I would answer emphatically that our persecution is less now than anytime in church history. So by my calculation we are not in the end times. What are other biblical indicators of the end of days? Can we interpret them to truly describe this moment in time?

PS - Nathan the new blog is off to a great start!!

You know, the funny thing is, I do believe we are living in the ‘last days’ so to speak, in that Jesus could come back at any moment now. I just think it’s a stretch to say that we’re living in the ‘last days’ because of the state of our nation, the world, or the evil in our time. I just look at church history and I am amazed at how incredibly easy we have it now. And when people talk about the persecutions and evil of our days as getting ‘worse and worse’, and ‘building to a crescendo’, and ‘signaling the end is near’, it shows that they don’t know exactly where we’ve come from.

The amount of true Christians in this country (or even the world), the vast accessibility of sound doctrinal teaching, and the freedom of religion that dominates most but not all of the world right now, makes the first 1500 years of Church History seem like the deepest pits of hell.

You make an interesting point. I can’t even imagine how many of us would be ground into dust if we had the same environment that surrounded people from the Crusades through our own Puritans. I think that the tolerance we show toward personal weakness and the intolerance we have toward those doing a public ill together with sensibility is what helps us keep moving forward. I don’t necessarily ascribe to the theory that we are getting better as a people though.
One brief glance at the things on TV or the behavior of those poorly schooled or politicians who think that the laws they make don’t apply to them are things that we have to address every day. Having our minds on Christ helps us but it is by keeping our feet on the ground that we correct alot of our mistakes. I think that applies to private life as well as to formal Christian movements.

We need to be careful about putting too much stock in what was written in a book. During his lifetime John Foxe was taken to task for his deliberate invectives an inaccuracies in “Actes and Monuments” and he just shrugged it off because his goal was to placate a personal hatred for Roman Catholics. He reveled in horror and in his mind there were no martyrs except Protestant people. He spoke of a time of Mary Tudor, but we need to keep in mind that Mary’s father and her own sister were quite capable of unbounded cruelty. Foxe didn’t care to write about that. As Nathan has intimated there has been intolerance and cruelty right from the beginning. In fact, if one stops to think about it, with the exception of Christ himself, Christianity doesn’t have a whole lot to recommend itself. How Christ-like are we if have ill will toward someone who doesn’t agree with us?

Barry

I am certainly not taking Foxe’s book as infallible. But, I’m curious, are you suggesting he made stuff up? Many atrocities of the sort he documented have great corroborating evidence in other sources…Or are you suggesting that since some Catholics have been treated poorly by individual, professing Protestants, then that’s some kind of moral equivalence?

One reason why Foxe’s book is so convincing is because of the great detail. Specific names and dates are given, not just generalities. Add that to the huge political power of the Catholic church (they were massive group, not just a few guys here or there), and I find Foxes book pretty convincing.

SDG

Personally, whether this is the end-times or not, I want to be ready. Yes, I will listen to the warnings and cling to my Master all the more and pray for this nation that we would be broken and repentant.

I will pray that the LORD will manifest His presence in His children that the Body of Christ would be one as the Father and Son are One.
So that the world will know that The Father sent His Son because He loves them. (John 17:23)

In Christ - You say, “The US is not a Christian Nation anymore.” I beg your patience dear sir. Was it ever a Christian Nation in a biblical sense?

I’m going to try to provide information for both of you either in this comment or after I’ve gone back to the library and re-check some reference material. Gordon, first you: Fuller, T. Church History of Britain; Gairdner, G. The English Church in the Sixteenth Century; Hagstotz, G.D. and H.B. Heroes of the Reformation; Maitland, S.R. Six Letters on Foxe’s Actes and Monuments; Winter, W. Biographical Notes on John Foxe; Wood, A. Athenae Oxonienses; Kunitz S. J. and Haycraft H. British Authors before 1800.

Nathan give me a day or two to get back with you.

What we need to keep in mind with “Actes and Monuments” is that it was driven by a movement (Catholic) that had grown away from what it started as and people like Foxe, who had personally felt the pain of current day Catholicism (first half of the sixteenth century), and being a scholar he had the tools to help turn the newly Protestant English minds against the Roman Catholic Church. That is what he saw as his personal task. I am not justifying the brutality that was on both sides but we need to keep a balanced view of what drove what.
I’m not defending the Catholic Church. The Reformation happened because it needed to happen–the Church had turned itself into a business organization. I personally admire all of the characters in the Reformation story, even Foxe, as they were mostly very brave people.
Suggesting that Protestants, from Henry VIII on down, are guiltless of brutality toward Catholics is equally naive on our part.

To try to adequately describe that entire Reformation period one could only keep going back to the word–incredible. Look at the likes of the scholars John Fisher and Thomas More, both put to death by Henry VIII not because of his wanting to divorce Catherine but because they didn’t acknowledge Henry as the new head of the Church.

I almost get dizzy just reading about the mindset of people back then.

Peace.

Names and labels become the sticking point for me in this discussion. I mean, honestly, does anyone, or did anyone back then, have any illusions about what Henry VIII was all about? I mean, is there anyone other than the most partisan Anglican defenders who think Henry really was a Protestant?

And even speaking of him, even if we were to make the great leap necessary to believe that he was honestly trying to advance the cause of True Religion, contra Catholicism, his elimination of a handful of political antagonists is not the sort of thing that ought to be compared to the systematic, continent-wide attempts to stomp out Protestantism in general through religious genocide.

It’s been my experience that most people who speak of Protestant “brutality” against Catholics in those days, are really talking about the fact that many Catholic soldiers died on the battlefield as Protestant armies sought to defend their lands. I don’t deny that groups of Protestants acting independantly, may have gotten overzealous and caused great harm to Catholic believers here and there. I’m saying this is was never Protestant policy, and Catholics were not the subjects of national or pan-national attempts to eradicate them by force.

But I am willing to be educated to the contrary.

I was using hyperbole to make a point. I read of Christians being tortured and killed for standing up for the truth, and now days we tend to think that putting a bible on our desk at work is making a statement. Back then there were men preaching the gospel knowing that they could be tortured and killed if caught, and now days it is a struggle even for true Christians to really witness to friends, colleagues, lost family members, etc., for fear of not being liked or looking cool. Point being: we have it so easy that even the true Christians often take things for granted.

Thanks for the clarification. True Christianity consists most fundamentally in loving God and people (Mathew 23). Persecution has many forms; luckily, in the US the most common kind of persecution is not violent aggression against Christians, but rather social persecution—-even so subtle as it may be. I agree that American Christians don’t know what it’s like to live in a culture that is violently opposed to the freedom of religion, and many Christians probably do have a weak view of what it means to “stand up for Christ” as it were. However, since the essence of Christianity is loving God and loving people (Mathew 23), I don’t understand violent persecution as a necessary component of Christianity (although some form of persecution is inevitable for all those who live godly in Christ Jesus).

That is, some people, due to fortunate circumstances (or maybe unfortunate depending on your point of view), don’t have to risk their lives in order to practice True Christianity, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t practice “true Christianity” just because they, being human, struggle to be a bold witness at times.

I may be just emphasizing something which is in harmony with what you believe, but with a different emphasis.

Bradley

SDG

I finally located works that I read some years back which deal with the Tudor Reformation period and the tremedous brutality that occurred in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

On Henry’s two daughters:
Conspirators and the Crown: The True Story of Elizabeth and Mary Tudor. By Hugh Ross Williamson 1959. (An exceptional read which should be available at any library).

–Hazelwood, Nick The Queen’s Slave Trader: John Hawkins and the Trafficking in Human Souls.
–Harrison, William Description of England 1577
–Budiansky, Steven Her Majestys Spymaster Viking Books
–Hogge, Alice Gods Secret Agents Harper Collins

There is actually a plethora of material on the Tudor period running from Henry VII through Elizabeth I. Sadly, human life didn’t mean a great deal in those days and Catholics and Protestants alike suffered pain at the hands of those in power. Watching people burned at the stake or drawn and quartered was considered family entertainment back then. When you add to the physical oppression of the day the fact that Catholics were marked for a variety of reasons the tally sheet running between the two sects was long. Catholics had their lands taken from them and given over to Protestants. Nuns were banished, Convents and Shrines burned.

As I’ve said before the Reformation period needs to be looked at from a number of angles in order to be fully understood. Mary Tudor, though attempting to be a good ruler had some very harsh advisors who put to death many people. But, Henry VIII and Elizabeth during their reigns put to death Catholics and Protestants whom they viewed as a threat (real or imagined) and the oppression of Catholics didn’t stop with Elizabeth.

I hope this helps.

Barry

Interesting post. I am puzzled by your “fact” that Christians have it better now than ever before. I am curious as to your source for this undeniable piece of evidence. I am involved with The Voice of the Martyrs as well as having been in many Middle Eastern and Northern African nations and must tell you that there are attrocities being committed against our brothers and sisters that are as brutal as Mr Foxe deemed to write and these are not isolated incidences. There is WICKED repercussion for bearing the name of Jesus in many places in the world and people are horifically murdered for it daily. Unfortunately, it doesn’t carry a lot of economic gain for the US to publish it and the church here seems far more concerned with discussing the finer points of theology than actually living the Great Commission. I am biased, I know, my heart is for the people whose voices are unheard - so, do not be offended by my zeal - it is just that. Thanks again for the topic - it was an interesting read.

Certainly there is no question as to the great persecutions and martydom that still goes on today. I do not wish to overlook that reality. But to say that things are worse -or even close to as bad as they used to be, I think is a misunderstanding of history. Look at the Great West and the freedom of religion that a large portion of the world’s population enjoys. Back then, well, there was no west to flee to (hence, the Mayflower to the US), and religious persecution was world-wide, coming from the ruler of the entire world, Rome.

You also said: the church here seems far more concerned with discussing the finer points of theology than actually living the Great Commission.

Unless you think America is a Christian Nation, we fulfill tthe Great Commission each time we walk out our front door.

Also, as I stated in my ‘about this site’ page, “Before obedience comes theology; doctrine, -what we believe about Christ and His revealed word, underscores every aspect of our lives. What we believe determines how we live. This site exists to help promote sound theology leading to Godly knowledge. We seek to teach people pure theology about Christ so that they may indeed go out and live like Christ.” Thus, nobody can truly fulfill the Great Commission if the ‘finer points of theology’ aren’t sorted out.

On the other side to say that Christians today have it easy compared to historical eras of the past can’t see how now we are in the midst of a global anti-christ uprising. The devil is unbound and *able to deceive the nations*. That means, the nations are no longer acting in isolation but are ‘feeling their strength’ and conspiring together against God’s people, focused on the historically symbolic lands, nations and peoples of God: Europe, America, and Israel.

Let me ask you a question: If you indeed see how horrible the time of bloody mary was, don’t you think that the Christians back then also thought that they were ‘in the midst of a global anti-Christ uprising’?

In response to your statements regarding the West and so on, in light of the sheer numbers of the world’s populace today it is very plausible to say that things are in fact worse off in the sense of the numbers of Christians being persecuted, many unto death. China, India, North Korea not to mention most of the Middle East and Northern Africa consider execution for anyone claiming to be a Christian a common practice. I think you underestimate the reality of what is really going on.

To suggest that Henry VIII, Elizabeth I or the subsequent ruling Stuarts didn’t persecute Catholics for their faith is not to know one’s history.

I’ve been reading Reformation and post-Reformation literature for more than thirty years. The rancor that people had for the Catholic Church years ago was justified. The same view today toward Catholics or the Catholic Church is not.

It is the hate that people continue to display today which evinces just what little progress has been made between Christians.

Just because RCs are out of power (the power to wield the sword) doesn’t mean they have changed. Islam is similar. When not in power they are all “Islam is about peace!” The moment they start to feel an upper hand they are slitting throats.

David, forget history, how about knowing scripture? Where is America or Europe mentioned in the Bible?

My point is that it is foolish to look at our interpretation of current world circumstances to try and ‘decipher’ what type of age we live in, or if some supposed antiChrist is on the rise. Scripture is the final answer, not the newspaper.

Barry, by this, do you mean to say that Roman Catholics should be considered Christians?

Actually, I think that a post on enmity might just be called for afterall.

I would have been shocked by that question if my wife and I hadn’t already heard it while we were sitting on the couch listening to Jimmy Swaggart on TV about 20 years ago.

That is when I first noticed the elevated level of pure hate for Catholics by some people. I’m fine with that. I can’t stop people from hating. I think that it is a little unnecessary in this day and age. But what can I do?

I think this hate defines many Christians today (kind of an oxymoron).

Several of my closest friends are Baptist. Some of my good friends are Jehovah Witness and some are Mormon; some are Lutheran. We may not buy into each other’s dogmas but the word satanic isn’t thrown around either.

To answer your question. Sure.

I would also suggest beginning a new post with this. That way you can offer people a proper fresh chance to thrash me.

Peace.

I have no desire to thrash you or to even argue with you about these things. I am surprised, however, at you being shocked by my question, given that I have made it crystal clear that I hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which of course denounces the Pope as the antiChrist.

Again, I’m not sure what you are referring to as hate. If the scriptures clearly contradict the foundational teachings of the Catholic Church and the Jehovah Witnesses cult (which they do), to the point where salvation and deliverance from sin is impossible given the core teachings of each system, and not only are these people in error but they are actually fighting against the teaching of the scriptures and God’s people, and we were to just all hold hands and ‘agree to love Jesus in our own way’, then I can see you using the word hate to decribe that kind of tolerance. But I don’t see how you can use that word simply because scripture teaches that these systems are damnable, and someone actually has the love for others to proclaim it. Tolerance, at its core, undermines the Christian faith, because it ultimately argues that God hasn’t revealed enough information about Himself for us to objectively determine who is right, and who is opposed to the gospel.

SDG

I’ll try to go through some of your points.

The 1689 LBC like the Reformation itself was a natural occurance which almost any Catholic today would tell you was done with good reason. The Catholic Church had gotten itself made into a big mean machine. I don’t know of any Catholic today who would not confess that or be honestly contrite and sorry about the ill that was done.

The fact that the Convention, many Protestants of the time, and even more people since have proclaimed the Pope as the assistant of Satan and the Church of Rome as the Whore of Babylon (as gleaned from Revelations) is not being said out of love. Was their enmity at the time justified? Sure. Is the hate justified in 2007? No.

Is it Christian for us today to feel that other movements, Mormons, JW are not interpreting Scripture the way we like and are therefore inferior or to continue to deserve rancor? No.

Look at Falwell’s comments. According to him wouldn’t “5-pointers” have salvation problems? I would not be of that view.

As I say, I wasn’t shocked by your question. My wife and I heard it roughly twenty years ago from Jimmy Swaggert. If some people don’t want to accept Catholics as Christian that’s fine with me. I probably couldn’t change their mind no matter what I said.

I would not have wanted to go up to Mother Teresa while she was alive, look her in the face, and tell her she wasn’t Christian.

But, if that’s the way you feel, go ahead.

As far as Scripture is concerned, that is worthy of extensive discussion. I don’t think I’ve ever seen two people interprete it the same. There is also the question of contradiction and inerrancy. A couple of my dearest friends are Jehovah Witness. I think some of the dogma they follow is skewed but I think they are wonderful people and that they have every right to believe what they want

Your last point about tolerance undermining Christianity doesn’t wash in my opinion.

We need to be tolerant but at the same time realistic in not allowing people to do bad things. I can be tolerant toward someone who is gay and intolerant to someone who creates a hip-hop song which demeans a woman or, I can be intolerant toward a politician who professes ethics and Christianity and who in reality has no ethics and uses Christianity as a shield to get votes while living a base life and lying all the while. Most importanty, I would be tolerant toward people who have a religion different from my own. We might not agree with one another but I’m not going to get vitrolic and suggest that the person is not a good person and is destined for the netherworld. That wouldn’t be very Christian would it?

Tolerance has nothing to do with who is right and who is apposed to the Gospel.

Being intolerant and speaking ill of another person’s religion is a crucial subject today.

I would suggest, Nathan, that you make a new post on this subject and let people discuss it.

-You continue to throw the word ‘hate’ around while failing to define it biblically, or even rationally, except for hinting that anyone who believes in the perspicuity of scripture is guilty of it. Your post-modern, humanistic tone is certainly troubling, and I have no desire to argue with you over such clear foundations of biblical Christianity.

-Just because two people haven’t ever interpreted scripture the same (according to your own fallen judgment), doesn’t mean the truth doesn’t exist and you aren’t completely accountable to hold ever jot in tittle of it to perfection. Again, you undermine the perspicuity of salvation, the redemption of sins, our only hope to escape judgment, if you can’t even recognize that the Catholic, JW, and Reformers view on salvation are complete opposites and contrary to one another. Sorry, saying ‘they both might be right’ might sound good now, but you, me, and us all will be accountable come judgment day.

-I’m sorry, I didn’t know tolerance as a Spiritual gift. Maybe you could outline it in scripture for me? But remember, I hold to scripture alone (2 Tim 3:16, and unlike BOTH Catholics and JWs), so please don’t waste your time trying to convince me of something that isn’t there.

-In Galatians chapter 1, Paul pronounces a curse on the Judaizers (Gal 1:6-9). He says to ANYONE preaching another gospel, let him be accursed. That Paul, he wasn’t very tolerant, was he? Too much hate built up, right? No, the Judaizers believed in God, they even were cool with Christ, and with Christ raising from the dead, etc. But…they said that one must be circumcised to be saved, and what did they get? Accursed. You, on the other hand, are bringing up JWs, who deny the deity of Christ and who are most certainly damned in their sins if they die in that state, and the Catholics, who pronounce the Pope as head of the church over Christ and hold to a very similar faith+works justification system as the Judiazers. And you want to pretend as if these are honest doctrinal differences between Christians? You want to let people go on believing something that contradicts scripture just so you can be Mr nice guy and not offend them? That, my friend, is true hate…hate for them no doubt, but more seriously, hate for the Lord and His revealed word -as if He gave us something that doen’t reveal truth. Again, you are undermining the foundation of the Christian faith.

I would suggest, Barry, that you examine the scriptures before replying again, and taking your comments somewhere else if you are insistent on the fact that we can’t even discern from scripture whether the Catholic, JW, or Reformers view on salvation is the right position.