Your post #103 to RWC
——>If you have any instance, put it forth, otherwise reconcile yourself to the fact that the pre tribulation rapture is a 19th century modernist philosophy with no bexmple in the bible or history prior to Darby
As I’ve said multiple times before on this forum, did Darby come up with the modern false PTR theory all by himself? Not a chance. It comes from the Jesuit branch of the Catholic church, in the form of FUTURISM. Darby molded and developed it into what it has become today, with modern theologian crackpot interpretations.
John Darby “developed” his theories after speaking with Margaret MacDonald and Edward Irving. Irving got his ideas from Emmanuel Lacunza, a Jesuit priest, (under the pseudonym Juan Josafat Ben Ezra) who wrote a book titled “The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty”. Irving found the book in one of the libraries there. It was written in Spanish. He translated it into English, and began preaching on it. Margaret MacDonald attended Irving’s Church. Lacunza developed his ideas from Francisco Ribera (Jesuit), Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (Jesuit), and Michael Walpole (Jesuit)…late 1500’s. All four priests are the founders of Catholic Futurism, the precursor of Dispensationalism/Pre-Trib Rapture, as a response to the Reformer’s claims that the Papacy was the Antichrist power, proven by the bible. Tracing Darby back to Futurism is 100% provable historical fact.
https://www.biblelightinfo.com/antichrist.htm
https://www.lmn.org/pdf/Left%20Behind%20by%20the%20Jesuits.pdf
Feel free to tell your non-Catholic buddies about this:
Next we come to consider the time of the rise of the Futurist system as we now have it, and the occasion which led to it.
So great a hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men, that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.
Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men’s minds from perceiving the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system. The Jesuit Alcasar devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method of interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus endeavoured to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled in Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy. On the other hand the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the Papal Power by bringing out the Futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and to continue in power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the Founder of the Futurist system in modern times.
It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that “Futurism tends to obliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon Popery.” More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the Papal Antichrist seems to be making an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men’s minds. Now once again, as at the Reformation, it is especially necessary that his true character should be recognized, by all who would be faithful to “the testimony of Jesus.”
From Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation, by Joseph Tanner, published in London by Hodder and Stoughton, 1898, pages 16,17.