"But clearly both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus believed 1800 years ago in a premilinial view which you said was a view that was only 170 years." ~ DannyTN
"The Secret Rapture" idea was dreamed up out of whole cloth by a nineteenth-century ex-Anglican priest, John Nelson Darby about 165-175 years ago.. None of the Church Fathers (including Justin Martyr and Irenaeus) believed in a secret Rapture, nor a lot of other scenerios that are typical of the various flavors of modern dispensationalism.
"While the pre-tribulational, pre-millennial dispensationalist scheme has certaily caught in American Christianity, vis. Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye's popularizing (Late Great Planet Earth; Left Behind serial offerings), and within the 20th century promoted on a more scholarly basis by Lewis Chafer and Dallas Seminary and others, who in turn took it from C.I. Scofield and his Scofield Study Bible, it is a novel view of eschatology.
A novel view that is having less and less support among even some dispensationalists...
It is not based upon historic Reformational theology in any sense, and is completely at odds with covenantal Reformed theology. Point of fact, it was *never* taught, believed, or even hinted at, by anyone in the historic Christian faith.
John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren (circa A.D. 1830s) literally invented it, though others in the Plymouth Brethren sect certainly contributed to its formulation (e.g., A.N. Groves; B.W. Newton; W.H. Dorman; E. Cronin; and J.G. Bullett).
Some dispensationalists chafe at this, but the fact is dispensationalism is a direct product of the Plymouth Brethren movement in England in the early 19th century.
It isn't found in the New Testament; it isn't found in the Church fathers; it isn't found in the universal creeds of the historic Church; it isn't found in Augustine; it isn't found in any of the great Reformation creeds and statements of faith; it isn't found in Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, Spurgeon, Dabney, Machen, well, I hope the reader gets the point.
I am not saying it was a minority view, or a hated view, or even considered a heretical view--it simply didn't exist until J.N Darby concocted it in the 1830s.
It didn't exist in any form in the United States until circa 1864; Darby graced the United States with his presence.
Darby so impressed Dr. James Brooks of the 16th and Walnut Avenue Presbyterian Church in St. Louis that Dr. Brooks is considered the "father of American dispensationalism."
One of Dr. Brooks' students was named C.I. Scofield. So, essentially, the historical beginnings may be rightly traced, literally, from JN Darby, to James Brooks, to C.I. Scofield, to Lewis Chafer and subsequently being churned out at Dallas Seminary, founded by Dr. Chafer.
What made it "take off," so to speak? During this circa of history, the American denomoniations were being heavily corrupted by liberalism, in the wake of Chuck Darwin's philosophical piece, Origins of Species (Darwin wasn't a scientist, but a failed divinity student--his Origins is one of the books that everyone talks about but never reads...it is not a work of science, but is simply the [largely borrowed...] musings of Darwin), and the cultural impact it had.
By 1923, liberalism and historic Christian teaching came to a real confrontation at Princeton Seminary (at one time one of the great defenders of the historic Christian faith).
The General Assembly in 1923 resulted in J. Gresham Machen and other scholars from Princeton breaking from the school and forming Westminster Theological Seminary, September 25, 1929. A truly great educational institution.
The Reformed scholars of the school defended historic Christian teaching against the anti-christian liberalism that was taking over much of the American church.
The works they published defended the fundamentals of the faith, such as the inspiration of Scripture, the Virgin birth of Christ, the bodily Resurrection, the divinity of Christ and the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
Those that held to historic Christian teaching were then labeled "fundamentalists" (it should be carefully noted that these "fundamentalists" should not be equated with or confused with the current dispensationalist fundamentalists, as they are strikingly different, whereas the so-called present-day fundamentalist is typified as being anti-intellectual, anti-historic, anti-creedal, which the great men that fought the liberals in the early 20th century were certainly not any of the above).
The liberalism of the day made such headway into the mainline denominations that they essentially ceased being Christian when an honest analysis is made of their doctrinal and creedal content; in our day, none of the mainline denominations may be rightly called Christian from a historic, New Testament perspective.
In this horrific state of affairs, came the Scofield Study Bible and the energetic preaching of C.I. Scofield. In response to the major denominations in the U.S. being corrupted by liberalism, the independent church movement began, and with noble purposes to be sure.
Essentially all of the leaders of the early independent church movement were dispensationalists, and the defacto Bible that was used was the Scofield Study Bible.
Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded Dallas Seminary in 1924, and while the mainline demonominations were jettisoning the Christian faith, this dispensationalist school was upholding historic doctrines such as the inspiration of Scripture, the deity of Christ, His miracles, the bodily Resurrection, et. al.
The person in the pew didn't want to hear that the Bible was "wrong," and that Jesus--if He ever existed--was just a nice man, deluded, but just a nice man, that miracles are "impossible," and that they were not only not in the image of God, they were simply a quirk, a biological oddity, a product of time and chance--in short, animals, of no more worth or real significance than a dog, or cow, or rat, or slug.
In that worldview, Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler are ultimately the same, as ethics and morals are nothing but the subjective illusion of evolved animals, with the same reward--if anything, Hitler acted more "rationally consistent" with the modern worldview, as he fully believed in evolution and the survival of the fittest. ...
Dallas Seminary filled the void that was left by the abandoning of the Christian faith by the mainline denominations (and as a side note, the cults took advantage of this as their rise took place during the same time period)--Dallas Seminary produced scores of graduates, and these men planted churches all over the United States, Bible-believing churches, and those sickened by the liberalism of the mainline churches flocked to the new dispensational fundamental churches.
These churches did preach the Gospel and defend the faith, to their credit.
And here we are today...most conservative churches today are dispensationalist in orientation, and most church goers think it is *the* historic, Bible-believing view of eschatology and hermeneutics, which it simply is not.
Anyway, that is the historic background to dispensationalism and the Hal Lindsey brand "mark of the best" and the "Left Behind" series. "The Beast" of Revelation was most likely Caesar Nero. "Apocalypse Then" essentially.
Is there going to be another physical Temple rebuilt in Jerusalem? The New Testament clearly states that believers in Christ are the Temple of God; the final view of the physical (carnal) Temple of the Old Covenant nation of the Jews was foretold by Christ to be destroyed; it was, circa A.D. 70.
The kingdom was to be taken from the Jews and given to others; it was, and now the covenant people of God are those that have their faith in Jesus Christ, whether ethnically Jewish or Gentile. National Israel rejected her covenant with God, rejected her Messiah, and ultimately rejected God Himself.
There is no special significance to the modern secular state of "Israel," which is [a] utterly contemptous of Christ; [b] is overwhelming atheistic in belief; [c] ethnically, they are German, Polish, English, Romanian, Russian, Turkish, Kazaharian, etc....but biological, lineal descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Biologically doubtful, theological irrelevant as regards New Testament belief.
"The mark of the beast is a counterfeit for the seal of God's name on the saints (7:2-8; 14:1; Ezek, 9). The beast owns those who are marked, and they are his slaves.
Speculations about a visible mark miss the main point of the spiritual distinction between the two groups" (New Geneva Study Bible study notes for Rev. 13:16 Thomas Nelson, 1995), p. 2023."
Recommended Sites:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/97dec/Wilson_Judaism_Lite.html
http://www.reformed.org/eschaton/beast.html
Also Recommended:
Understanding Dispensationalism, by Vern S. Poythress (Zondervan Publishing House).
82 posted on 11/17/2001 7:15:29 PM EST by EthanNorth
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/572917/posts?page=82#82
WRONG! The following quote clearly indicates that the modern concept of the rapture was understood in the early church and is much much older than 175 years.
What's more it's clear in the scripture. I've already posted the verses that say, alive Christians will meet Jesus in the air after the dead in Christ rise. Tell me what your view makes of that statement.
"All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins."-Pseudo-Ephraem (c. 374-627)
Ancient Pretrib rapture statement
There's a real rapture and a real tribulation coming! I don't know when. But it might be in our lifetimes.
In addition, I don't know what you mean by "secret" rapture. Any event where all true Christians dissappear from the earth simultaneously, isn't likely to be "secret".
I think people are going to sit up and take notice. Hopefully, if we have talked about Revelations and haven't dismissed it as irrevelant, the people remaining will recognize the rapture for what it is and seek repentance and salvation. But it doesn't look like very many will.
This is true, and I applaud you for doing your homework. However, a non-dispensational (aka historic) premillennial futurist view of the Revelation was undeniably the position of the earliest Church, in particular those who are most connected to the Apostle John himself (e.g. Papias, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and even enemies like Cerinthius).
Dispensationalism is not so much wrong as it is an overcorrection of the Replacement Theology (Supracessanism, if you prefer) that had dominated the RCC and carried over into the Reform churches for so many centuries. Disp. is correct, in my view, in its understanding that God's promises to the land and natural seed of Israel will be fulfilled exactly as they are written in both the Tanakh and NT instead of merely in spiritual allegory to the Church. However, in the zeal to uphold Israel's promises as given, Dispys unfortunately draw too wide a distinction between Israel and the Church, considering the latter a "mystery" in the OT, and (usually) even positing that God will not directly deal with Israel again until after the Church is taken out of the world (Raptured).
What I would suggest is that we regard the Gentile Church as being neither separate from Israel nor replacing her natural members in those promises specific to Israel (which is a separate issue from individual salvation), but being more of a sibling adopted into another's family. As an adopted child, it is not our right to promote ourselves over the natural seed nor to scorn them (whether or not they are currently in fellowship with the Father), nor to use the freedom the Lord gave us not to have the Jewish Torah culture imposed on us as a condition of adoption or fellowship (Acts 15) as a pretext for condemning those who choose to keep it. Nor can we say that we have replaced the natural children in the Father's will--rather, we have simply been added to it, so that we too can share in it's blessings. Paul warns us in Romans 11 not to arrogate ourselves over the natural branches, even those broken off, for God is able to graft them back in again. Further, he states that after the full number of the Gentiles have been brought into God's Community, the partial blindness will be lifted from Israel, "and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written."
I am no proposing that simply being born Jewish makes one saved, or that keeping the Torah does. Clearly, long before the Torah was given at Sinai, it was faith that was what made men righteous before God, as Paul points out repeatedly from Abraham's example in Genesis 15. However, while salvation through faith is God's greatest blessing, and the prerequisite to recieving all others in any but a temporary fashion in this life, it is not God's only blessing. The land grant of Israel was clearly given to Abraham's natural seed through Isaac in Genesis 15--and that was a unilateral covenant made by God that neither Abraham nor his descendants could break. They could put it on hold through disobedience, but the prophetic Scriptures (and today's reality) show that God has promised to always bring them home again in His own time.
What we most need to recognize is the simple fact that God elects and judges corporate bodies (i.e. nations) just as He does individuals . . . and the Bible is clear that He has elected Israel to be the center of the Messiah's kingdom when He Comes again.