How Did We Get the Idea of The Pre-Trib Rapture?

reformed-theology.org ^ | 1998 | Sandy Fiedler

[topcat54]

"The Roots of Fundamentalism," by Ernest R. Sandeen, in discussing the history of the Brethren, says that [John Nelson] Darby introduced the idea of a secret rapture of the church and a gap in prophetic fulfillment between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel. These beliefs became basic to the system of theology known as dispensationalism.

From 1862 to 1877, Darby lived in and traveled throughout the United States and Canada, spreading his message. He was a very appealing speaker and also intolerant to criticism. At first he tried to win members of existing Protestant congregations to his sect, but met with little success. He then spread his end-times message to influential clergymen and laymen in churches in major cities without insisting they leave their denominations.

[Dutchboy88]

"Frankly, Luther wouldn't recognize Lutheranism today. If you refer to ELCA, I'd agree. Otherwise not."

Just how does the Lutheranism to which you refer view Semi-Pelagianism vs. Augustinianism? The Lutherans I know would not cotton to Luther's "Bondage of the Will".

[xone]

view Semi-Pelagianism vs. Augustinianism

I'm not completely familiar with the terms, but probably best answered by the Apostle's Creed/Explanation:

The First Article: Creation

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

What does this mean?

I believe that God has made me and all creatures; that He has given me my body and soul, eyes, ears, and all my members, my reason and all my senses, and still takes care of them. He also gives me clothing and shoes, food and drink, house and home, wife and children, land, animals, and all I have. He richly and daily provides me with all that I need to support this body and life. He defends me against all danger and guards and protects me from all evil. All this He does only out of fatherly, divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness in me. For all this it is my duty to thank and praise, serve and obey Him. This is most certainly true.

The Second Article: Redemption

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty. From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

What does this mean?

I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned person, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil; not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with His innocent suffering and death, that I may be His own and live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity.

This is most certainly true.

The Third Article: Sanctification

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

What does this mean?

I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith. In the same way He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. In this Christian church He daily and richly forgives all my sins and the sins of all believers. On the Last Day He will raise me and all the dead, and give eternal life to me and all believers in Christ.

This is most certainly true.

(My Bolds) As for 'Bondage of the Will', I haven't read it. To the extent that it conforms to the Lutheran Confessions I'd 'cotton' to it.

[Dutchboy88]

"(My Bolds) As for 'Bondage of the Will', I haven't read it. To the extent that it conforms to the Lutheran Confessions I'd 'cotton' to it."

This is an interesting statement. Read it again, out loud, and notice you are not saying if Luheranism conforms to Luther, but if Luther conforms to Lutheranism, you would cotton to it. This is precisely what I am getting at. Lutheranism no longer reflects what Luther was claiming the Scripture said, but what it thinks is true, irrespective of whether Luther agreed or not.

Luther would not recognize such a position as biblical Christianity. He had the same argument against the Roman Church. Rome eclipsed Scripture in its own mind...and he said such was heresy.

[xone]

Lutheranism no longer reflects what Luther was claiming the Scripture said, but what it thinks is true, irrespective of whether Luther agreed or not.

Luther was around for the formation of the Lutheran Confessional documents. They are in full agreement with Scripture. But nice try.

[Dutchboy88]

"They are in full agreement with Scripture."

Thus we can conclude your organization fully embraces the Augustinian predestinationalism and anti-Semi Pelagianism that Luther identified in the Scripture when he wrote Bondage of the Will?

[xone]

Augustinian predestinationalism and anti-Semi Pelagianism

If that means predestination of those called by God, and we do not merit it, that it God's work by grace through faith (a gift), not of works, yes. This how God through the working of the Holy Spirit calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.

[Dutchboy88]

"If that means predestination of those called by God, and we do not merit it, that it God's work by grace through faith (a gift), not of works, yes."

Yes, of course that is what is meant. That the Lutheranism I have observed lately does not embrace this (or much else that Luther wrote of) makes you a raft of truth in a big sea of unbiblical theology.

[xone]

Yes, of course that is what is meant.

Good, but as I told you, I am unfamiliar with the terms.

That the Lutheranism I have observed lately does not embrace this (or much else that Luther wrote of) makes you a raft of truth in a big sea of unbiblical theology.

It is still around, I have seen people who want to soften the message, to be more inclusive. Satan obviously has no overtime budgetary restraints.

[Cronos]

Luther never repented from this position, although his consubstantiation moved dangerously close

What are you talking about? Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation

Lutherans believe in the real presence of Christ's true body and blood in the elements of the Sacrament. They reject the idea that this is any kind of "symbol", holding that they are REALLY Christ's true body and blood present

Lutherans confirm this with 1 Cor. 10:16-17, where Paul writes: "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread." Paul clearly says here that we all "partake" of "BREAD" when we receive the Lord's Supper--even as we also partake of and "participate in" the true body of Christ. And he says that we all "partake" of the wine (the cup), even as we also partake of the true blood of Christ. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 11:26, Paul says: "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." Paul expressly states here that when we receive the Lord's Supper we are "eating bread" and "drinking the cup" (wine), but he goes on to say that those who eat this bread and drink this cup are also partaking of the true body and blood of Christ.

So "real" is this participation in Christ's body and blood, in fact, that (according to Paul) those who partake of the bread and wine "in an unworthy manner" are actually guilty of "profaning the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27). (Partaking of the Lord's Supper "in a worthy manner," of course, is not something that we "do" or "accomplish" on the basis of our "personal holiness" or "good works." It means receiving God's free and gracious gifts of life and forgiveness offered in the Lord's Supper in true repentance produced by the work of the Spirit through God's Law and in true faith in Christ and his promises produced by God's Spirit through the Gospel).

[Cronos]

Luther ultimately waffled on this matter, early on being persuaded that the bread and wine were symbolic.

Where did you get that from? I've never read anything that Luther in any way deviated from believing that there was the True Presence. He never believed it was symbolic. He in fact wrote in oct 1526 The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ - Against the Fanatics

In fact Luther said

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”

[Cronos]

On Bondage of the Will is a masterly treatise -- and the correspondance between Erasmus and Luther are marvels of how people can be civil to each other even when they oppose the other's views.

The lcms.org page holds that

. Scripture emphatically declares that man, also after the fall, continues to be a responsible moral agent, who in earthly matters, to some extent, may exercise freedom of will; but it asserts that "natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, . . . neither can he know them" (1 Co. 2:14); that man, by nature, is "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1); that "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Ro 8:7) and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost" (1 Co 12:3).

Accordingly, Scripture denies to man after the fall and before conversion freedom of will in spiritual matters, and asserts that conversion is accomplished entirely through the Holy Ghost by the Gospel. God "hath saved us, . . . not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace" (2 Ti 1:9); "Turn Thou me, and I shall be turned" (Jer. 31:18).

Accordingly, Article 18 of the Augsburg Confession ("Freedom of the Will") states:

It is also taught among us that man possesses some measure of freedom of the will which enables him to live an outwardly honorable life and to make choices among the things that reason comprehends. But without the grace, help, and activity of the Holy Spirit man is not capable of making himself acceptable to God, of fearing God and believing in God with his whole heart, or of expelling inborn evil lusts from his heart.

[Cronos]

“This is precisely what I am getting at. Lutheranism no longer reflects what Luther was claiming the Scripture said, but what it thinks is true, irrespective of whether Luther agreed or not.” —> from my interactions with other Lutherans (not xone), I can say that is an incorrect statement for the LCMS and WELS organizations.

[Cronos]

Augustinian predestinationalism.

Calvinists get this wrong. The idea that a person can be predestined to come to God yet not be predestined to stay the course may be new to Calvinists and may sound strange to them, but it did not sound strange to Augustine, he did not draw Calvin's inference that all who are ever saved are predestined to remain in grace.

While Calvin's view of predestination might be a variation of Augustine's view, the two are not the same.

Augustine did not believe in Calvin's understanding of the "perseverance of the saints," and neither did the broadly Augustinian tradition. That understanding was new with Calvin.

In 1748 the Church declared Thomism, Molinism, and a third view known as Augustinianism to be acceptable Catholic teachings

Augustine

"[N]othing could have been devised more likely to instruct and benefit the pious reader of sacred Scripture than that, besides describing praiseworthy characters as examples, and blameworthy characters as warnings, it should also narrate cases where good men have gone back and fallen into evil, whether they are restored to the right path or continue irreclaimable; and also where bad men have changed, and have attained to goodness, whether they persevere in it or relapse into evil; in order that the righteous may be not lifted up in the pride of security, nor the wicked hardened in despair of cure" (Against Faustus 22:96 [A.D. 400]).

Remember also that Augustine rejected any notion of an invisible Church and believed in sacraments (Augustine too believed that Christ was really present in the Eucharist)

[Dutchboy88]

"DB: Luther never repented from this position, although his consubstantiation moved dangerously close

Cronos: What are you talking about? Lutherans do not believe in consubstantiation"

You may wish to reread my sentence. Then reread your response. Notice anything glaring?

[Dutchboy88]

"Augustinian predestinationalism.

Calvinists get this wrong."

You draw some of the most peculiar conclusions. Today is busy, so I cannot spend time rebutting all of these wrongheaded remarks. Suffice to say, no one, repeat no one, gets it all perfectly right. That Calvin corrected Augustine's mistake on this is to be expected. The question is...What does the Scripture teach, not what does Augustine teach or Calvin teach?

[Westbrook]

> Rev 21:27 “...nothing unclean shall enter heaven”

Then you can forget about entering Heaven. You can never be perfect, nor cleanse yourself from your own sins, because, if you could, you could ask Jesus to move over, since there are two of you now.

Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags;

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

So who was it that paid the last penny? Can you pay it? Are you a perfect, unblemished lamb that can be offered as a sacrifice to atone for your own sins, let alone those of others?

Romans 8:1-2
1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

Aleluia!!!

Those who are truly born again (John 3:3) will walk in the Spirit, and exhibit the Fruit of the Spirit.

From Galatians chapter 5 ...
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Aleluia amen!!

[Cronos]

Dutchboy Calvin corrected Augustine's mistake on this is to be expected.

Ah, Calvin "corrected" Augustine. He also "corrected" Luther, eh? And "corrected" Paul, I suppose? What an ego!

[MarkBsnr]

Really? "Navel gazing"? I have a copy at home and am interested in the portion you consider "Navel gazing".

The concept of the elect being a diminutive subset of humanity, with not only Calvin, but all the Calvinists then and now. The very self absorption that generated the theories that he came up with, with the disdainful dismissal of the wider view of the teachings of Jesus is almost textbook navel gazing. The very concept was generated by Calvin, for the benefit of Calvin (in several ways - both egotistical (I can form my own religion and spurn what Christianity is), and theological (I can form my own religion in the manner which most suits me), as well as temporal (becoming theocratic dictator over Geneva). Unlike Luther, Calvin was more interested in power than in luxury. And he got it in spades.

And, speaking of Semi-Pelagianism, when you get an opportunity, check Luther's "Bondage of the Will". Here is the "hingepin" of the Reformation, one of his watershed works wherein he set out robust Augustinianism from the weak Semi-Pelagianism of Erasmus (as he was asked to speak for the RCC in his "Diatribe").

I haven't read it in a long time; I'll have to look it up again. Isn't that where Luther actually lays out a weaker form of the Sacrament of Reconciliation?

Hopefully, Luther never repented from this position, although his consubstantiation moved dangerously close to the transubstantiation he was originally taught to embrace. Old habits die hard.

Reportedly, Luther repented of many things he had done; unlike Augustine, he never returned to the Faith. But if I recall, didn't Luther actually lay out the argument that sin incapacitates one from coming to God but if God redeems a man, he is then free to choose to come to God?

It does sound, now that I think of it, like a weaker version of the Sacrament of Confession and repentence of sin.

As I've mentioned, that's why we don't venerate men and have no heroes. None. That God used men to produce His Word, the Scriptures, does not mean that the men themselves warrant reverence any more than the sun does, even though God made both.

So Matthew 25 means nothing to you? The Acts of the Apostles? Ephesians 5:33?

Hebrews 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected [us], and we gave [them] reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

Joshua 4:14 That day the LORD exalted Joshua in the sight of all Israel; and they revered him all the days of his life, just as they had revered Moses.

Joshua 5:13 And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries? 14 And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant? 15 And the captain of the LORD'S host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

note that this worship was done to one of the angels of God

But, this whole line of discussion came from a post that implied there was something remarkable about Holland now descending into moral obliviion and simultaneiously returning to Catholicism. I was struggling to understand anything positive the writer intended to prove with this statistic. He/she claimed that the country was tiring of Reformed theology and was going home. Such argument is not only laughable, but if it represents the general use of logic from within the RCC, may tip us off why Holland is concurrently descending. Reality is not on the radar screen. I ping him/her here only out of courtesy.

I fear that Holland will sink yet further into the mire before any return to God will happen.

[MarkBsnr]

Well, this is one of those, "Okay, then reproduce 40 volumes of information right here!" remarks. We will have to settle on the fact that I am comfortable the text is properly represented and you do not share that view. I base this upon your remark, "How do you know for sure..." From this we understand you have little confidence in the text and much in the organization. Mine is reversed. Fair enough. We'll have to wait and see who is right.

So you are comfortable with all the changes that the Church made over the first 300 years from the original writings? Who has the faith in the organization now?

[MarkBsnr]

Dutchboy Calvin corrected Augustine's mistake on this is to be expected.

Ah, Calvin "corrected" Augustine. He also "corrected" Luther, eh? And "corrected" Paul, I suppose? What an ego!

Do you understand, DB, that is is strong evidence of the charge that the real result of the Reformation is that one assumes the role of Pope in the creation of their own theology.

Calvin corrected Luther and Augustine. The Restoration was full of folks who corrected the Reformers. Each generation brings yet another correction to "Christianity". What makes them more correct? The fact that they lived after the preceding bunch?

The evidence is that these increasing and increasingly myriad number of religions evolve as their beliefs evolve away from the Faith. How many Protestants in the US actually hold Christian beliefs anymore?

What Christian beliefs? The Trinity, for one. Anti-abortion, for another. The Real Presence. The Sacraments. The Apostolic succession. The laying on of hands during ordaining to the clerical status. And so on - these are the ancient Christian beliefs.