How Did the False Pre-trib Rapture Get Started?

[Davy]

Christian author Dave MacPherson gives the best documented evidence of how the FALSE Pre-trib Rapture theory began in 1830's Great Britain in his book The Incredible Cover-up. He now has released even more... documentation in his book The Rapture Plot.

I highly recommend both works. But The Bible is where the Christian will find the ultimate authority, and is actually simple with what Lord Jesus showed in Matthew 24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27 that His coming to gather His Church will be "Immediately after the tribulation of those days...".

For 1,800 years, the Christian Church held to a Post-tribulational coming of Lord Jesus and gathering of His Church, as per the written Bible Scripture. In 1830's Britain, John Nelson Darby got involved with a certain charismatic church of Edward Irving where he said unusual spirit manifestations were going on. That is when Darby started teaching about a 'secret coming' by Jesus before the great tribulation, and that the Church would be suddenly and 'secretly' raptured to heaven by Jesus, and then wait out the tribulation, and then return with Jesus back to earth at His second coming after the tribulation. That idea is nowhere written in The Word of God.

Then Cyrus Scofield in the U.S. got a hold of the false Pre-trib Rapture theory, and even though he had a shady past, he got support from the Club of New York group of bankers and lawyers in New York city, and the publishing of his Scofield study Bible became a household name, pushing Darby's false pre-trib 'secret' rapture theory. His study Bible no doubt made the false pre-trib rapture theory thus popular in the United States.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Christian author Dave MacPherson gives the best documented evidence of how the FALSE Pre-trib Rapture theory began in 1830's Great Britain in his book The Incredible Cover-up. He now has released even more... documentation in his book The Rapture Plot.

I highly recommend both works. But The Bible is where the Christian will find the ultimate authority, and is actually simple with what Lord Jesus showed in Matthew 24:29-31 and Mark 13:24-27 that His coming to gather His Church will be "Immediately after the tribulation of those days...".

For 1,800 years, the Christian Church held to a Post-tribulational coming of Lord Jesus and gathering of His Church, as per the written Bible Scripture. In 1830's Britain, John Nelson Darby got involved with a certain charismatic church of Edward Irving where he said unusual spirit manifestations were going on. That is when Darby started teaching about a 'secret coming' by Jesus before the great tribulation, and that the Church would be suddenly and 'secretly' raptured to heaven by Jesus, and then wait out the tribulation, and then return with Jesus back to earth at His second coming after the tribulation. That idea is nowhere written in The Word of God.

Then Cyrus Scofield in the U.S. got a hold of the false Pre-trib Rapture theory, and even though he had a shady past, he got support from the Club of New York group of bankers and lawyers in New York city, and the publishing of his Scofield study Bible became a household name, pushing Darby's false pre-trib 'secret' rapture theory. His study Bible no doubt made the false pre-trib rapture theory thus popular in the United States.

I read McPherson's book quite a long time ago--the 1st one you mentioned. But I haven't read the 2nd one. Yes, the history of Pretrib Doctrine really starts with Darby, and from those who he got his material from, including Irving and possibly McDonald.

The real driver of this interest came from Irving reading a book by M. Lacunza, a Catholic priest. He had developed Futurism, though it had an earlier advocate in F. Ribera, also a Catholic priest. Irving found the idea reasonable, and likely influenced Darby. Darby, however, developed an entire system of theology called Dispensationalism, which embraced Futurism along with the Pretribulational Rapture of the Church.

I believe the emerging interest in Futurism is what prompted the movement, despite its association with questionable theology. I personally embrace Futurism, though not of the Dispensationalist kind.

As you say, the Pretrib Rapture has never been advocated for as a theological system in Church history. However, it has been associated, in a flawed way, with expectation of Christ's Coming and Christ's command to watch for it. Belief in the nearness of Christ's Coming, along with the unexpected nature of it by unbelievers have led to belief in Imminent Expectation, which is the belief that Christ could come at any moment.

Imminency has not been taught in history either, though as I'm saying there is some reference to elements that may sound like it. In reality, we are taught to live like Christ all the time so that we are always ready for his Kingdom. None of that has a thing to do with "expecting his Coming at any moment,* except that unless we believed he was coming we would not be living for him at all.

So I commend you for your exposure of Pretrib and Dispensationalism. I wish you all the success with it!

We are to be watchful for Christ's Coming by remaining prepared, morally, for the Kingdom. And that involves watching out for deceptions like this one. It takes our eyes off the ball.

Trying to watch for his Coming from heaven is a vain exercise. We watch for him strictly by living for him daily. That is how we can be properly prepared at all times.

 

[Davy]

I read McPherson's book quite a long time ago--the 1st one you mentioned. But I haven't read the 2nd one. Yes, the history of Pretrib Doctrine really starts with Darby, and from those who he got his material from, including Irving and possibly McDonald.

The real driver of this interest came from Irving reading a book by M. Lacunza, a Catholic priest. He had developed Futurism, though it had an earlier advocate in F. Ribera, also a Catholic priest. Irving found the idea reasonable, and likely influenced Darby. Darby, however, developed an entire system of theology called Dispensationalism, which embraced Futurism along with the Pretribulational Rapture of the Church.

I believe the emerging interest in Futurism is what prompted the movement, despite its association with questionable theology. I personally embrace Futurism, though not of the Dispensationalist kind.

As you say, the Pretrib Rapture has never been advocated for as a theological system in Church history. However, it has been associated, in a flawed way, with expectation of Christ's Coming and Christ's command to watch for it. Belief in the nearness of Christ's Coming, along with the unexpected nature of it by unbelievers have led to belief in Imminent Expectation, which is the belief that Christ could come at any moment.

Imminency has not been taught in history either, though as I'm saying there is some reference to elements that may sound like it. In reality, we are taught to live like Christ all the time so that we are always ready for his Kingdom. None of that has a thing to do with "expecting his Coming at any moment,* except that unless we believed he was coming we would not be living for him at all.

So I commend you for your exposure of Pretrib and Dispensationalism. I wish you all the success with it!

We are to be watchful for Christ's Coming by remaining prepared, morally, for the Kingdom. And that involves watching out for deceptions like this one. It takes our eyes off the ball.

Trying to watch for his Coming from heaven is a vain exercise. We watch for him strictly by living for him daily. That is how we can be properly prepared at all times.

I have to say more about the idea of 'watching', which also goes with most of what you said, but is just as important to reveal, or even more important for the times as Christ's future return becomes closer.

When those on man's pre-trib rapture theory give instructions to 'watch', like Lord Jesus commanded, just WHAT is it they teach to 'watch'? Absolutely nothing, just things like war and famine, kingdom against kingdom, which Jesus showed will happen prior... to the actual time of "great tribulation". That's all they are focused on.

They cannot claim they are 'watching' for the day of Christ's coming, because as Jesus said, and even they say, no man knows that day nor hour. So again, just WHAT are they teaching their deceived congregations to 'watch' per Jesus' command?

Even with their deceived false teaching that the coming time of "great tribulation" is going to be a time of all out war, famine, chaos, etc., those are events that are to happen prior... to the actual time of "great tribulation"; what Jesus called "the beginnings of sorrows" (Mark 13:8). They simply do not know what the coming "great tribulation" event is. They see the word "tribulation", and then they assign a time to it like previous events of history like war and famine and etc., which are actually of the time just prior... to the great trib.

But God's Word reveals what type... of event the coming "great tribulation" will be, if one heeds His Word instead of pre-trib rapture authors like Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye.

The coming time of "great tribulation" is to be a time of world peace on earth, even craft prospering, chicken in every pot. This is what Jesus showed when He said we'd hear of wars and rumors of wars, but not to be troubled, because those things must be, BUT THE END IS NOT YET (Matthew 24:7). The opposite of a time of wars and rumors of wars, is a time of peace, which is what Jesus was showing by that as to how the END will be. This is also what the Daniel 8 Scripture is showing about the end when the "king of fierce countenance" comes, as he will destroy many using peace it says. World peace is also the ultimate plan by today's globalists and their organizations like the United Nations, and even World Communism desires a "one world government".

Are those on man's false pre-trib rapture theory 'watching' for that coming time of world peace of the "great tribulation"? No, they don't know what... to be 'watching'. Thinking to just be 'ready' in our hearts and minds for Jesus to come is not His idea of 'watching' that He was pointing to.

Jesus gave those specific SIGNS in His Olivet discourse for His Church to be 'watching'. Those SIGNS lead up to the time of His future coming, for His coming and gathering of His Church was the very last SIGN He gave there. He gave us the SIGN to note when the "great tribulation" starts (with the placing of the "abomination of desolation"), He gave us the SIGN of a false-Messiah coming first to work great signs and wonders that would almost deceive His very elect, and even a SIGN of how the deceived would be saying 'Christ is here, or there' and to not believe it, etc., etc.

So really, we have no excuse to just think to be 'ready', and not know 'what' to He warned us to 'watch'. He gave us those SIGNS, and they so happen to also be the SEALS of Revelation 6.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have to say more about the idea of 'watching', which also goes with most of what you said, but is just as important to reveal, or even more important for the times as Christ's future return becomes closer.

When those on man's pre-trib rapture theory give instructions to 'watch', like Lord Jesus commanded, just WHAT is it they teach to 'watch'? Absolutely nothing, just things like war and famine, kingdom against kingdom, which Jesus showed will happen prior... to the actual time of "great tribulation". That's all they are focused on.

They cannot claim they are 'watching' for the day of Christ's coming, because as Jesus said, and even they say, no man knows that day nor hour. So again, just WHAT are they teaching their deceived congregations to 'watch' per Jesus' command?

Even with their deceived false teaching that the coming time of "great tribulation" is going to be a time of all out war, famine, chaos, etc., those are events that are to happen prior... to the actual time of "great tribulation"; what Jesus called "the beginnings of sorrows" (Mark 13:8). They simply do not know what the coming "great tribulation" event is. They see the word "tribulation", and then they assign a time to it like previous events of history like war and famine and etc., which are actually of the time just prior... to the great trib.

But God's Word reveals what type... of event the coming "great tribulation" will be, if one heeds His Word instead of pre-trib rapture authors like Hal Lindsay and Tim LaHaye.

The coming time of "great tribulation" is to be a time of world peace on earth, even craft prospering, chicken in every pot. This is what Jesus showed when He said we'd hear of wars and rumors of wars, but not to be troubled, because those things must be, BUT THE END IS NOT YET (Matthew 24:7). The opposite of a time of wars and rumors of wars, is a time of peace, which is what Jesus was showing by that as to how the END will be. This is also what the Daniel 8 Scripture is showing about the end when the "king of fierce countenance" comes, as he will destroy many using peace it says. World peace is also the ultimate plan by today's globalists and their organizations like the United Nations, and even World Communism desires a "one world government".

Are those on man's false pre-trib rapture theory 'watching' for that coming time of world peace of the "great tribulation"? No, they don't know what... to be 'watching'. Thinking to just be 'ready' in our hearts and minds for Jesus to come is not His idea of 'watching' that He was pointing to.

Jesus gave those specific SIGNS in His Olivet discourse for His Church to be 'watching'. Those SIGNS lead up to the time of His future coming, for His coming and gathering of His Church was the very last SIGN He gave there. He gave us the SIGN to note when the "great tribulation" starts (with the placing of the "abomination of desolation"), He gave us the SIGN of a false-Messiah coming first to work great signs and wonders that would almost deceive His very elect, and even a SIGN of how the deceived would be saying 'Christ is here, or there' and to not believe it, etc., etc.

So really, we have no excuse to just think to be 'ready', and not know 'what' to He warned us to 'watch'. He gave us those SIGNS, and they so happen to also be the SEALS of Revelation 6.

Some good points and some minor disagreements. I hesitate to mention any disagreements because I don't wish to distract you away from your main points, which are quite good.

Absolutely right--what are the Pretribbers *watching for?* They seem to think they are supposed to be expecting Christ every day? It's bizarre. They think that in doing this they are keeping their lives clean and ready for an event that could happen at any time. I can't think of anything stranger one could put in Jesus' mouth, as if he actually said such a thing?

We cannot possibly prepare for Christ's Coming by expecting him every day! Our minds should be on serving the Lord every day--that is how we remain prepared for the Kingdom, whenever it may come.

So we are told specifically to watch out against laziness, carnal indulgences, evil deceptions, liars, etc. etc. This is a practical way of "watching for Christ's Coming." We don't expect him each and every day. But we remain prepared for him each and every day--not as if he could come any day but that we should walk with him every day.

Paul specifically said in 2 Thes 2 that the Day of the Lord cannot take place before Antichrist comes. And that is because Christ is coming back to specifically destroy him! That's the story in Dan 7 that Paul was referring to!

Anyway, I have a different view of the "Abomination of Desolation" than you do, as well as a different view of the "Beginning of Sorrows" than you do. Never mind--we have to choose our interpretations, if only tentatively.

I believe the Olivet Discourse was more focused on the 1st generation of the Church and on the Jewish experience in the NT era. This may sound like Preterism, but it is not.

It's what the early Church Fathers believed, that Jesus was addressing his Disciples as Jews, before the Cross. The Jews would lose their main city of Jerusalem, as well as their temple worship, and go into dispersion throughout the present age.

This is the "Great Tribulation" as Jesus defined it in Luke 21. It was to be a "Jewish Punishment."

However, Irenaeus and Hippolytus saw it differently in the Early Church, and thought that the AoD referred to the Antichrist. And so, there are these 2 positions, dignified with great historical depth. You have to decide for yourself.

Your sense that "great tribulation" is misperceived is, however, a good one. People keep thinking of something cataclysmic that is coming, when it really is the world's plan for peace. This program of "peace," however, ends up persecuting those who are preparing for God's Kingdom. This is what we really need to be "watching for!"

Thanks again for your input. Your anti-Pretrib views are most appreciated. We want people to be properly prepared, and not just aimlessly staring out to space, awaiting the Lord's Coming.

 

[Tommy Cool]

Actually it was started by Jesus Christ when He gave ethe revelation to Paul ...

 

[Randy Kluth]

Actually it was started by Jesus Christ when He gave ethe revelation to Paul ...

Paul would never give a "false" revelation!
I think you're trying to say that Paul gave a "Pretrib revelation" to Paul? I've heard that argument for years, that it was sort of a secret revelation that Christians only know about by a kind of gnostic understanding. I've read a number of Pretrib books that admit this!

I'd be very cautious building a doctrine on "secret understandings." But you have to follow your own conscience.

 

[Jericho]

For 1,800 years, the Christian Church held to a Post-tribulational coming of Lord Jesus and gathering of His Church, as per the written Bible Scripture.

I disagree. The Christian Church didn't have a rapture doctrine. Sure, you can probably find elements of every rapture position in early Christian writings if you look hard enough, but they didn't have a single codified rapture doctrine. The rapture wasn't even really being discussed until the 19th century or so. The fact is, every rapture doctrine is modern, and I think there are valid reasons for it. The post-trib rapture, for instance, was popularized by George E. Ladd in his 1956 book "The Blessed Hope.".

Yes, the history of Pretrib Doctrine really starts with Darby, and from those who he got his material from, including Irving and possibly McDonald.

Darby fleshed out the pretrib doctrine, though you can find elements existing before him. He did have an association with Irving for a time, but they parted ways over theological and doctrinal differences. The idea that Darby got his ideas from MacDonald, as popularized by Dave MacPherson, is a myth. There's absolutely no evidence for it. Darby wrote hundreds of letters in his lifetime, and not once does he mention MacDonald or her vision. I've actually read her vision, and it read like a post-trib rapture more than anything.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I disagree. The Christian Church didn't have a rapture doctrine. Sure, you can probably find elements of every rapture position in early Christian writings if you look hard enough, but they didn't have a single codified rapture doctrine. The rapture wasn't even really being discussed until the 19th century or so. The fact is, every rapture doctrine is modern, and I think there are valid reasons for it. The post-trib rapture, for instance, was popularized by George E. Ladd in his 1956 book "The Blessed Hope.".

Yea, I read The Blessed Hope back in the 70s, and actually wrote Ladd a letter about the book. I got word back from him that he had just died! So I guess I'll never get answers to my questions?

I think it's just plain ridiculous to say the Rapture was not "codified" or wasn't discussed until the 19th century! My goodness--Paul wrote about the "Rapture" in the 1st century!

I think what you're saying is that the Rapture was not discussed in the context of the competing Pretrib alternative until the 19th century? In that case, you're not saying anything.

To say it wasn't even discussed is even more absurd. All of the Scriptures, including 1 Thes 4, have been discussed all through Church history. How do I know that? I know that because commentaries on the whole New Testament have been done for centuries! Do you think the historic commentators just completely ignored 1 thes 4?

Darby fleshed out the pretrib doctrine, though you can find elements existing before him. He did have an association with Irving for a time, but they parted ways over theological and doctrinal differences. The idea that Darby got his ideas from MacDonald, as popularized by Dave MacPherson, is a myth. There's absolutely no evidence for it. Darby wrote hundreds of letters in his lifetime, and not once does he mention MacDonald or her vision. I've actually read her vision, and it read like a post-trib rapture more than anything.

Yes, but you don't know any more than MacPherson or I know. It was a theory that MacPherson believed was possible or perhaps even likely. After all, McDonald's vision was preserved--it must've been important at the time. And if so, Darby would've known about it.

Darby certainly would've known about Irving's views. They were on opposite spectrums of the "charismatic" spectrum, so I'm not surprised they had differences. One was more revivalist and the other more of a systematic theologian.

Both were fascinated by the new "Futurist" view of biblical prophecy. But each went in their own direction with this perspective. Darby likely would've dismissed McDonald as a "prophetess." Irving likely would've embraced it. I don't really know and so can't say for sure.

 

[Jericho]

I think it's just plain ridiculous to say the Rapture was not "codified" or wasn't discussed until the 19th century! My goodness--Paul wrote about the "Rapture" in the 1st century!

The rapture was talked about, sure, but it wasn't really a topic of conversation and debate like it is today. They certainly didn't have a concept of a pre, mid, pre-wrath, or post-trib rapture like we do. Their primary eschatological focus was on the timing of the Second Coming, whether the millennial reign of Christ was literal or figurative, and the nature and timing of the resurrection and the final judgment. I stand by what I said; they didn't have an established rapture doctrine. They had elements of it in their writings, but elements do not a doctrine make. The focus on the rapture, and specifically the timing of it, is fairly recent in church history.

McDonald's vision was preserved--it must've been important at the time. And if so, Darby would've known about it.

Maybe he did, but there's no proof either way. But the fact that Darby didn't bother to write about it is telling. He obviously didn't think it was important enough to mention it. Either way, the fact that McDonald's vision is not even close to a pre-trib rapture should disprove MacPherson's theory.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The rapture was talked about, sure, but it wasn't really a topic of conversation and debate like it is today. They certainly didn't have a concept of a pre, mid, pre-wrath, or post-trib rapture like we do.

That was the whole point. How can you have conversations about schools of eschatology until they actually arise and have to be addressed? But what makes you think there weren't earlier schools of thinking that had to be addressed? Have you done all of the necessary research?

Again, the Return of Christ certainly was a big deal from the start since it is mentioned so many times in the Scriptures themselves! The Church Fathers discussed it, as well. Why would you think it is any different than today, except perhaps because we are much later in history?

Their primary eschatological focus was on the timing of the Second Coming, whether the millennial reign of Christ was literal or figurative, and the nature and timing of the resurrection and the final judgment.

Why would "they" be discussing the idea of a Pretrib Rapture if no such thing even existed in the Scriptures? It didn't even need to be discussed until someone in the 19th century actually decided to enhance the Futurist view by making the 2nd Coming an "imminent expectation?"

I stand by what I said; they didn't have an established rapture doctrine. They had elements of it in their writings, but elements do not a doctrine make. The focus on the rapture, and specifically the timing of it, is fairly recent in church history.

2 Thes 2 is doctrinal postribulationism! Why would it need to be discussed further unless someone decided to challenge the explicit statements of Paul?

Maybe he did, but there's no proof either way. But the fact that Darby didn't bother to write about it is telling. He obviously didn't think it was important enough to mention it. Either way, the fact that McDonald's vision is not even close to a pre-trib rapture should disprove MacPherson's theory.

If Darby wanted to believe he got his info from God, he wouldn't want to give credit to a Scottish girl! The version we read may fall short of how others perceived it, as something imminent, for the "enlightened Church only," and thus Dispensational and Pretrib.

I also find the account less than satisfying, but it does sound "elitist," which may have privately been viewed as a basis of "imminent expectation" and "Dispensational separation" between the elite "watchers" and those "taken by surprise."

 

[Jericho]

That was the whole point. How can you have conversations about schools of eschatology until they actually arise and have to be addressed?

Actually, that proves my point too. They couldn't have had that conversation until the theological framework was built. It took roughly 300 years for the trinity doctrine to be established, for instance. It shouldn't be a surprise then that so many of these various rapture doctrines were developed so late in history. Age shouldn't be the determining factor in whether something is valid or not. If it did, Gnosticism would be true since it's nearly as old as Christianity itself.

Again, the Return of Christ certainly was a big deal from the start since it is mentioned so many times in the Scriptures themselves!

Sure, but the specific timing of the rapture (pre, mid, post, etc.), or even if there is a rapture, wasn't a topic of debate (that I'm aware of). If you can find evidence to the contrary, then by all means post it.

Why would "they" be discussing the idea of a Pretrib Rapture if no such thing even existed in the Scriptures?

I believe a scriptural case can be made for the pre-trib rapture. Regardless, I'm not of the opinion that the early Church knew it all. They were still figuring some things out for themselves just like we are today.

2 Thes 2 is doctrinal postribulationism!

That's fine if you believe that. I'm not going to get into that debate.

If Darby wanted to believe he got his info from God, he wouldn't want to give credit to a Scottish girl!

I doubt Darby ever claimed to get his understanding of the rapture directly from God. He may have believed he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but then so does everyone else. Where he did get it from was his own eschatological research in the 1820s, specifically from 1827–1828. MacDonald didn't get her vision until 1830. It could just as easily be possible that MacDonald was influenced by Darby.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I read McPherson's book quite a long time ago--the 1st one you mentioned. But I haven't read the 2nd one. Yes, the history of Pretrib Doctrine really starts with Darby, and from those who he got his material from, including Irving and possibly McDonald.

The real driver of this interest came from Irving reading a book by M. Lacunza, a Catholic priest. He had developed Futurism, though it had an earlier advocate in F. Ribera, also a Catholic priest. Irving found the idea reasonable, and likely influenced Darby. Darby, however, developed an entire system of theology called Dispensationalism, which embraced Futurism along with the Pretribulational Rapture of the Church.

I believe the emerging interest in Futurism is what prompted the movement, despite its association with questionable theology. I personally embrace Futurism, though not of the Dispensationalist kind.

As you say, the Pretrib Rapture has never been advocated for as a theological system in Church history. However, it has been associated, in a flawed way, with expectation of Christ's Coming and Christ's command to watch for it. Belief in the nearness of Christ's Coming, along with the unexpected nature of it by unbelievers have led to belief in Imminent Expectation, which is the belief that Christ could come at any moment.

Imminency has not been taught in history either, though as I'm saying there is some reference to elements that may sound like it. In reality, we are taught to live like Christ all the time so that we are always ready for his Kingdom. None of that has a thing to do with "expecting his Coming at any moment,* except that unless we believed he was coming we would not be living for him at all.

So I commend you for your exposure of Pretrib and Dispensationalism. I wish you all the success with it!

We are to be watchful for Christ's Coming by remaining prepared, morally, for the Kingdom. And that involves watching out for deceptions like this one. It takes our eyes off the ball.

Trying to watch for his Coming from heaven is a vain exercise. We watch for him strictly by living for him daily. That is how we can be properly prepared at all times.

Actually a pre trib rapture began with Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians. It was lost in Catholicism and recaptured in the 1800's after the more important doctrines of the faith were revealed starting with the reformation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Actually a pre trib rapture began with Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians. It was lost in Catholicism and recaptured in the 1800's after the more important doctrines of the faith were revealed starting with the reformation.

Pure assertion. If you really care to debate the point, provide some facts. You will not be able to do so. That's likely why you didn't include any.

But I will give you some facts. Modern Futurism began with Catholicism. Ribera and Lacunza contributed to the movement you refer to in the 1800s called Dispensationalism. Darby didn't seem to realize that, nor did Irving.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Actually, that proves my point too. They couldn't have had that conversation until the theological framework was built. It took roughly 300 years for the trinity doctrine to be established, for instance. It shouldn't be a surprise then that so many of these various rapture doctrines were developed so late in history. Age shouldn't be the determining factor in whether something is valid or not. If it did, Gnosticism would be true since it's nearly as old as Christianity itself.

Don't you see the absurdity of your argument? You're saying that truth cannot be stated unless a modern presentation of it comes 1st! People cannot establish true doctrine of the Rapture until after it becomes a modern aberrant discussion?

I know you're not saying that Dispensationalism in the 1800s was an "aberration." But I am.

To say that Dispensationalism had to arise before any "real discussion" of the Rapture can happen is ludicrous. The doctrine of the Rapture began with Paul, and it didn't await Dispensationalism in the 1800s to explain it properly.

Sure, but the specific timing of the rapture (pre, mid, post, etc.), or even if there is a rapture, wasn't a topic of debate (that I'm aware of). If you can find evidence to the contrary, then by all means post it.

What Paul said in 2 Thes 2, and what Dan 7 said with respect to Postribulational Doctrine was clear, and did not need to be argued about. It only became argued about by Dispensationalists with the rise of Futurism in modern history. I do agree that Futurism had to be recaptured, but its appendages with Dispensationalism and Pretribulationism did *not* need to be attached to it!

In other words, Futurism was largely lost with the eschatological system called Historicism. Amillennialism had largely robbed national Israel of any future hope. Everything promised Israel specifically for that nation was reinterpreted to have already been fulfilled in the international Church.

Futurism had to be resurrected, I agree. However, the excitement this generated caused a lot of prophetic fanaticism and prophetic predictions. Along with this excess came belief that Christ "could come at any moment," that we could predict the time of Christ's Coming by the rebirth of Israel, that Christ would deliver the elite Christian world from sufferings reserved only for the wicked. This is Pretribulationism, which I obviously reject.

I believe a scriptural case can be made for the pre-trib rapture. Regardless, I'm not of the opinion that the early Church knew it all. They were still figuring some things out for themselves just like we are today.

Go ahead and make your case. I've heard it all and have been arguing Postrib for a very long time. Truth fears no challenges.

I doubt Darby ever claimed to get his understanding of the rapture directly from God. He may have believed he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but then so does everyone else. Where he did get it from was his own eschatological research in the 1820s, specifically from 1827–1828. MacDonald didn't get her vision until 1830. It could just as easily be possible that MacDonald was influenced by Darby.

Darby likely got his Futurist ideas from Irving. McDonald may have jumped on the bandwagon with her claimed prophetic gifts. Irving may have liked that, with his bent towards charisms. Again, Darby likely got his material from Irving before he summarily dismissed Irving as "too charismatic."

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Pure assertion. If you really care to debate the point, provide some facts. You will not be able to do so. That's likely why you didn't include any.

But I will give you some facts. Modern Futurism began with Catholicism. Ribera and Lacunza contributed to the movement you refer to in the 1800s called Dispensationalism. Darby didn't seem to realize that, nor did Irving.

Well see ing as Catholicism was and still is amillenial, a few priests teaching pre mill and pre trib is not the catholic stance.

But Paul declared a pre trib rapture. Remember the rapture is a scarce mentioned event in Scripture. Onlyh 2 specific verses speak of the event or what happens at the event:

1 Thessalonians 4:16
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:

1 Corinthians 15:51
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.




This is all the Bible says about the rapture.
Now as to when takes a little more study. There is only one verse:
1 Thessalonians 1:10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.


Now wrath is key here and we must discover what Scripture saus about Gods wrath.

There are only 2 things god pours wrath on,

Gods wrath already rests on unbelievers (John 3:36)

the 70th week of Daniel or the 7 year trib. REv. 6 and numerous places in the minor prophets.

So understanding that a believer does not have Gods wrath already abiding on HIm, but is viewed as a child of God, then the only wrath we are delivers from is the tribulation.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well see ing as Catholicism was and still is amillenial, a few priests teaching pre mill and pre trib is not the catholic stance.

That's true. Since the Catholic Church has been so large, it's been a "big tent" religion. It has included many divergent views. Nevertheless, what I said is true. Modern Futurism began with Catholics like Ribera and Lacunza, Irving being influenced by Lacunza.

But Paul declared a pre trib rapture. Remember the rapture is a scarce mentioned event in Scripture. Onlyh 2 specific verses speak of the event or what happens at the event:

1 Thessalonians 4:16
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:

1 Corinthians 15:51
Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Yes, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around it. The main focus appears to be on the resurrection, but Paul does not neglect the necessity of those still living at Christ's Coming engaging in the "glorification" event. Not much seems to be made of it by Paul, and I do find that frustrating. I must be missing something??

This is all the Bible says about the rapture.
Now as to when takes a little more study. There is only one verse:
1 Thessalonians 1:10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Yes, deliverance from the wrath of God's eternal judgment? We are told by Pretribbers that the Church is to be delivered from "the Great Tribulation," as they define that. I do not find that the Reign of Antichrist is defined as "the Great Tribulation." Instead, I find Christians being lauded during their time in the Reign of Antichrist as they resist temptation and sin.

Now wrath is key here and we must discover what Scripture saus about Gods wrath.

There are only 2 things god pours wrath on,

Gods wrath already rests on unbelievers (John 3:36)

Yes, God's wrath rests on people who have been born in sin and determine to continue in that sin. God's unhappiness with sinners is shown by his disfellowshipping them, as well as by the curses that accompany this disfellowship.

the 70th week of Daniel or the 7 year trib. REv. 6 and numerous places in the minor prophets.

Here is the crux of my problem with your position. Daniel's 70th Week is often conflated with a supposed "7 years of Antichristian Reign." In reality, the 70th Week after 457 BC took place in the time of Jesus' 1st Coming. All of the Pretrib, Dispensational errors, as I see them, flow out of this wish to transfer Daniel's 70th Week into a future reign of Antichrist.

Out of all of the early Church Fathers, only 2 or 3 seem to have had this position. Most saw the 70th Week of Daniel as fulfilled in the time of Jesus' 1st Coming. In fact, separating the 70th Week from the 1st 69 Weeks is irrational. It ceases to be a "70 Week period" the moment the 70th Week is separated from the 69 Weeks!

Can you imagine I tell you I'm going to come visit you in 70 Weeks, but then show up 70 years later? When you complain that 70 Weeks passed and I didn't come, I just say that after 69 Weeks there was a lapse of 70 years before the 70th Week took place.

So understanding that a believer does not have Gods wrath already abiding on HIm, but is viewed as a child of God, then the only wrath we are delivers from is the tribulation.

I do understand your position, thanks.

 

[Tommy Cool]

Paul would never give a "false" revelation!
I think you're trying to say that Paul gave a "Pretrib revelation" to Paul? I've heard that argument for years, that it was sort of a secret revelation that Christians only know about by a kind of gnostic understanding. I've read a number of Pretrib books that admit this!

I'd be very cautious building a doctrine on "secret understandings." But you have to follow your own conscience.

I meant exactly what I said.

It was in rebuttal to the common statement that is frequently used about Darby inventing the doctrine of the rapture.

Jesus Christ gave the revelation to Paul, who in turn had it recorded. That is how we got the Church epistle scripture(s) ...of which divulge the doctrine of the "gathering together unto Him" (rapture)

The word secret is a good translation for the word mystery (mystērion). The rapture is not a secret now… any more than the mystery of the one body is. ….once it’s revealed ….it is no longer a secret.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I meant exactly what I said.

Yes, I meant what I said too. When you claim something is a mystery *only to Paul,* then I think you have problems. Remember, the Bereans were complimented for checking with the Scriptures to see if things were as claimed.

Acts 17.11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

You see, anybody, including Paul, could claim anything as coming from divine revelation. But there has to be a means of checking his veracity.

You want me to just take your word for it that Paul had a special revelation. But when Paul said he had some kind of special revelation, he expected that his claims could be checked out--not just taken at face value. Something had to confirm his claim to divine revelation.

But you're not doing that. You're just saying Paul saw a mysterious Pretrib Rapture, and because he claimed that and was the Apostle Paul, that I should take your word that that's what he claimed. Well, I don't think that's what Paul claimed to receive by revelation. It would be contrary to what he said in 2 Thes 2, that before Christ comes back, the Antichrist must appear. And then Christ will come in the context of Antichrist's destruction.

Your "mystery" doesn't pan out for me. But you can believe what you will.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

That's true. Since the Catholic Church has been so large, it's been a "big tent" religion. It has included many divergent views. Nevertheless, what I said is true. Modern Futurism began with Catholics like Ribera and Lacunza, Irving being influenced by Lacunza.

Well I was influenced by the bible. I read the many views on the rapture and the millenium and the trib. a pre-mil, pre trib rapture does the least harm to Scripture.

Yes, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around it. The main focus appears to be on the resurrection, but Paul does not neglect the necessity of those still living at Christ's Coming engaging in the "glorification" event. Not much seems to be made of it by Paul, and I do find that frustrating. I must be missing something??

Paul just let us know this event will happen and earlier He said it would happen before the wrath to come. We are to comfort one another with these words. Not much comfort if the church has to go through the most violent and deadly 7 years and get caught up as Jesus is coming down.

Yes, deliverance from the wrath of God's eternal judgment? We are told by Pretribbers that the Church is to be delivered from "the Great Tribulation," as they define that. I do not find that the Reign of Antichrist is defined as "the Great Tribulation." Instead, I find Christians being lauded during their time in the Reign of Antichrist as they resist temptation and sin.

Sorry but the lake of fire is not once called the wrath of God. However the 70th week of Daniel or the tribulation is called the wrath of God in numerous places. I go with what the Bible calls the wrath of God poured out and not loose translations.

Here is the crux of my problem with your position. Daniel's 70th Week is often conflated with a supposed "7 years of Antichristian Reign." In reality, the 70th Week after 457 BC took place in the time of Jesus' 1st Coming. All of the Pretrib, Dispensational errors, as I see them, flow out of this wish to transfer Daniel's 70th Week into a future reign of Antichrist.

Out of all of the early Church Fathers, only 2 or 3 seem to have had this position. Most saw the 70th Week of Daniel as fulfilled in the time of Jesus' 1st Coming. In fact, separating the 70th Week from the 1st 69 Weeks is irrational. It ceases to be a "70 Week period" the moment the 70th Week is separated from the 69 Weeks!

Can you imagine I tell you I'm going to come visit you in 70 Weeks, but then show up 70 years later? When you complain that 70 Weeks passed and I didn't come, I just say that after 69 Weeks there was a lapse of 70 years before the 70th Week took place.

Except that Jesus did not cause the sacrifices to cease, He was not a ruler of Rome, He did not make a 7 year covenant with Israel and after 3 1/2 brake the covenant. One can only get those conclusions by reinterpreting the plain sense of Scripture.

Also it is impossible grammatically for Jesus to be that ruler.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

The hes of vwerse 27 must refer back to their nearest antecedent and that is the prince of the people that shall come and destroy the sanctuary.

The church fathers are great men of the faith, but they did not write Scripture.

And the Hebrew does not say 70 weeks. It says seventy 7's. NOrmal thinking would call them consecutive but history has proven this is not the case. As well as the facts laid out in vses 24-27.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well I was influenced by the bible. I read the many views on the rapture and the millenium and the trib. a pre-mil, pre trib rapture does the least harm to Scripture.

With all due respect, it directly contradicts Paul's Postrib teaching in 2 Thes 2! How can Postrib do damage to the Bible when it is taught in the Bible? On the other hand, Pretrib is *not* taught in the Bible. People say it is in the Bible by using logic or by reading into the Bible using allegories to infer it.

Paul just let us know this event will happen and earlier He said it would happen before the wrath to come. We are to comfort one another with these words. Not much comfort if the church has to go through the most violent and deadly 7 years and get caught up as Jesus is coming down.

This is a big error caused by the Pretrib camp. They deliberately puff up the trouble that will exist during Antichrist's Reign to look as if it is worse than any other time of Christian persecution in history. In reality, this idea is taken out of context from a passage that is speaking of the NT Jewish Diaspora, which Jesus said would be the worst tribulation in Israel's history.

The idea that God's Wrath is poured out all through the reign of Antichrist is not in the book of Revelation. The 7 trumpet judgments and the 7 bowls of wrath are primarily a representation of Christ's Coming at Armageddon, which is a battle that will bring God's wrath upon the whole world.

The persecution of Christians during the reign of Antichrist will probably be located in Europe. And I seriously doubt it will be any different from previous persecutions, from ancient Rome to the Communist persecutions of our own time.

I think the prediction of Antichrist's persecution was in reality a warning to Christians in all times, since it was given during the time of the ancient Roman Empire. God knew Christians would have to face stiff resistance to the Gospel message and would have to endure some hardship. It was an encouragement to stand fast in a time of temporary trouble.

Sorry but the lake of fire is not once called the wrath of God.

Oh but it is. Maybe not using the exact words, but if the Lake of Fire is defined as Eternal Judgment, then the Lake of Fire is certainly the Wrath of God.

Rom 2.5 But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

Rev 20.The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

However the 70th week of Daniel or the tribulation is called the wrath of God in numerous places. I go with what the Bible calls the wrath of God poured out and not loose translations.

The "Great Tribulation" is mentioned in Dan 12.1 and in the Olivet Discourse. There is also a reference to it in Rev 7. All 3 references indicate the NT age in which Jews rebel against their calling, suffer exile, and persecute Christians. It reflects an age in which Christians are troubled by the pagan world, and Israel remains under national punishment in exile.

Dan 12.1 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered.

I would point out, with respect to this passage in Daniel, that the prophecy follows directly after prophecy of Antiochus 4, whose reign directly preceded the rise of Rome's control over Israel and the entire region. This period of great distress therefore began for the Jews during the ancient Roman Empire and ends at Christ's Coming, when national Israel is restored to God's good graces.

Luke 21.23 There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

This "great distress" directly correlates to the Jewish Diaspora of the NT era. According to Jesus, this period would begin with Rome's destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in his own generation and end at his 2nd Coming.

Rev 7.14 And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."

This is a prolepsis, a vision of the end of the present age, when Jesus comes back. It indicates the Church coming out victorious at the end of the NT era, which has been troubled and characterized by resistance and persecution.

Except that Jesus did not cause the sacrifices to cease, He was not a ruler of Rome, He did not make a 7 year covenant with Israel and after 3 1/2 brake the covenant. One can only get those conclusions by reinterpreting the plain sense of Scripture.

That is one possible interpretation, that Jesus is the ruler whose 3.5 year covenant with Israel was cut short by his crucifixion. But there is another view, which I now favor. The "ruler" in view appears to relate to the ruler whose people, an army, destroys Jerusalem and the temple. This ruler could only be Roman leadership, whose army destroyed Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD.

This ruler (not the same man, but the leadership) was also the one who either had a covenant of protection for Israel, until he decided to break it, or he without being conscious of it fulfilled God's covenant with Israel to provide for them a Christian atonement. The Roman ruler did this by having Jesus killed, resulting in the cutting off of the Anointed One, and the end of God's covenant with Israel under the Law.

There is no way one can justify separating the 70th Weeks from the previous 69 Weeks and still call it a "70 Weeks period!"

Also it is impossible grammatically for Jesus to be that ruler.

26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease,

The hes of vwerse 27 must refer back to their nearest antecedent and that is the prince of the people that shall come and destroy the sanctuary.

The church fathers are great men of the faith, but they did not write Scripture.

And the Hebrew does not say 70 weeks. It says seventy 7's. NOrmal thinking would call them consecutive but history has proven this is not the case. As well as the facts laid out in vses 24-27.

And so, to support your favored view you reject a more rational approach that this is a 70 Weeks period, which is exactly what is stated. Call it "70 7s," and it makes no real difference in how the Hebrews may have viewed it.

It really isn't my thing to convince anybody to change their mind. A person must conform to what God shows him or her. But when I see something lacking in an argument I have to give my two cents. I hope you'll give me that?