Posted on 05/31/2004 12:24:47 PM PDT by Destro
The Rapture Theory: It's Surprising Origin
February 1, 1976
Expanded Internet Edition - Posted March 30, 2003
Almost all Christians are interested in prophecy. This is especially so if the prophecies show what will happen to Christians themselves. There is nothing wrong in desiring such personal knowledge. Even our Lord gave a considerable amount of teaching about the circumstances to befall His people at the end of the age (Matthew 24:22-25). All of us share a common concern in wanting to know about the participants, the chronology, and the geography of those prophecies. To comprehend the full knowledge of them it is obvious that all relevant statements of our Lord and His apostles must be properly interpreted and placed into a coherent order. Many Christians have attempted to do this. As a consequence, the doctrine of the Rapture has arisen. So important has it become to many that the teaching is now sanctioned as the prime revelation from God to show what will happen Lo members of His church just before and during the second coming of Christ. Some even look on it as the heart and core of present Christian expectations! Because of this, it will pay us to review what the doctrine is all about.
The word "Rapture" is not found in the Bible. There is also no single word used by the biblical authors to describe the prophetic factors which comprise the doctrine. Its formulation has come about by means of induction. Certain biblical passages concerning the second coming (and the role that Christians will play in that event) have been inductively blended together to establish the teaching. The modern expression "Rapture" was then invented to explain the overall teaching and the term suits the subject well. The basic tenets of the doctrine are uninvolved. Simply put, it purports that Christ will come back to this earth in two phases. He will first return invisibly to rapture His church away from this world so that they might escape (or partially escape the prophetical tribulation to occur near the end of the age, then later Christ will return in a visible advent to dispense His wrath on the world's nations. This is the general teaching.
Many details concerning these prime factors, however, are hotly debated. There is especially much argument over the chronological features associated with it. Some think the time lapse between the two phases will be 3 1/2 years, others say 7 years. Some feel that the Rapture of the church occurs before the Tribulation, others about mid-way through, Many suggest that the church will be taken to heaven for protection, but a few have proposed a geographical area on this earth. There are those who feel that only part of the church will escape, while others say all will he rescued, These variations, along with others, have multiplied the interpretations to such an extent that many diverse secondary opinions exist among those holding the belief. But all are unanimous on one point: the central theme of the Rapture shows that Christ will return to earth in two phases.
The Newness of the Doctrine
It may come as a surprise to many Christians, but the doctrine of the Rapture is not mentioned in any Christian writings, of which we have knowledge, until after the year 1830 A.D. Whether the early writers were Greek or Latin, Armenian or Coptic, Syrian or Ethiopian, English or German, orthodox or heretic, no one mentioned a syllable about it. Of course, those who feel the origin of the teaching is in the Bible would say that it only ceased being taught (for some unknown reason) at the close of the apostolic age only to reappear in 1830 A.D. But if the doctrine were so clearly stated in Scripture, it seems incredible that no one should have referred to it before the 19th century. This does not necessarily show that the teaching is wrong, but it does mean that thousands of eminent scholars who lived over a span of seventeen centuries (including some of the most astute of the "Christian Fathers" and those of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods) must be considered as prophetic dunces for not having understood so fundamental a teaching. We are not denigrating the doctrine in mentioning these historical facts. That is not our intention. But we do feel that the Foundation should show the historical problems associated with the teaching. This lapse of seventeen centuries when no one mentioned anything about it must be a serious obstacle to its reliability.
Its Beginning
The result of a careful investigation into the origin of the Rapture has been recently published. The book is an excellent one which deserves to be read by all people interested in the subject. Its title: "The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin" by Dave MacPherson. He catalogs a great deal of historical material which answers the doctrine's mysterious derivation. We wish to review the results of his research. In the middle 1820's a religious environment began to be established among a few Christians in London. England which proved to be the catalyst around which the doctrine of the Rapture emerged. Expectations of the soon coming of our Lord were being voiced, This was no new thing, but what, was unusual was the teaching by a Presbyterian minister named Edward Irving that there had to be a restoration of the spiritual gifts mentioned in I Corinthians 12-14 just before Christ's second coming. To Irving, the time had come for those spiritual manifestations to occur. Among the expected gifts was the renewal of speaking in tongues and of spirit-motivated prophetic utterances. Irving began to propagate his beliefs. His oratorical skills and enthusiasm caused his congregation in London to grow. Then a number of people began to experience the "gifts." Once this happened opposition from the organized churches set in. It resulted in Irving's dismissal from the Presbyterian church in 1832. His group then established themselves as the Catholic Apostolic Church and continued the teachings of Irving.
These events were the beginnings of what some call present day Pentecostalism. Indeed Irving has been called by some church historians "the father of modern Pentecostalism." What does all this have to do with the origin of the Rapture doctrine? Very much indeed. Let us look at what happened in the year 1830 -- two years before Irving's dismissal from the Presbyterian church. In that year a revival of the "gifts" began to be manifested among a few people living in the lowlands of Scotland. They experienced what they called the outpouring of the Spirit. It was accompanied with speaking in "tongues" and other charismatic phenomena. Irving had been preaching these things must occur, and now they were.
On one particular evening. the power of the Holy Spirit was said to have rested on a Miss Margaret .Macdonald while she was in a state of illness at home. She was dangerously sick and thought she was dying. In spite of this (or perhaps because she is supposed to have come under "power" of the spirit for several successive hours during which she experienced the manifestations of "mingled prophecy and vision." The message she received during this prophetic vision convinced her that Christ was going to appear in two stages at His second coming -- and not one! The emanation revealed that Christ would first come in glory to them that look for Him and again in a final stage when every eye would see Him. It was this visionary experience of Miss Macdonald which represents the prime source of the modern Rapture doctrine as the historical evidence compiled by Mr. MacPherson abundantly shows.
The Influence of John Darby
Many people have thought that John Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, was the originator of the Rapture doctrine. This is not the case. Darby was a brilliant theologian with outstanding scholarly abilities. Even those who have disagreed with his teachings admit that he, and many associated with him, helped to cause a revival in biblical learning throughout the evangelical world (which even has been perpetuated down to our own present day). All who love biblical research ought to be thankful for what Darby and especially his associates accomplished for biblical scholarship. They particularly helped pave the way for the renewal of modern lexical studies of the languages of the Bible. The doctrine of "dispensationalism" was also a teaching they brought to the attention of the Protestant world.
It had long been thought by many Christians that the Rapture doctrine originated with ,John Darby. It is now known that this is not true. Darby only popularized it. Scofield and others who took over Darby's mantle later helped to make it respectable, Today, many of those in the evangelical sphere of Christianity are so certain of its veracity that it is accepted as the absolute truth of God. The fact is, however, John Darby received the knowledge of the doctrine from someone else. The source was the Margaret Macdonald mentioned above.
The studies of Mr. MacPherson show that her sickness during which she received her visions and revelations occurred sometime between February 1 and April 14, 1830. And by late spring and early summer of 1830, her belief in the two phases of Christ's coming was being mentioned in praise and prayer meetings in several towns of western Scotland. In these meetings some people were speaking in "tongues" and other charismatic occurrences were in evidence. These extraordinary and strange events in western Scotland so attracted John Darby that he made a trip to the area to witness himself what was going on. Though he did not approve of the ecstatic episodes that he witnessed. it is nonetheless significant that Darby, after returning from Scotland, began to teach that Christ's second coming would occur in two phases. MacPherson shows good evidence that Darby had even visited Miss Macdonald in her home. There can hardly he any doubt that the visions of Miss Macdonald are the source of the modern doctrine.
Visions and Dreams
While it is possible that visionary revelations can come from God, it is always prudent to be cautious in such matters. Near the same time that Miss Macdonald was receiving her visions, Joseph Smith in America was experiencing his apparitions which brought Mormon doctrines to the world. John Wilson also had his dreams which were the spark that started the false teaching of British realism. Not long afterwards Ellen G. White received her visions that resulted in many Seventh Day Adventist teachings. And remarkably, all these individuals received revelations of doctrines which were much at variance with one another. Such incidents bring to mind the warning that God gave to Moses.
"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deuteronomy 13: 1-3).
The teachings of visionaries also recall to mind what the apostle John tells Christians.
"Beloved. believe not every spirit. but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1).
And though some point to the prophecy of Daniel that "knowledge shall be increased" (Daniel 12:4) a proof that the revival of doctrinal truths will occur at the end of the age, this is not what Daniel meant. If one reads the prophet carefully. he will find that Daniel is speaking about the knowledge of his prophecies which will be increased. not the revival of general doctrines. In the original text of Daniel the definite article occurs before the word "knowledge." Daniel actually said "THE knowledge will be increased" and the text shows he means "the knowledge of his prophecies." Daniel is in no way speaking about renewing of doctrines at the time of the end. A further admonition is necessary concerning the origins of teachings which might happen near our own time. It is by the apostle Paul.
"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (I Timothy 4:1 ).
These warnings from God's word are given as a reminder that we ought to exercise caution in accepting the truthfulness of visionary revelations especially those that happen near the end of the age and are contradictory to themselves or the Bible.
Conclusion
While there are many suspicious factors conferred with the origin of the Rapture, it could be admitted that the doctrine may reflect a teaching found in the Bible. At least, many feel so. John Darby no doubt thought there was something to it because after his trip to Scotland he changed his mind from believing in a single stage coming and adopted the two stage doctrine which became known as the Rapture. Darby was certainly not a visionary and his teachings whether right or wrong) are almost always based on scriptural revelation. It was Darby who popularized the Rapture with the scriptural arguments which seem so convincing to some. It could be that the teaching is basically true, but we at the Foundation for Biblical Research in Pasadena have felt incumbent to show our readers the unbiblical source of the doctrine. Too many people have for gotten that it was Miss Macdonald's visions which introduced the doctrine to the world.
In our next Exposition in this series we to show the biblical evidences which tend to support the doctrine. In the one to follow. we'll show those which seemingly speak against it. Our desire to place into your hands the necessary evidence for you to make up your own minds on the In closing, we wish to state one word that no one can gainsay. Whether one believes in the rapture or not, it has nothing to do with the assured salvation that all Christians have in Christ. That is a fact!
Ernest L. Martin
***************8
At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol. The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem, that "Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven."
Read much? It's not that no one knows where she was buried, but rather that her tomb was found empty.
Not an insiginficant difference, and one you should observe.
Considering how much we love relics and how much we love Mary, you'd think the greedy evil Catholic Church would have made good use of the bones of Mary. Instead, we believe they are not on earth at all. I guess we missed the money-making potention on that one.
SD
Just think of how many millions of Marian bones could have been sold during the Dark Ages, or given as a bonus to each person who bought 10 or more gallons of mother's milk from Mary.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY
A Roman Catholic Dogma Originating with Heretics and Condemned as Heretical by 2 Popes in the 5th and 6th Centuries.
By William Webster
So? That is true of almost any false doctrine promoted by someone claiming Christianity.
That it is a man-made corruption of Scripture I will take as a given. However, in all fairness, it has just as much root in Scripture as does any other Protestant innovation, such as 'Faith Alone'.
I agree completely with that comment, but again, it does *not* come from 'scripture alone.' False doctrine is necessarily an addition to scripture. Apostasy is created by a failure to follow the Bible alone, because "you can't get there from here", so to speak, if you are really following only the Bible. The fact that some *claim* to do so but subsequently adopt a bunch of unscriptural nonsense does not discredit the Biblical approach itself, it just indicts those who falsely invoked it.
As an infrequent visitor to the religion section on FR, your discussion of the trinity is interesting to me, at least in its familiarity. I've had this debate countless times with other people, in other words.
I thought you might find this verse of interest:
Isa 43:11 - I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.
Clearly this states that God is the only Savior, yet we also know Jesus as our Savior. To me, if anything "proves" the Trinity, this is it.
Comments welcome but I rarely debate my faith anymore. I like to read and learn others', but ultimately my faith is between me and God. I thought you might find this interesting though.
Thanks,
Since this is FR, I'll throw in a political analogy. The baby-killers point to the U.S. Constitution and claim it guarantees a right to an abortion. Since this is a false claim, it does nothing to discredit the idea of appealing to the text of the Constitution for ultimate legal authority (sola constitutiona?) rather than tradition (judicial precedent, case law, living-document crap).
How do you know your position is the correct "Biblical" one and theirs is a "failure" to follow the Bible?
SD
So, in order to do it in this case, Church Tradition must be rejected. By definition, that is Sola Scriptura.
False doctrine is necessarily an addition to scripture. Apostasy is created by a failure to follow the Bible alone, because "you can't get there from here", so to speak, if you are really following only the Bible. The fact that some *claim* to do so but subsequently adopt a bunch of unscriptural nonsense does not discredit the Biblical approach itself, it just indicts those who falsely invoked it.
Apostasy, by definition, is the abandonment of a previous loyalty. That would include Church Tradition, which includes the Ecumenical Councils. False doctrine is not always a case of addition, but sometimes a case of omission. Or both. In any case, it involves a deviation from what has been traditionally taught.
The idea that someone could read Holy Scripture and, without the guidance of Tradition, interpret it correctly is an attractive idea, but only in theory. In practice, it doesn't work. Different people will interpret it in different ways. Take a look at all the different christian denominations today. Consider, for a moment, what it is that we are divided over. By and large, we are divided over our interpretations. The absence of Tradition greatly aggravates the problem. Schisms become inevitable. Pick up a newspaper and see for yourself.
I can read. The same way I know that my position on, say, gun control is the correct Constitutional one and the gun-grabbers' position is a failure to follow the Constitution.
Indeed. But again, the existence of erroneous interpretations does not preclude or discredit correct interpretation. Unity in doing right would be nice but is not necessary (or even absolutely achievable). Unity in error is worthless.
The problem with appealing to a text is that, once again, different people will interpret the text differently. An honest approach would be to try and determine the ideas that the text was intended to convey. But some people have an agenda that they would like to push and will misinterpret the text to achieve said agenda.
This is true. But tradition can also be susceptible to an agenda -- I'd say even more so, as it can more easily be changed over time than static text.
Let's try this from another angle...
Let's say I write a letter to my sister. In that letter I say "I was one foot out the door when I realized I forgot to call you". Two thousand years later, some archaeologist digs up my letter. Do you think he could correctly interpret my comment? Did I mean I was exactly 12 inches on the other side of the threshold? Did I mean I was straddling the threshold? Or did I simply mean I was in the hurried process of leaving? The text alone cannot solve the dilemma.
My sister loved me so much, that she made copies of my letters and gave them to her children. She told each of them the stories behind my letters and what all my funny little sayings really meant. She instructed her children to hand this information, both letter and interpretation, down to their own children. In doing so, she started a tradition. Her children and grandchildren, being faithful to her request, have kept the meaning of the letters intact.
If the archaeologist were smart, he'd check with my sister's great grandkids before racking his brain too hard.
agreed
I'd say even more so, as it can more easily be changed over time than static text.
More so, only if it were to be held to the exclusion of the text. But so far as I can tell, nobody does that. I know the Orthodox don't and I'm pretty sure the Catholics don't either.
Just for grins, try this:
Step 1: Look at 2000 year history of Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Count up the number of schisms (or spinoffs, etc) in that timeframe.
Step 2: Now look at the 500 year history of Protestantism. Count up the number of schisms (new denomonations, etc) in that timeframe.
Assuming you have not yet died of old age during step 2...
Step 3: Now calculate the data as ratios of new units per year.
Point being, there is something in the Protestant approach that boosts this dividing ratio tremendously. I think the root cause is ostensibly Sola Scriptura.
Just some food for thought there.
Yes, but I think it's a weak analogy. For one thing, the content of letters to your sister is never going to be an issue of great cultural and political importance, whereas there is actually an incentive to twist Scripture as religion has been used to control people for centuries.
Secondly, passing this tradition down is like game of 'telephone', where the content can evolve with each generation of hearing & re-telling. If it gets to the point where your great-great nieces and nephews have interpretations that contradict the text of your letters, then I cannot count on them as reliable sources. Especially if, in your letters, you predict that people are in later years going to claim to be your relatives and misrepresent your letters.
Thirdly, I feel confident that God is a better writer than you or me, and can make Himself understood without needing a lot of help from flawed human beings.
Point being, there is something in the Protestant approach that boosts this dividing ratio tremendously. I think the root cause is ostensibly Sola Scriptura.
The Bible is simply not that badly written. An honest appeal to it cannot support scores of mutually exclusive doctrines.
As far as why this division is so much more prevalent in Protestantism, I imagine it has a lot to do with the authoritative hierarchy of the Catholic church, and the fear of members that they would be lost if they left it. Lots of protestant denominations have developed hierarchies of their own, but the false doctrines of salvation by faith only, once-saved-always-saved, etc., have created a mindset among many that they can choose whichever church they like, or even start their own, and everything will be just dandy. And again, these doctrines -- being false -- cannot originate from an honest, thorough examination of Scripture.
By the way, there were certainly divisions already taking place in the first century -- churches and individual Christians were admonished by the New Testament writers for their partisan tendencies ("I am of Paul" "I am of Apollos") and for drifting away from sound doctrine. Entire congregations -- i.e., Laodicea -- had seemingly gone into apostasy. Were they Protestants?
BTW, I do not consider myself a Protestant, though I imagine you certainly would.
Ya, it's a bad anology, but don't go too far out of your way to miss the point.
Secondly, passing this tradition down is like game of 'telephone', where the content can evolve with each generation of hearing & re-telling. If it gets to the point where your great-great nieces and nephews have interpretations that contradict the text of your letters, then I cannot count on them as reliable sources. Especially if, in your letters, you predict that people are in later years going to claim to be your relatives and misrepresent your letters.
Which would leave you guessing as to what the letters really mean. I'm not sure how that makes you better off. It hardly puts you in a position of authority. Analogies aside, there is no shortage of writings throughout Church history which comment on Scripture. Hence, distortions, willful or otherwise, can be readily challenged.
Thirdly, I feel confident that God is a better writer than you or me, and can make Himself understood without needing a lot of help from flawed human beings.
Given the sheer number of misunderstandings between christians today, I'm not inclined to agree. And for the record, God's writing skill is not at issue here.
*******
The Bible is simply not that badly written. An honest appeal to it cannot support scores of mutually exclusive doctrines.
Again, it has nothing to do with how well the Bible was written. It has to do with how well the Bible is interpreted. Shakespeare was a good writer, but 400 years later I need an expert on British Literature to explain. As for the "scores of mutually exclusive doctrines", that they exist is self evident. As to whether or not their appeals were honest, I'm not qualified to say.
As far as why this division is so much more prevalent in Protestantism, I imagine it has a lot to do with the authoritative hierarchy of the Catholic church, and the fear of members that they would be lost if they left it. Lots of protestant denominations have developed hierarchies of their own, but the false doctrines of salvation by faith only, once-saved-always-saved, etc., have created a mindset among many that they can choose whichever church they like, or even start their own, and everything will be just dandy. And again, these doctrines -- being false -- cannot originate from an honest, thorough examination of Scripture.
Pardon me for pointing this out, but the obvious question has now become "where does that leave you". Put differently, "How do you differ from others who do their own thing?"
By the way, there were certainly divisions already taking place in the first century -- churches and individual Christians were admonished by the New Testament writers for their partisan tendencies ("I am of Paul" "I am of Apollos") and for drifting away from sound doctrine. Entire congregations -- i.e., Laodicea -- had seemingly gone into apostasy. Were they Protestants?
The early church did have it's issues to deal with. But schisms were considered worse than heresy. As such, they were very rare. Not so with Protestants.
BTW, I do not consider myself a Protestant, though I imagine you certainly would.
IMHO, If you can, in some way, shape or form, trace your brand of christianity back to the Reformation, then you are a Protestant. Otherwise, you are not.
FWIW, some Catholics would say that we Orthodox are the first protestants. But that's how food fights get started.
Later addition of precedence of the Holy Ghost in the words "and through the Son" (Filioque), which was almost exclusively done by Western (Latin) Christians suggests two causes and two sources, which is contrary to Cghristian belief in the monarchichal relationship of the Father.
Faced with early heresies related to the natures of the Son, the Church clarified theological concepts of Trinity in the first two Ecumenical Councils (Nicene and Constantinople) and formalized the Faith by the now famous complete Nicene Creed. Unfortunately, the Latin side of the Church continued to use the confusing and potentially miselading Filoque to this day.
None of this will be found in the Bible, but is a product of the early Fathers' knowledge of Faith through written documents and Tradition that contains the written and unwritten truths and mysteries of our Lord (for not everything the Lord taught the Apostles was written down, but passed to the succeding bishops in the form of Tradition).
Although the Portestants claim that all their knowledge of God comes from the Scriptures, they also know that profane sources are used to clarify the Bible and that to a large extent the Protestants also rely on a sort of their own tradition rather than a completely individual interpretation of the Bible.
If sola scriptura were even a possiblity for the first 1800 years of Christianity (when the Bible was largely unavailable to most people, and when the vast majority of believers couldn't even read) then there would be no need for Protestant churches -- since everyone could satisfy his or her religious needs and find all the answers simply by reading the Book. The truth is that the very people who propose the idea that all you need is the Bible seem to preach more and write more about the faith for the faithful than the pre-Protestant Chrisitan churches.
If that were so, there would be no need for preachers, Protestant churches, and the multitude of "how to..." books written by various Protestants.
The idea that everyone can understand and profit from the word of God because the Bible explains itself perfectly (sola scriptura) is naive at best and historically without support just knowing that for some eighteen hundred years of Christianity the vast majority of believers couldn't read and/or couldn't afford a Bible.
The fact that preaching and book writing (like "Purposeful living"...etc.) did not cease but only intensified now that most people can read and bibles are very available and affordable makes the notion that the Bible is all you need without any support.
Also, individual interpretations contrary to a particular Protestant denomination's traditional beliefs will not be welcome. The fact is that Calvinists, Baptists, Methodists, various flavors of dispensationalists, etc. hold on to very specific ideas and will "debate" and try to "correct" those brethren believed to be interpreting the word of God "deficiently." Based on what? The "correct interpretation?" Who among Protestants can say has the correct interpretation of the Bible? Measuring the truth by human standards? By someone who memorized the Bible? Or by someone who piled up fifteen PhDs?
The Church did not come out of nowhere. It was handed down to the Apostles and from them to their bishops to this day. The Tradition is checked against the writings and documents that followed the Church in its journey. The Bible is the central portion of that Tradition and reflects the knowledge of the right faith by those who assembled it. Without that knowledge, the Bible would not have come into existence.
Right on!! But you left out the part where Margaret MacDonald was a catholic (or I didn't see it) thus Rapture (which is latin) and you will find that word in a catholic dictionary. If Christians can not identify the Whore then yes...if it were possible even the very elect of God would be deceived. They are blinded and choose to be that way.
People misunderstand the scripture where Christ said many will come saying I am the Christ.....(He didn't mean imposters)...he meant YES they would say He was the Christ but in their ways deny HIM. They would proclaim Him for every reason but the right reason, and in that spirit they become against Christ OR the Spirit of the Anti-Christ.
Mess with people's doctrines of devils and watch them turn on you like a pack of wolves, JUST as our Lord said they would.
The rapture is not part of Catholic dogma and indeed is a heresy to Catholics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.