My take? What take would that be? I responded to the common claim that belief in the "rapture" is a late 19th century novelty of Darby, which it clearly is not.
I suggest you do some "reading" into what I've written on this thread before jumping to awkward, incorrect conclusions.
>> “My take? What take would that be? I responded to the common claim that belief in the “rapture” is a late 19th century novelty of Darby, which it clearly is not.” <<
.
The rapture is not “pre-trib!
The pre-trib rapture belongs to Darby and Satan. The first and only resurrection unto life is at the end of Satan’s trib.
I agree with you, belief in the “rapture” is NOT a late 19th century innovation. Belief in a secret pre-trib, or mid-trib rapture, yes, but not the rapture per se.
Darby did not claim his secret pretrib rapture belief came from the ante-Nicene Fathers, re: the quotes in your post, it seems obvious enough to me that the Irvingites of England, and the Scottish lass McDonald, both concurrent with Darby, did have had much to do with the doctrine he formulated.
I think we both agree that the “rapture IS set forth in plain language, 1 Thess. 4, as a “catching up” to meet Christ in the air at his coming. We both believe there will be a rapture, it is whether it is secret, and whether it occurs before, in the middle, at the end of the trib, the issue we disagree on.
My take? What take would that be? I responded to the common claim that belief in the "rapture" is a late 19th century novelty of Darby, which it clearly is not.
No, you're right. It's an early 19th century novelty of Darby.
On what the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed on this issue, here’s something from Robert Gundry, professor of theology in California. He says: “Irenaeus, who claims to hold that which was handed down from the apostles, was as forthright a posttribulationist as could be found.” He quotes Irenaeus: “And they [the ten kings] shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight.” Against Heresies, 5,26,1.
He has many more quotes from the Fathers, Cyprian among them, saying basically the same thing, he concludes:
“We can conclude from the survey of Ante-Nicene writings that the early church was explicitly posttribulational. We discover not even a passing reference to, much less a refutation of, any who believed otherwise. Every Ante-Nicene writer who touches in any detail upon the tribulation, resurrection, rapture, or second coming displays posttribulation.”
Gundry also brings premillennial into this, noting that Irenaeus, etc., were also premillennial (Chiliast), but that is not at issue here between us.
Not saying Gundry is the last word on the subject, just saying his conclusions matches what I see in the Fathers.