Posted on 03/06/2024 5:46:26 PM PST by grumpa
The pre-tribulation rapture doctrine is a tenet of dispensationalism which holds that living believers will be taken to heaven to avoid a future Great Tribulation. It is noteworthy that no verse in the Bible specifically says that Christ will come to take the church off planet earth to heaven before a 7-year tribulation. Neither is there found in Scripture a distinction between Israel and the church, or a parenthesis that stops the prophecy clock prior to the 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27. These are the distinctives that define dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture.
The rapture doctrine was introduced to the world in 1830 in the British Isles. There were 4 key players that had a hand in its early development:
1. In the spring of 1830, a sickly 15-year-old Scottish girl named Margaret McDonald had a vision (“revelation”) about a rapture event. Her idea was based in part on Bible verses which in the KJV speaks of people being “taken” (Matthew 24:40-41) and “caught up” (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). We know about her vision because she wrote to several prominent clergymen about it, and it was reprinted in a couple of books a few years later. McDonald reasoned that only after a literal rapture, when some would be left on earth, would the Antichrist be revealed. It would be a secret event in that only believers would be able to see “the sign of Jesus’ appearance.” No one in the 18 centuries preceding her had ever clearly communicated this totally new doctrine of “escapism.” Scholars have even debated whether McDonald’s vision was strictly a pre-tribulation rapture, as some see elements of historicism and post-tribulation in it.
2. One of those clergymen who received McDonald’s letter was Edward Irving. As early as June 2, 1830, Irving confessed in a private letter that the “substance of . . . Margaret McDonald’s visions or revelations . . . carry to me a spiritual conviction and a spiritual reproof which I cannot express.” Interestingly, Irving was also from Scotland and drew large crowds, so McDonald may have been influenced by him (as well as the reverse).
3. In September 1830 a writer going by the pen name of “Fidus” expressed this novel idea in a prophecy journal which Irving published called “The Morning Watch.” Dave MacPherson, who studied pre-trib history for many years, stated in his 1994/2000 book titled “The Rapture Plot,” that this article is “the earliest moment I’ve found anyone publicly teaching the pretrib rapturescape.” Irving (and “Fidus”) seem to have been the first also to see the seven churches of Revelation as symbolic representations of seven successive stages of the church―a key element of dispensationalism. The identity of “Fidus” is unknown, but if it was not Irving himself, it seems likely that it was one of his associates.
4. John Nelson Darby, Anglo-Irish founder of the Plymouth Brethren church, became aware of the above. He attended at least one of the Albury prophecy conferences, of which Irving was a part. Darby became a champion of the rapture and promoted it extensively, becoming “The Father of Dispensationalism.” It’s uncertain when Darby put together all of the many aspects of dispensationalism. But MacPherson argues that Darby did not fully embrace the pre-trib rapture until about 1839. Thomas Ice wrote that, "Darby is the father of dispensationalism.”
The 1830 beginning for pre-tribulationism is an embarrassment to dispensationalists. So, they have desperately tried to find pre-tribulationism earlier in history. Here are some earlier figures that have been cited incorrectly as holding to a pre-trib rapture:
1. “Pseudo-Ephraem”―called “pseudo” because this was not the real Ephraim the Syrian. No one really knows who this person was, when his tract was written, or which version of the work to rely on. While some find pre-trib in this writing, MacPherson argued that this person was not a pre-tribulationist, but rather saw Christ’s Second Coming only at the end of history. This view is what we would call today amillennialism or postmillennialism. Bob Gundry, on the other hand, in his book “First the Antichrist” argues that Pseudo-Ephraem was a post-tribulationist.
2. Morgan Edwards (1722-1792). MacPherson said that he was a “historicist post-tribulationist” and not a pre-tribulationist.
3. Manuel Lacunza (1731-1801). Lacunza was a Jesuit priest from Chile. Irving translated Lacunza’s book, “The Coming of Messiah,” into English. MacPherson said that Lacunza was a post-tribulationist, not a pre-tribulationist. However, it is true that Lacunza in his book promoted elements of dispensationalism, saying, “The restoration of the Jewish nation, to be again be the Church of God. . . .” Lacunza used the word “dispensation” numerous times in his book. Influenced by Lacunza, Irving taught dispensationalism at the Albury conferences―thus the origin of dispensationalism.
https://prophecyquestions.com/category/dispensationalism
—> Neither is there found in Scripture a distinction between Israel and the church
You’re back to drinking heavily, aren’t you grumpa?
Aside from the heresy represented by Rapture/Dispensationalism eschatology; the practical element is that the only Christians in the entire world who actually believe it are American Protestants, NOBODY else does.
“Church fathers widely understand the rapture to be a future physical meeting of Christ and Christians in the air.
Origen gives no indication of a hidden meaning in Paul’s words in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. He simply writes that both the dead and alive in Christ will rise:
“Those whom we spoke of as dead have special need of the resurrection, since not even those who are alive can be taken up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air before the dead in Christ first rise. (Commentary on John, 20.233)
Rufinus of Aquileia clearly indicates a physical reunion with Christ in the sky:
“And do not marvel that the flesh of the saints is to be changed into such a glorious condition at the resurrection as to be caught up to meet God, suspended in the clouds and borne in the air. (Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, 46)
Augustine says that living Christians will “both die and rise again at once while caught up into the air”:
“And why should it seem to us incredible that that multitude of bodies should be, as it were, sown in the air, and should in the air forthwith revive immortal and incorruptible, when we believe, on the testimony of the same apostle, that the resurrection shall take place in the twinkling of an eye, and that the dust of bodies long dead shall return with incomprehensible facility and swiftness to those members that are now to live endlessly? (City of God, 20.20)
You are wildly wrong.
61% of evangelicals leaders around the world believe in the rapture.
Blondie believed
\/
. so tired of this bold faced lie.
\\
Neither is there found in Scripture a distinction between Israel and the church,
really?
explain this away then
Daniel 7:21 vs Matthew 16:18
“I was watching;and the same horn was making war against the saints, and prevailing against them
] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
.\/
aside from that
folk should note that none of us
” dispensationalists “
continuously post threads about the errors of preterism, or dominionism, or postmillenniumism.
yet you regularly post attack threads against premilleniumists. it smacks of accusers of the brethren. you never just post about the gospel. no, just a constant drum beat of lies and ignorance. by your fruit i know you.
I agree with you. The distinction between Israel and the church is false. My article explains:
https://prophecyquestions.com/who-is-the-israel-of-god-in-the-new-covenant/
If you read the article, I cite Thomas Ice who admits that Darby was the Father of Dispensationalism.
No. God makes a clear distinction and preserves that distinction throughout Scripture and into eternity.
I'm not saying there is no truth in it or that nobody should consider it, only that it is important to know that this is not, as it is often presented, the only interpretation or position. As the majority of Christians in the world are either Catholic, Orthodox and other Eastern Churches who do not ascribe to modern Dispensationalism vastly outnumber the American influenced Evangelical Protestants and Protestant Fundamentalists that are the ones who primarily embrace modern Dispensationalism, it is important to point out that it doesn't represent the views of most Christians.
The origin is the Catholic church and futurism.
The reformers were not futurists (Pre Trib Rapture). They were Historicists (only one coming of Christ at the end of this world and prophecy unfolding throughout history). The theory of Futurism began with the Catholic Church and spread to Protestantism. It can be directly traced to Jesuit priests, who had to come up with alternate identities/theories for the Antichrist power, because of the pressure they were feeling from the Reformers, who all identified them as THE antichrist power (Little Horn, Man of Sin, Son of Perdition, etc…):
Francisco Ribera (Jesuit)
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (Jesuit)
Michael Walpole (Jesuit)
Manuel De Lacunza (Jesuit)
Then, Edward Irving discovered Lacunza’s book in a Library (might have been at Oxford), and translated it into English (originally in Spanish, and he lied about who he was), in 1827. Guess what happened 3 years later? One of his church members, Margaret Mcdonald, just happened to “utter” matching scenarios to Lacunza’s book, which I am sure were mentioned by Irving in his church over those 3 years preceding Margaret’s utterances, and were well known and rehearsed by Mcdonald. What a coincidence. Then comes Darby, Scofield, and many others, until now almost everyone believes it. Amazing, right? The antichrist power, through Satan, has convinced almost everyone that they are not THAT power, identified in the bible, and the Christian world has nothing to fear. And while we are at it, believing in the PTR, you don’t even have to worry about the antichrist, mark of the beast, or tribulation, because the “church” will be “raptured” out of this world before any of it happens. How lucky can a Christian get?
The Catholic Origins of Futurism and Preterism
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/antichrist.htm
What is the percentage of Scientists who believe in man caused catastrophic climate change? It is an opinion both ways. I don’t see a secret resurrection of the living alongside the same but of the deceased. ALL will be raised, some to everlasting reward, some to be judged not deserving.
SEE? just an opinion, and I don’t care who believes like me. I only care that Christ died for my sins, and hope to be with him someday.
Fortunately, choosing a correct view of the end times is not a requirement to be saved.
.
Scripture is the origin.
It’s spelled out there.
that proves exactly nothing.
i notice, as does every other person reading this thread,
that you refused to address my rebuttal of your assertion
“
Neither is there found in Scripture a distinction between Israel and the church,”
you didnt cuz it proves you wrong.
the verses in
daniel( about israel)
and
matthew ( about the church )
PROVE you wrong.
instead you throw out a weak weasely assertion that has nothing to do with the pre tribulation rapture.
or your assertion that there is no distinction between the church and israel.
Darby may have coined a term to describe a doctrine held by the church since the ascension of Christ, that disproves or proves exactly nothing. And i must point out that you provided no resource footnote, as you provided for other s, so that is highly suspect also. smacks of unsubstantiated attempt of putting words in others mouth. why didnt you provide the source of mr.ice's statement ?
cuz there isnt one ?
put simply, you attempt a bait and switch verbal slight of hand.
shame on you for resorting to a con man tactic.
He is of Calvery Chapel costa messa affiliated, and thats my home church, so you had zero chance of stuffing that banana up my tail pipe..
weak and disgusting.
The venom displayed against pre-millenialists is very telling.
\/
dont be ridiculous.
have you
personally spoken to
“the majority of Christians today (and who have ever lived, for that matter” ? “
to know that as a fact.
No.
what a dishonest thing to say.
shame on you broham.
and quit repeating that whole darby invented it lie.
it is also dishonest.
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.