Dispensationalism and the Rapture, Pre-Darby.

My studies of what Margaret Macdonald believed
indicate that the statement
"Margaret Macdonald put together this idea before Darby."
is an incorrect statement. The Margaret Macdonald
and Darby connection was part of the
post-trib 1970s evolution.
While the current pretribulation rapture
doctrine can be described by it's evolution
from 1830 to 2006, the evolution of
the posttribulation
rapture (premill) can only be traced
1970 to 2006.
(the postribulation rapture from the a-mill,
that evolution can be traced from
the early 300s when the apostate church
got in bed with the Roman Emperor Constitine
down to today.

All three threads of evolution are tracable
under the 'Baptist' umbrella.
Apparently the early Christians
33AD to 325AD didn't differentitate
between subshreads of their pre-millinnial
doctrine betwennie : pre-trib, mid-trib,
or post-trib. I note these Christians
also didn't take a stand on 'smoking tobacco'.

When I was saved back in 1952 I was thinking
that when Jesus comes to get us prior to
the tribulation period, he is going give
those people of the earth thier just
deserves by doing bad stuff to them.
About 1965 the world had enough hydrogen
bombs finally to destroy all human life
on the earth. Since then it has been
obvious: If God doesn't interfere with
mankind - mankind will commit mutual destruction
of each other and of all life on earth.

Have a nice doomsday

 

Good evening! Bro. Ed, I'm not sure where you got your "1970" dating; I suppose from McPherson's book? However, though I'm sorry to disappoint you, I knew of the "pre-trib, "mid-trib," and "post-trib rapture" notions long before 1970, didn't believe any of them then, don't now. These were all being discussed in the 1950's when I was a member of an IFCA pre-trib group while a freshman in college. The pastor preached strongly against mid- and post-tribs.
And they weren't new ideas then! The only "new" one I've run across since then is a brother out of Minnesota, I believe, who has a "10-year trib" with the first 3 (and 1/2?) for everyone, then 7 for the lost and Israel. As I recall, the book was titled "Armageddon." Author may be Bloom?

My views are still basically those of my childhood
church life: Jesus is coming again, and that's it!

 

For the mix:

FROM: http://www.raptureready.com/rr-margaret-mcdonald.html

MARGARET MACDONALD? WHO?

Margaret MacDonald is not the mother of the pre-tribulation rapture.

I have visited just about every anti-rapture web site on the internet. One common point used on nearly every one of these sites to oppose the pretribulation doctrine is the claim that the rapture theory was started by a Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald. Many critics of the rapture declare that MacDonald received her vision from demonic origins, and that she then passed on the message of that vision to infect the Church. Being a staunch pretribulationist, I'm at a loss to explain the connection between Margaret MacDonald and my beliefs in the rapture. I cannot recall ever hearing pre-trib prophetic speakers say, "I believe in the rapture because Margaret MacDonald told me so."

After reading and listening to a number of web sites, books, and radio programs that promote the idea that Margaret MacDonald started pretribulationism, I decided to look into the matter.

To be certain that I made no oversight, I searched through my library of prophecy books for references citing Margaret MacDonald as the founder of the rapture teaching. My hunt turned out to be in vain. It was like looking for the cartoon character "Where's Waldo." Only in this case, no Waldo was to be found.

If MacDonald was the founder of the pretribulation rapture, as most anti-rapture proponents say, then someone needs to explain why rapturists have failed to give her credit. You would expect to find dozens of books that expound upon her every word. From reading the writings of anti-rapture authors, one would think we pre-tribbers would be reverencing MacDonald as Catholics do Mary. But clearly we don't. Pre-tribbers don’t go around reciting, "Hail Margaret full of grace, blessed art thou among visionaries, pray for us sinners at the time of the rapture." If MacDonald were the founder of the doctrine of rapture, the lack of recognition we rapture believers pay her would be comparable to the modern Mormon church failing to recognize Joseph Smith as its founder or to the Jehovah's witnesses neglecting to identify Charles Russell as that group’s originator. Poor Margaret MacDonald, she gets all of the blame, but none of the credit.

After having examined the claims of those critical of the rapture, I have found holes large enough to drive a dump truck through in their so-called evidence:

The first problem with the MacDonald origin is the fact that she wasn't the one who widely taught the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture. A man named John Darby is believed by many to have sparked modern interest in the rapture. The question here is how Darby came to hear of MacDonald's vision. Proponents like Dave MacPherson and John L. Bray have never been able to prove that Darby had ever heard of MacDonald or her vision.

Darby himself claims the revelation of the rapture came to him when he realized the distinction between Israel and the church.

Darby reported that he discovered the rapture teaching in 1827, three years before MacDonald had her vision.

When one closely examines MacDonald's vision, it becomes clear that her vision could not have been a pretribulational one. MacDonald looked for a "fiery trial which is to try us," and she foresaw the Church being purged by the Antichrist. Any pretribulation rapturist can tell you the Church will be removed before the advent of the Antichrist. John Bray, an anti-rapturist, said himself that Margaret MacDonald was teaching a single coming of our Lord Jesus. This contradicts current rapture doctrine, which teaches a two-staged event—first, Christ coming for His Church and second, seven years later His return to earth. With so many contradictions between MacDonald's vision and today's pretribulationism, it is difficult to see any linkage.

By far the biggest mistake post-tribulationists have made attacking the rapture is claiming that the pretribulation rapture wasn’t taught before 1830. In fact, John L. Bray, a Southern Baptist evangelist, offered $500 to anyone who could prove that someone taught the rapture doctrine prior to MacDonald's 1830 vision. Bray was first proven wrong when he wrote in a newsletter, "Then my own research indicated that it was Emmanuel Lacunza, a Jesuit Catholic priest, who in the 1812 book The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, first taught this theory." Bray stuck his neck out again when he made another $500 offer to anyone who could provide a documented statement earlier than Lacunza's 1812 writings. Apparently he had to cough up the 500 bucks. I quote him again: "I offered $500 to anyone who would give a documented statement earlier than Lacunza's time which taught a two-stage coming of Christ separated by a stated period of time.” No one claimed that offer until someone found writings that forced Bray to write the following: “Now I have the Photostat copies of a book published in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1788 but written in 1742-1744 in England, which taught the pretribulation rapture before Lacunza." Lately, a number of other sources have been located that teach the pretribulation rapture--some written as early as the second century. Where does this leave Margaret MacDonald?

In my life here on earth, I've made a number of observations that I regard as undeniable truths. One of these is the fact that the truth will suffer attacks with no one defending it, while a lie will be allowed to proliferate with no one challenging it. This seems to have taken place in the case of the rapture. For years on end, anti-rapturists have been allowed to attack pretribulationism freely. One assailant called the rapture the mark of the beast while another remarked that when Jesus returns at the battle of Armageddon, He will fight against those who believe in the rapture. The people who should have been contending for the rapture, for the most part, just said, "That may be your opinion."

Finally, it appears that those who hold to a pretribulation rapture are beginning to counter the ridiculous charges. A number of books have been published that cite several pre-MacDonald sources describing a raptured Church. Author Grant Jeffrey deserves a good deal of praise for his work in discovering many of these sources.

As far as being able to find the pretribulation rapture in the Bible, we don’t need to be rocket scientists to discover it. For me, locating the rapture doctrine in the Bible was as simple as finding evidence that Jesus Christ is Messiah.

The evidence that Christians believed in the rapture long before MacDonald does not seem to have sunk into the minds of those opposed to the rapture. They still teach that she is the founder of pretribulationism. When someone is presented with overwhelming proof that he or she is wrong and refuses to accept that truth, then we certainly may conclude that he or she is in spiritual darkness.

I would like to conclude by saying that no evidence whatsoever points to MacDonald as the source of pretribulationism. Every major prophetic author alive today claims the Word of God as the foundation for belief in the rapture. Both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul made statements that clearly establish the rapture doctrine. Jesus said, in Matthew 25:13, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." Paul affirmed in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18: "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: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

 

Another for the mix:

From: http://www.fwponline.cc/v9n1reasoner.html

THE OBITUARY OF DISPENSATIONALISM: 1830-1988
by Vic Reasoner

 

Ed's short comparison of the four
main Eschatologies.

Notice two radically different views
of Post-trib:

-----------------------

Pretrib pre-mill outline of time forward:

0. church age continues -- you are here
1. rapture/resurrection
2. Tribulation time
3. Second Advent of Jesus event
4. literal MK=millinnial kingdom
5. new heaven & new earth

Post-trib pre-mill outline of time forward:

0. church age continues -- you are here
2. Tribulation time
3. Second Advent of Jesus event
(same 12-hour day as: 1. rapture/resurrection
4. literal MK=millinnial kingdom
5. new heaven & new earth

Pre-trib a-mill outline of time forward:

0. church age continues -- you are here
(same as 2. Tribulation time)
3. Second Advent of Jesus event
(same 12-hour day as: 1. rapture/resurrection
4. spiritual MK=millinnial kingdom, in heaven
5. spiritual new heaven & new earth

Done-did preterist a-mill outline of time forward:

0. church age continues -- you are here
1. rapture/resurrection -- already happened
2. Tribulation time -- you are here
3. Second Advent of Jesus event -- already happened
4. spiritual MK=millinnial kingdom -- already happened
5. new heaven & new earth -- you are here

 

You don't give credit to a charismatic vision seeking adolescent girl. Therefore, Darby receives all of the credit with the help of Schofield.

 

Late last night I set out to see if there was a real answer. I found while googling that

Dispensationalism is valid
Dispensationalism is paralized
Dispensationalism is debunked
Dispensationalism is dead

Covenant Theology is invalid
Covenant Theology is dead
Covenant Theology is heretical
Covenant Theology is truth

Margaret MacDonald had a vision from the Spirit
Margaret MacDonald had a vision from the devil
Margaret MacDonald had a valid revelation
Margaret MacDonald had a good teacher

Guess we are left with multiple choice

I even found a page that says that it is an account of her vision, but then anyone could write something up for the net couldn't they.

Suppose for a moment that her vision was from the Devil, and that Darby bought into the vision, which by the way one site actually indicated it may have revealed postmillennialism rather than pre, what real difference does it make? Those later in time considered the system, compared it with the word and found that it was valid. Not unlike those that have been taught coven. theology, compared it to the word, and taken it on because they thought it was valid.

Even suppose, that there isn't any recorded proof of anyone holding to pre prior to 1800's - what difference does it make? I might add that there seems to be quite a few historical quotes floating around to show that there were some pre folks long and far earlier, but then what does that really prove?

What does it really prove if the church Fathers held to post? Some of the early folks didn't even have the doctrine of the Holy Spirit right why would we assume they had their eschatology right?

Just some food for thought while you contemplate your multiple choice.

Dispensationalism does not rise or fall due to MacDonald, Darby, Scofield or MacPherson, it rises or falls due to the Word. And I might add, coven. theology rises or falls due to the Word, not the fact that "the church has always..."

Let's look at the Scripture and find our own way, since we will stand before the master as an individual, not a dispie or covenie. AND I will be interested to see if HE even brings up eschatology in our little talk at the judgment (At least I am hoping it will be little and not an extended series of talks on what I did wrong .

 

It is true that dispensationalism as we know of today was unheard of before the 18th century. Also the rapture teaching before an end time 7 year tribulation was also unheard of. It is amazing how a handful of men like Darby,Scofield,Chafer,Lindsey and now Tim LaHaye have so popularized this end time scenario, that it has been accepted as fact in many evangelical churches today.

 

YOU ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION!

 

This may not be Darby's first mistake but it was his worst. Don't you believe that the revelation was closed with the Apostolic age? I hope you do. Most heretical cults claim some additional revelation; you know like the Book of Mormon.

 

With all due respect to Miss Margaret and company, way back in the archives of this board a careful researcher could re-locate a full pre-trib rapture statement written, as I recall, in either the 4th or 5th century, and dredged up by a pre-trib contributor as "an early statement of this view."

After reading the ante-Nicenes with care for years, I must agree with Exscentric that they are "all over the map" on everything. And they are by no means final authorities. But one thing is certain: it is almost impossible to discover even a "millenium" among them, much less a 7-year tribulation with a pre-trib (or even mid-trib!) "rapture" view.

Papias, 2nd Cent., spoke of "The days ... in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand brances, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine . . . ." And he gives a similar description of the grains of wheat, and says that animals will then become peaceable. He uses neither the term "millenium" nor the words "a thousand years." The better-known writer Eusebius, two centuries later, seems to have had more of the writings of Papias than we now know, and he was not impressed: his comment was "... he seems to have been a man of very small intelligence, to judge from his books."

Irenaeus, who died in 202 A. D., spoke of one advent of Christ, "to order the reapers, at the time of the end, to collect first the tares together, and bind them into bundles, and burn them with unquenchable fire, but to gather up the wheat into the barn; . . . ." That is, he knew of only one return, to separate the sheep from the goats, saying "...the advent of the Son comes indeed alike to all, but is for the purpose of judging . . . ."

Possibly, instead of seeking "pre-trib rapture" before Maggie, we should look for a millenium among the early "fathers." One quest would be about like the other, methinks.

Now, with the diarist, "And so to bed." Blessings on you all, children; believe what you will, but where is the text? Best - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Ron Arndt: //It is true that dispensationalism as we know of today was unheard of before the 18th century. //

Actually 'dispensationalism as we know of today' is a phantom.
The dispensationalism Ron Arndt knows is not the same
dispensationalism Ed Edwards knows is not the same Dispensationalism
that OldRegular knows, etc.

That really makes it hard to talk this subject.

 

OldRegular: //Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his book, The Church and Last Things, ... //

Please, for the scholars among us:
the Publisher and year of publication.
Even a ISBN. Qutite frankly there are some (mostly /over 80%/) Baptists
here on this board that don't bother to read the books
they cite but get their old/cold opinions from third parties).

OldRegular: //As reported by Lloyd-Jones [page 138] Irving's Church
was apparently the originator of ‘the secret rapture’.//

I've searched the Darby work I have (electronic commentary on
the Bible) and the phrase 'secret rapture' is NOT there.

Because I developed my eschatology from the Holy Bible which
talks in 1 Thessalonians about the CAUGHT UP (Latin: rapture)
which is loud enough to literally WAKE THE DEAD, I never came up
with something called 'a secret rapture'.

Brice: //I agree with the sentiment that we should stick to Paul’s words,
but I’m trying to gain a better understanding of the history
of pre-trib ideas.//

I understand the desire to study that. But i've really not found much
of reputation about that happened in the Irving/Macdonald camp that
diddn't get 'outed' until the 1970s. The postrib/premill history
is largely still in IN PRINT books, it being a recent development.

Recall there are four approaches to the Bible prophecies:

1. Preterist (past) - Revelation, written in 0096AD is a history book.

2. Futurist (future) - Much Bible prophecy is to be fulfilled
in the future

3. Historicism (now) - Bible prophecy is being fulfilled throghout
history since 33AD, only The Second Coming of Christ remains

4. Idealist (timeless) - Bible prophecy contains deep truths (forth-telling)
about humans and God, not specific prophecy (fore-telling of events

R. Charles Blair: //Good evening! Bro. Ed, I'm not sure where you got your "1970" dating;
I suppose from McPherson's book? However, though I'm sorry
to disappoint you, I knew of the "pre-trib, "mid-trib,"
and "post-trib rapture" notions long before 1970, didn't believe
any of them then, don't now. //

Reading what I said, I can explain that. The a-mill post-trib
has been around since prior to the early 300s, when Constitatine
became Emperor of the Roman Empire by seducting the church.
(He would have made a good Antichrist, or a type of Antichrist.)
Is the the pre-millinnial advent of Christ which i was speaking of
with a history from the 1970s, as you say, from McPherson's book.
I've hear the 1950s, but have never seen a book from then???

 

Is anyone else getting email relating to Dave MacPherson and his rhetoric on this subject?

I am finding it humorous that someone named Louise is sending information about Dave MacPherson in Dave MacPherson's name to exscentric. Now if that isn't something. I'm also getting email from revrocky.

The question is, "Are revrocky, louise, and Dave Macpherson the same person or are they MacPherson's fan club.

When I reply to these emails the email returns undeliverable.

Rather indicative of opposition, want to spout their stuff, but don't want to listen to your side, not that I would take the time

 

So now i'm confused...Did I miss the rapture? Was it announced on the History Channel? Because as a good Baptist I don't have cable...so would God still take me in the rapture (whether secret or not) if I didn't see the cable announcement?


Uh, sorry probably not a good showing to make my first post so sarcastic

 

Dunno, but last I heard I think He knows where you live, and will pick you up even if you don't have cable - just watch whatcha is doin, so's ya won't be embarrassed when he comes

 

Aye! SirEdEdSrSir! Theayeh's th' r-r-rub!

("Let me IN!" You're killing me!" )

Uh- gotta go! Langauge Cop just showed up!


In His grace,

EdEdJr

 

HEY!! I HIGHLY resemble that comment about needing time, at the comedy school. So I just enrolled! In fact, they had two openings, so I recommended YOU for t'other one!



Ed

 

Folks, on a serious note I'd recommend NOT clicking on the web site, given by Tom Butler, on page 1, which I mentioned in my own post, halfway down the page. I do not particularly care where you come down on this, although I believe Preterism is bad theology, at best. But after I clicked to see what the site was, and after I replied with my own post, I have gotten two unwanted e-mails associated with this site, one from someone claiming to be Dave MacPherson, and another affiliated with the same organization. And my system virus-check caught a trojan shortly after that, as well. That happens to be the only site I was on, that I'm not on regularly. This may not be the correct place to inform, but being as I think the two are somehow connected, I thought I'd warn everyone, here. And since the incident, our computer is not running as fast, either.
Sncerely,
Ed.

 

Ed, I've been to that site more than once, but no trojan appeared. I did get a couple of e-mails, from a guy named Bruce. I apologize for any problems anybody had.

Tom B.