When Did idea of Pre trib rapture Come Into Church?

Some did...Plenty of them did. An honest look at History with a discerning eye would make this plain. Some VERY early Theologians believed in a Pre-Trib rapture. This doesn't prove pre-trib to be correct of course...but this thread seems to have been started by someone who ONLY wants to "prove" or preach that pre-trib rapturism is completely new to the teaching of the Church...

An honest look at history doesn't appear to support that. It seems pre-trib rapturism is definitely not super-new. But that isn't the point...The point is.....Pre-trib is false, and therefore it isn't possible that ANY early church Theologians taught such an idea, and since NO early Church Theologians taught such a thing...than it is demonstrably false....

This is why this thread is crap....

Some pretty early dudes taught it...but any evidence posited to support that historical factoid Will be summarilly dismissed...NOT for historical reasons, but for Theological ones.
The reasoning of the OP is that:
1.) Pre-Trib is false
2.) Therefore NO early Church father would have taught it
3.) If, then, no early Church father taught it, then it cannot be true
4.) No Early Church Theologian taught it....

This thread wasn't designed to ask an honest question....it was posed with the assumption that the writer of the OP already Knew with a CERTAINTY that Pre-Trib is decidedly new...and that it is decidedly false...There is no level of historical curiosity here. No one wants to discuss Theological History...the thread is sad and a failure.
No one cares about arriving at truth on this thread...it's just yet one more obnoxious "Scofield sux" thing....I am now bored with it. :sleep:

 

Most early church fathers didn't believe in a pre-trib rapture of the Church.

The consensus among historical theologians, both dispy and covenantal, is that they weren't and to make a claim that they were flies in the face of basic theological history. If you're going to say they did you have to prove it. Honestly, I've done the heavy lifting here and they weren't.

 

The truth of history can't be judged by modern men because, Histories truth depends on who wrote it, and there politics or, doctrines. To say they didn't believe in a pretrib rapture leaves the burden of proof on you . After all it is your claim that they didn't Because it isn't writen about by them except for what I presented does not mean they didn't believe in it.
Of course you looked at the documents shown by Chuck Missler and found by Grant Jeffrey and you know it is false. I doubt that if they were to all rise from the dead and refute your ideas of it you still wouldn't believe it. Historians who assume it wasn't taught obviously weren't there to know, were they? I've shown that this view was in the early church which was your question and you won't consider it.
MB

 

Wow, well...the burden of proof isn't on me. Given the vast majority of specialists in this era and those acquainted with the literature say your view is incorrect I'd say the burden is on the minority voice.

Also, are you saying we don't have historiographical access to thinkers of this era?
Also, are you familiar with the literature from AD 50 - 500 that we do have? If so, what/who have you read?

 

Paul corrected the Thessalonians because they believed His coming was immediate.
2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

The falling away is already happening and the man of sin will be revealed before the tribulation by his signing of a seven year peace treaty with Israel. The first half of the trib will be peaceful but the last half is when all hell will break loose on those here at that time.
I don't need a secular writer to tell me it happens before the tribulation. Scripture tells us. However you won't accept that either. You'll come up with some excuse to keep on believing what you believe. Paul certainly qualifies as a writer of the early church. After all he started most of them.
MB

 

Didn't we go over this last week?

 

Does this mean you are going to give me an examination on what you think you taught me. Hardly! I gave up on your conversion to what I believe that does not mean I gave up on everyone else.
MB

 

:laugh:

Meaning you gave up when you ran out of proof-texts. :tongue3:

So i know you won't listen but I'll give you a quick review anyway:smilewinkgrin:
There is NO 7 year covenant between antichrist and Israel nor a corresponding tribulation. No scripture supports that whatsoever.

No scripture plainly supports the idea of a pretrib rapture. You must already have that idea in mind when you come to the scripture.

The gathering of the saints is at the second advent as Paul plainly says in the scripture you just quoted.

:jesus:

 

Here is another writer known as Didache about 120 AD. wrote about Christians being exhorted:
"Watch for your lifes sake. Let not your lamps be quinched, nor your loins be unloosed; but be ye ready for ye know not the hour in which our lord cometh"
(cf Anti Necene fathers, VII 382)

Another In the constitutions of the Holy Apostles(Book VII, secii, xxxi) a similar quotation is found." Observe all things that are commanded you of the Lord. Be watchful for your life. Let your loins begirded about, and your lights burning, and ye likeunto men wo wait for their Lord, When He will come, at even, or in the morning, or at cock crowing, or at midnight. For what hour they think not the Lord will come; and if they open to Him, Blessed are those servants because they were found watching" . . .(cf Ante neciene fathers VII,471)
I had to look for these quotes today and I found them so easily> How come you couldn't find them?
Please explain that if a post tribulation is correct why then are we told to watch for His coming at any moment. Certainly if His coming is post tribulation then this point would in deed be pointless.
MB

 

nitpick - The Didache is a collection of writings, not a writer.

And "you do not know the hour" is not the same as "He can come at any moment."

Even if it was, the "not knowing the hour" issue is an issue for pre-trib not post. Post trib, at least in the historic form affirms that Christ will come in an unexpected hour just like Jesus said He would do. Where as pre-trib dispensationalism says that he'll come again exactly 7 years after the rapture or signing of the "covenant" between Israel and antichrist.

We are told to watch for the Lord's return. The blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior.

 

You seem so sure but I don't believe you're as sure as you think you are. Why tell people two thousand years ago to be watchful. Why did the Thessalonians need to be exhorted. You don't prove anything with scripture you just state it isn't so. Your statements do not prove squat.

You base your whole doctrine on one verse about the last trump. It could be the last trump before the trib or the last trump at the middle of it. Which last trump? is your problem you don't know the answer. I don't believe there will never be another trump, do you?
You avoid the immanency of Paul telling the Thessalonians to be watchful. You avoid the immanency of the early Church writers. It's really funny that you hold up last trump and it doesn't mean what you think it does nor can you prove it. You hang on to it because of what you've read from men. Christ didn't think much of the doctrines of men.
MB

 

I am sure.

If you really think I have no scripture to back this up then I suggest you reevaluate the post I made titled "a case for the post-tribulation rapture." You know, the one where you tried to counter all the scripture I used by simply saying I don't know what I'm talking about?

Paul explains in 1 Thessalonians 5 that they should watch so that the day doesn't overtake them like a thief, in other words - so it doesn't surprise them. As children of the light we are to be sober and watching, waiting for the coming of the Lord. And we are told to watch for His return as a comfort because HE IS COMING!

This is all very similar to what Jesus told the disciples in Matthew 24:42-51. Jesus instructs His disciples to watch and wait on His return because that will spur them on to holiness and good works.

False assumption and you know it.

By last, I understand it to be the last of this age. I'm quite sure there are trumpets in the age to come.

Define immanency. If by that you mean that ever since 30/33AD that Christ could come again at any moment then you are wrong. Jesus told Paul that he MUST witness of Him in Rome. Jesus prophesied that Peter WOULD be martyred. Jesus said that the gospel WOULD be preached to the whole world before He returns (whether the world here means the Roman Empire or the actual world is irrelevant in this context). Clearly they couldn't have expected Christ to come at any moment.

Instead I cling to the actual teaching of Paul and the early church, waiting for the coming Day of the Lord when He will return in flaming fire to execute vengeance on the wicked and to gather the believers.

 

I still don't believe you know what you are talking about. Just like your last post it's nothing more than a lot of hup la and innuendo. Not one sustained fact.

Thankyou for your agreement and there would be no point in that if He weren't coming soon and unperdictably as He also said. :laugh:

I don't believe He said the bolded and underlined. This is very common of the things you do. You take a verse or passage and add your own spin on it. I don't believe The Lord ever said why He did this you are only making things up as you go along. Straining to make your man made doctrine fit.

You wish!

 

OK if you say so

If you think that was agreement then your reading comprehension is worse than I thought. We are to watch for the physical, visible return of the Lord. Not some mysterious, sudden disappearance of the saints.

What do you think Jesus meant by being "faithful and wise"? Going about the work of the Lord, what else? I was taking the language of Hebrews 10:23-24 and correlating it to the faithfulness mentioned in Matt. Sorry if you missed that.

Also, as a side note the next verse, Hebrews 10:25 says "so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." HMMM... we must be watching for the coming of the Lord, since we can see the day approaching. But if the return is so sudden and unexpected as you claim, how can we see it approaching?

Nope, just wish you'd stop with the straw men and red herrings.

.
There is singing and music in the eternal state - thus likely there are trumpets in the age to come. this last trump and the trumpets in Revelation are during this age... so... You can figure it out, I have faith in you.

Figured. Too bad noone in the New Testament describes the coming of Christ as unexpected, if you are watching. The only ones that it will come upon is those who are not watching as 1 Thess 5 clearly says. Us believers see it approaching and are told to lift up our heads waiting for our redemption!

Or... you know... not

Seriously, Paul, the one you think you are defending would rebuke such beliefs

 

If one isn't watching it would be unexpected to them would it not?

How do you get the connection of Mat 24:42-51 and Hebrews 10:23-24 One has no such connection with the other. It's still your assumption and you had to take the Hebrews passage out of text to do it. These passages aren't even on the same subject. You have proven my point about you taking things out of context to prove your false doctrine. So what you believe must be that we are told about the mystery of the rapture to cause us to work harder for the Lord. That my friend is pure nonsense.

We see the day approaching because we are looking for it. Those who are not looking for it, are caught off guard and are surprised. You really have a problem with that don't you?

Your whole argument is a straw man I have torn it down for you and showed you where you are wrong even if you won't accept it. Your doctrine is still a doctrine of men.

In other words you can't explain it in simple English and you want me to prove your doctrine for my self. You really are quite a character.

Luk_21:34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

Then He must have had a problem with what Luke said in the verse above.

The sad fact is I didn't really want to discuss this with you futher because I knew it would only go on like this with the possibility of us hating each other in the end of it. I don't wish to make you hate me or I hate you. You haven't been able to change my mind in the least and I know I haven't changed your's. The reason I wanted to stop certainly wasn't because I ran out of proof text as you claimed. When you wrote that you were already at that point as was I. Are you now willing to just agree that we disagree or do you really wish we continue to degrade and insult each other?

MB

 

More Rapture Mania !

(Here is something else I found on the web, for what it may be worth)

PRETRIB RAPTURE STEALTH !

Many evangelicals believe that Christ will "rapture" them to heaven years before the second coming and (most importantly) well BEFORE Antichrist and his "tribulation." But Acts 2:34, 35 reveal that Jesus is at the Father's right hand in heaven until He leaves to destroy His earthly foes at the second coming. And Acts 3:21 says that Jesus “must” stay in heaven with the Father "until the times of restitution of all things” which includes, says Scofield, “the restoration of the theocracy under David’s Son” which obviously can’t begin before or during Antichrist’s reign. ("The Rapture Question," by the long time No. 1 pretrib authority John Walvoord, didn't dare to even list, in its scripture index, the above verses! They were also too hot for John Darby - the so-called "father of dispensationalism" - to list in the scripture index in his "Letters"!)
Paul explains the “times and the seasons” (I Thess. 5:1) of the catching up (I Thess. 4:17) as the “day of the Lord” (5:2) which FOLLOWS the posttrib sun/moon darkening (Matt. 24:29; Acts 2:20) WHEN “sudden destruction” (5:3) of the wicked occurs! The "rest" for "all them that believe" is also tied to such destruction in II Thess. 1:6-10! (If the wicked are destroyed before or during the trib, who'd be left alive to serve the Antichrist?) Paul also ties the change-into-immortality “rapture” (I Cor. 15:52) to the end of trib “death” (15:54). (Will death be ended before or during the trib? Of course not! And vs. 54 is also tied to Isa. 25:8 which Scofield views as Israel's posttrib resurrection!) It's amazing that the Olivet Discourse contains the "great commission" for the church but not even a hint of a pretrib rapture for the church!
Many don't know that before 1830 all Christians had always viewed I Thess. 4’s “catching up” as an integral part of the final second coming to earth. In 1830 this "rapture" was stretched forward and turned into an idolized separate coming of Christ. To further strengthen their novel view, which evangelical scholars overwhelmingly rejected throughout the 1800s, pretrib teachers in the early 1900s began to stretch forward the “day of the Lord” (what Darby and Scofield never dared to do) and hook it up with their already-stretched-forward “rapture.” Many leading evangelical scholars still weren’t convinced of pretrib, so pretrib teachers then began teaching that the “falling away” of II Thess. 2:3 is really a pretrib rapture (the same as saying that the “rapture” in 2:3 must happen before the “rapture” ["gathering"] in 2:1 can happen – the height of desperation!). Google "Walvoord Melts Ice" for more on this.
Other Google articles on the 183-year-old pretrib rapture view include “X-Raying Margaret,” "Margaret Macdonald's Rapture Chart," "Pretrib Rapture's Missing Lines," "Edward Irving is Unnerving," "The Unoriginal John Darby," "Catholics Did NOT Invent the Rapture," "The Real Manuel Lacunza," “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Wily Jeffrey,” “The Rapture Index (Mad Theology),” “America’s Pretrib Rapture Traffickers,” “Roots of (Warlike) Christian Zionism,” “Scholars Weigh My Research,” “Pretrib Hypocrisy,” "Appendix F: Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Pretrib Rapture Secrecy," “Deceiving and Being Deceived,” "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty," "Famous Rapture Watchers," and "Morgan Edwards' Rapture View" – most by the author of the bestselling book “The Rapture Plot” (the most accurate and documented book on pretrib rapture history which is obtainable by calling 800.643.4645).

 

Obviously the Apostle Paul taught a pre-trib harpazo and expected a soon return of Jesus as King. However, in 70 AD, with the destruction of the Temple,
this became impossible. Now with Israeli Jews in the land promised to their seed, the possibility of a new Temple is within sight.

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away [departure] first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. 2 Thes 2:3-4

Obviously apostasia "falling away" is a double entendre:
departure from the true faith (apostasy) and
departure from the earth (rapture).

"The LIE" will be so deceiving that the body of Christ MUST be removed from the earth.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie (that's an UNDERSTATEMENT). 2 Thes 2:11

 

Excellent post. I remember studying them in seminary

 

IMO, any view but the pre trib view tramples on the work of Christ on the cross. God placed the fullness of His wrath on Christ. Scripture states we are now in Christ. To claim the Father would pour additional wrath on His Son (as we are IN Christ) is foolishness. The church has no purpose going through the time of Jacob's Trouble...none. The wrath intended for us has already been appeased at Calvary.

 

Wrath (of God) and tribulation (of the church) aren't the same thing. Wrath is still to come, but tribulation has been happening for centuries now. Wrath is from God and tribulation is from humanity.