Posted on 01/14/2011 5:57:52 PM PST by topcat54
Evangelical book catalogs promote books such as Planet Earth: The Final Chapter, The Great Escape, and the Left Behind series. Bumper stickers warn us that the vehicle’s occupants may disappear at any moment. It is clear that there is a preoccupation with the idea of a secret rapture. Perhaps this has become more pronounced recently due to the expectation of a new millennium and the fears regarding potential Y2K problems. Perhaps psychologically people are especially receptive to the idea of an imminent, secret rapture at the present time. Additionally, many Christians are not aware that any other position relative to the second coming of Jesus Christ exists. Even in Reformed circles there are numerous people reading these books. Many of these people are unaware that this viewpoint conflicts with Scripture and Reformed Theology.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformed.org ...
In any event I simply cannot take anyone seriously who finds that a visit from space aliens to be more believable and a more desirable belief than an apparition of the Blessed Virgin.
This highly personal attack on Dave MacPherson was written by Thomas Ice. Perhaps the personal animus has to do with MacPherson's exposure Mr. Ice's blatant frauds concerning Ephraim the Syrian and Margaret Macdonald.
Quix is indeed a class A troll.
But, regardless of who wrote it, the question is: Can the facts in the article be disputed?
Very much so:
Can any of the facts about Dave MacPherson in the article posted by CynicalBear be factually disputed?
Quix is indeed a class A troll.
Do I get a T-shirt?
Maybe a little gold badge?
How about a plaque?
From some folks, even curses are an honor.
You send me something that points out punctuation errors? Some words missing that are easily found with no change in meaning of the article? Not a substantive argument.
The first two to three centuries of popes fade into oblivion. After that, the Catholic church couldn’t even keep track of who’s on first.
What are the sources to verify that the list is reliable and accurate? From the looks of it, what with there being so little known about the first *popes*, it looks like someone just went through and picked names out of a hat to fill in the blanks.
*Not much is known about this pope....*
*Very little is known about this pope...*
*Based upon his name, it seems likely ...*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism
http://www.christian-history.org/western-great-schism.html
The Western Great Schism began on September 20, 1378 with the election of Clement VII in Avignon, France. He was the second pope elected by the same college of cardinals in six months, and for the first time in history there were two “legitimate” claimants to be head of the church in Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Constance
At the time the council was called, there were three claimants to the Papacy (Benedict XIII, Gregory XII and John XXIII). A few years earlier, in one of the first blows to the Conciliar movement, the bishops at the Council of Pisa had deposed the two claimant popes and elected a third pope, claiming that in such a situation, a council of bishops had greater authority than just one bishop, even if he were the bishop of Rome.
Where did Peter leave instructions on choosing his successor?
How did such evil men as the top ten corrupt popes manage to get their names on the list of legitimate popes of the Roman church?
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
In the article, Thomas Ice bases his attack of MacPherson on trying to dispute MacPherson's exposure of Margaret Macdonald, the teenage mystic who's dream-vision gave John Darby the idea of the pre-trib rapture. MacPherson exposes Thomas Ice as a fraud by proving Ice's falsification of the text from Margaret Macdonald: http://poweredbychrist.com/Thomas_Ice_Bloopers.html
Here, MacPherson refutes Ice's points by showing that Darby did get his ideas from the mystic Macdonald. http://poweredbychrist.com/files/articles/Strandberg.htm
I see that you have once again posted extensively from the OT. Let me ask you if there is any Christ in your Christianity.
I don't think you and I have a history here, so I am at a bit of a disadvantage when trying to assess if this is merely a cheap-shot insult or you and I have just have a fundamental difference in opinion regarding the OT passages.
Nevertheless, the passages were in response to Quix who is obviously unfamiliar with Apocalyptic literature, so I was hoping that Quix would see the fallacy of expecting a literal fulfillment of "stars falling to earth" when similar language is used to describe historically fulfilled prophetic events. I would have been perfectly happy to use your approved exclusive NT passages but alas, Futurists are spiritually blinded to the fact that much of the Olivet was fulfilled quite literally by 70AD and that Revelation is not a Day Planner for post-Apocalyptic exiles, but is quite literally The Revelation of Christ and His Church.
As far as "Christ" in the OT, please refer to Luke 24:44-45
Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.
Here Jesus Christ is telling His Disciples that the Old Testament was all about Him. I believe I culled passages exclusively from the Prophets, who Jesus said were talking about Him. Exactly what is causing your distress?
Hmmm, not really.
I have visited just about every anti-rapture web site on the internet. One common point used on nearly every one of these sites to oppose the pretribulation doctrine is the claim that the rapture theory was started by a Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald. Many critics of the rapture declare that MacDonald received her vision from demonic origins, and that she then passed on the message of that vision to infect the Church. Being a staunch pretribulationist, I'm at a loss to explain the connection between Margaret MacDonald and my beliefs in the rapture. I cannot recall ever hearing pre-trib prophetic speakers say, "I believe in the rapture because Margaret MacDonald told me so."
After reading and listening to a number of web sites, books, and radio programs that promote the idea that Margaret MacDonald started pretribulationism, I decided to look into the matter.
To be certain that I made no oversight, I searched through my library of prophecy books for references citing Margaret MacDonald as the founder of the rapture teaching. My hunt turned out to be in vain. It was like looking for the cartoon character "Where's Waldo." Only in this case, no Waldo was to be found.
If MacDonald was the founder of the pretribulation rapture, as most anti-rapture proponents say, then someone needs to explain why rapturists have failed to give her credit. You would expect to find dozens of books that expound upon her every word. From reading the writings of anti-rapture authors, one would think we pre-tribbers would be reverencing MacDonald as Catholics do Mary. But clearly we don't. Pre-tribbers don’t go around reciting, "Hail Margaret full of grace, blessed art thou among visionaries, pray for us sinners at the time of the rapture." If MacDonald were the founder of the doctrine of rapture, the lack of recognition we rapture believers pay her would be comparable to the modern Mormon church failing to recognize Joseph Smith as its founder or to the Jehovah's witnesses neglecting to identify Charles Russell as that group’s originator. Poor Margaret MacDonald, she gets all of the blame, but none of the credit.
After having examined the claims of those critical of the rapture, I have found holes large enough to drive a dump truck through in their so-called evidence:
The first problem with the MacDonald origin is the fact that she wasn't the one who widely taught the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture. A man named John Darby is believed by many to have sparked modern interest in the rapture. The question here is how Darby came to hear of MacDonald's vision. Proponents like Dave MacPherson and John L. Bray have never been able to prove that Darby had ever heard of MacDonald or her vision.
Darby himself claims the revelation of the rapture came to him when he realized the distinction between Israel and the church.
Darby reported that he discovered the rapture teaching in 1827, three years before MacDonald had her vision.
When one closely examines MacDonald's vision, it becomes clear that her vision could not have been a pretribulational one. MacDonald looked for a "fiery trial which is to try us," and she foresaw the Church being purged by the Antichrist. Any pretribulation rapturist can tell you the Church will be removed before the advent of the Antichrist. John Bray, an anti-rapturist, said himself that Margaret MacDonald was teaching a single coming of our Lord Jesus. This contradicts current rapture doctrine, which teaches a two-staged event—first, Christ coming for His Church and second, seven years later His return to earth. With so many contradictions between MacDonald's vision and today's pretribulationism, it is difficult to see any linkage.
By far the biggest mistake post-tribulationists have made attacking the rapture is claiming that the pretribulation rapture wasn’t taught before 1830. In fact, John L. Bray, a Southern Baptist evangelist, offered $500 to anyone who could prove that someone taught the rapture doctrine prior to MacDonald's 1830 vision. Bray was first proven wrong when he wrote in a newsletter, "Then my own research indicated that it was Emmanuel Lacunza, a Jesuit Catholic priest, who in the 1812 book The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, first taught this theory." Bray stuck his neck out again when he made another $500 offer to anyone who could provide a documented statement earlier than Lacunza's 1812 writings. Apparently he had to cough up the 500 bucks. I quote him again: "I offered $500 to anyone who would give a documented statement earlier than Lacunza's time which taught a two-stage coming of Christ separated by a stated period of time.” No one claimed that offer until someone found writings that forced Bray to write the following: “Now I have the Photostat copies of a book published in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1788 but written in 1742-1744 in England, which taught the pretribulation rapture before Lacunza." Lately, a number of other sources have been located that teach the pretribulation rapture--some written as early as the second century. Where does this leave Margaret MacDonald?
In my life here on earth, I've made a number of observations that I regard as undeniable truths. One of these is the fact that the truth will suffer attacks with no one defending it, while a lie will be allowed to proliferate with no one challenging it. This seems to have taken place in the case of the rapture. For years on end, anti-rapturists have been allowed to attack pretribulationism freely. One assailant called the rapture the mark of the beast while another remarked that when Jesus returns at the battle of Armageddon, He will fight against those who believe in the rapture. The people who should have been contending for the rapture, for the most part, just said, "That may be your opinion."
Finally, it appears that those who hold to a pretribulation rapture are beginning to counter the ridiculous charges. A number of books have been published that cite several pre-MacDonald sources describing a raptured Church. Author Grant Jeffrey deserves a good deal of praise for his work in discovering many of these sources.
As far as being able to find the pretribulation rapture in the Bible, we don’t need to be rocket scientists to discover it. For me, locating the rapture doctrine in the Bible was as simple as finding evidence that Jesus Christ is Messiah.
The evidence that Christians believed in the rapture long before MacDonald does not seem to have sunk into the minds of those opposed to the rapture. They still teach that she is the founder of pretribulationism. When someone is presented with overwhelming proof that he or she is wrong and refuses to accept that truth, then we certainly may conclude that he or she is in spiritual darkness.
I would like to conclude by saying that no evidence whatsoever points to MacDonald as the source of pretribulationism. Every major prophetic author alive today claims the Word of God as the foundation for belief in the rapture. Both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul made statements that clearly establish the rapture doctrine. Jesus said, in Matthew 25:13, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." Paul affirmed in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."
Paul told us “sola scriptura” is a false doctrine......starting with a false doctrine, leads to 9,000 denominations? 15,000? i lost count!!
look again, it must say i will found 9,000 churches all teaching different doctrines, oh what the heck, who needs a church anyway!!
but those Christians were pagan, no? care to name some you are referring to? i’d like to see if they believed the Catholic faith.
Where? Chapter and verse?
So, you think that Paul's theology is an accurate representation of the Catholic church's? That he wasn't a kook or a loon, or any such pejorative?
don’t bring facts to the table! you see St Iraneus was a “good Catholic”, while today’s “Catholics” are pagan!! makes sense to me, i guess denial is just not a river in Egypt!
to what group do you refer?
Here is the direct refutation (http://poweredbychrist.com/files/articles/Strandberg.htm ):
FACTS: In John Darby's book The Irrationalism of Infidelity (1853), pp. 283-5, he described in great detail his visit with her in her home in Scotland in mid-1830 and even talked about her endtime outlook and the Scriptural texts she used for support! (All this is in my book The Incredible Cover-up.)
The rest of the article you posted by Sergeant Strandberg is refuted at the link.
to know history is to cease to be protestant!
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.