benefits of being your own Pontifex Maximus, making Ex Cathedra pronouncements on issues such as the identity of the "whore", her "harlot daughters" and the "Mark of the Beast". You control who falls on which side of the line. Of course, it's much better that way - otherwise somebody might choose YOU as falling on the wrong side! ;) Yes, much, much better.

I have an enormous data base of information on the lascivious conduct of the priesthood stemming centuries, up to and including this present year. My book, Antichrist in Our Midst, uses the NY Times as authoritative sources of reliable reporting of numerous instances of priests and monks committing the unspeakable crimes of raping and sodomizing children. Even in the Northern California Diocese these tragic events have been ongoing for years, as documented in the court records and newspaper accounts. Surely, you must have read of them in your Sacramento papers. If these were isolated events ocurring once in a century, we could easily dismiss them as aberrant and not the norm. But that is not so. It is so widely spread and so well known that one must be in complete and utter denial to disregard the massive evidence of rotten fruit (By their fruit you shall know them - the false prophets and their corrupt church).

Hey! Maybe these raping, sodomizing priests were planning on being saved by their Faith Alone!

When it comes to anti-Catholicism, the Protestant mantra of "Sola Fide" completely falls apart, is tossed aside, forgotten. How much of Luther's statement do you actually agree with?

You judge us with Catholic theology.

Your emphasis on sexual sins also betrays your apparent agreement with another Catholic concept: A distinction between venial and mortal sin. (See 1 John 5:16-17)

We might make a Catholic of you yet! :)

What were the results of your comparative groups?

Do Catholic priests commit sexual immorality more than the Catholic laity? More than society at large? More than Protestant pastors? More than Protestant laity? What does your enormous data base say?

I notice you focus on sexual molestation of children. Why is that? Do priests molest children more than other groups? What about sexual lasciviousness and misconduct by Protestant clergy in the areas of, say, fornication, adultery and divorce. Any data on that?

Maybe I can help out.

I took the liberty to conduct my own (albeit quick) survey on the web. Went to search engines and typed in things like Clergy Sexual Abuse. Got lots and lots of information! Here's a sample, used because it contains so much information in just this one link from Advocateweb.org:

It's the perverse fixation on celibacy that gets most of the attention. Did you take that into account in conducting your scientific and professional research?

Now, Rand, do I detect a perverse fixation on priestly celibacy in your own research? :)

I fear that the rotten fruit also includes your research.

Perhaps Luther does have some appropriate words for all of us: "Pray hard for you are quite a sinner".

Third, we know the ancient Roman Empire is not Mystery Babylon because in Chapter 18 of Rev. we are told that she is become the habitation of devils, foul spirits and unclean and hateful birds. The pagan Roman Empire has always been such a habitation. On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church has not. Her apostasy has been gradual, but steady. There have been many of her saints among the roles of the Lamb's Book of Life, I believe, prior to her fulfilling the prophecy whereby she becomes the cruel, drunken, harlot Murderess depicted in Rev. 17. To me, this phase of the Great Whore is clearly seen in the rise of the Papacy in such men as Gregory 7, Boniface 8, Innocent 3, etc.

Fourth, we know that Mystery Babylon cannot be referring to the ancient Roman Empire because the Holy Spirit tells us her destruction is sudden and swift: one day, one hour! It is so obvious when it occurs that the kings of the earth will unite in mourning and wailing over her. Her destruction is so devastating that she will not be approachable (the kings are described as "standing afar off." This would indicate a mighty act of nature, like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, I believe. The fall of Rome, on the other hand was gradual, taking centuries. Her fall was not lamented.

Rather her kingdom was invaded and made the spoil of the victors.

Exactly!

"And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceedeth out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh." Revelation 19:21 KJV

After Christ's victory (the conversion & fall of pagan Rome), invaders arrived to partake of the feast of the carcass. Just as you - and Holy Scripture - state.

I don't see Revelation 19, verse 11 and thereafter as referring to the "Whore". In fact, the "Whore" has apparently already been destroyed. No, the battle waged by Christ on the white horse appears to be against something besides just the "Whore".

Revelation 19:11-21, according to my theory, refers to the fall of pagan Rome and the end of the pagan Emperors (the Beast). Regardless of whether pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem is the "Whore". It also refers to Christ's conquest of the remnant of the empire and the barbarian invaders...the "nations." Revelation 19, verse 11 and thereafter, refer to the victory of Christ! - manifested on earth by events surrounding the much maligned Constantine and thereafter.

Another piece of the puzzle falls into place.

Fifth, in Chapter 18 we are told that the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee, and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee. In other words, by using symbols of the church, we are informed that there will be no more 'Christian' witness or 'Gospel' or 'Word of God' ever to come out of the City of Seven Hills again. If the destruction of pagan Rome is meant, then this prophecy is in grave error. Certainly there has been, through the ages, a Christian witness in Rome. (Of course, in the Protestant view, that true witness is now relegated to a remnant, not the Holy See.)

Sixth, by calling Mystery Babylon a Whore, the Holy Spirit is making a distinction between this false church and the true Church of Jesus Christ. In Chapter 19, we see that the true Church, the Bride of Christ is arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, speaking to her purity and chastity as the virgin bride. The false church, on the other hand, is depicted the whore and widow, which may be interpreted as the church unfaithful to the groom (through idolatry, traditions which make null the Scriptures, love of money, sexual sins, etc.), and as the church divorced by God because of her unfaithfulness (ala Israel being divorced for her unfaithfulness). This false church denies her spiritual condition, separated from the bridegroom, calling herself a Queen (Queen of Heaven?) who shall never experience the sorrow of rejection, divorce and judgment. She is the Eternal City, the Eternal Bride of Christ, the one true Church outside of whom there is no salvation.

Anyway, those are some of the arguments against the Preterist, fallen Roman Empire view.

Stephen, why not try to figure out who, exactly, is meant by the Man of Sin, the Antichrist. Remember, he must fit numerous prophecies respecting his rise, his reign and his fall. Give it a shot, let me know who you come up with.

In the meanwhile, I greatly appreciate your spirit of investigation. It cannot but be a help and not a hinderance.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the rotten fruit of the priesthood, in general. Obviously, there are many caring priests, monks and brothers who have never committed these grave sexual sins. Thank God.

Until next time,

Your Protestant friend,

Rand

Director

Protestant Reformation Publications