Calvinistic dispensationalists claming not to be Calvinist?

[John81]

No I don't have any links, although I have read many books over the years. The only book I have on the subject is "The Origin of the Brethren" by Harold Rowden, actually a Brethren member. From that it is easy to see how the teaching came from their early interation with Irving and the Irvingites, in fact some of the early Brethren became Irvingite churches.

I have a number of books on Irving, some pro and some not. It is easy to see how he got the teaching from translating the Book The Coming of The Messiah in Power and Glory by Juan Josephat ben Ezra, a converted Jew. Actually a Jesuit priest called Lacunza. An Irvingite girl in Scotland, Mary McDonald picked up some of his teaching and so did some of his prophets in London, including ROBert Baxter, a lawyer from Doncaster, who shortly after, left the movement due to their teachings on the Humanity of Christ, and rejected his former teaching.

I've read a little bit about Mary McDonald. Didn't she claim to have some dreams about this or something...or am I thinking of someone else?

Recently I've noticed several people proclaiming a pre-wrath rapture to be what to expect. I think I used to confuse the pre-wrath rapture view with the mid-trib rapture view. Apparently, from something I read somewhere recently, they are not the same.

[Wilchbla]

I've read a little bit about Mary McDonald. Didn't she claim to have some dreams about this or something...or am I thinking of someone else?

Recently I've noticed several people proclaiming a pre-wrath rapture to be what to expect. I think I used to confuse the pre-wrath rapture view with the mid-trib rapture view. Apparently, from something I read somewhere recently, they are not the same.

There is very little written by Margaret McDonald. Much of what she said was word of mouth. The only thing about her teachings that can be found from her hand is a handwritten note and all that's on it is two bible verses without any annotations. The truth is Margaret McDonald taught multiple raptures with some getting raptured before the tribulation and some Christians going through the tribulation and some getting raptured out at different periods in between. All this talk about her inventing the rapture or giving John Darby his ideas about it is pure fantasy made up by a desperate preterist by the name of James MacPherson in order to sell books. Darby was actually teaching about the rapture before McDonald had her alleged vision and Darby himself said he got the idea when he realized that there was a distinction between Israel and the church. And this nonsense about him getting it from a Jesuit is laughable. Why would a Jesuit, who are notoriously anti-Jew, start a teaching that is pro-Jew at its heart?

As far as the Pre-wrath rapture theory, that was popularized by Marvin Rosenthal who is the editor of Zions Fire. He simply wrested OT verses speaking to the nation of Israel and applied them to the church. Isaiah 26:14-21 is the chief text he uses to teach his heresy. Edited August 22, 2010 by Wilchbla

[John81]

There is very little written by Margaret McDonald. Much of what she said was word of mouth. The only thing about her teachings that can be found from her hand is a handwritten note and all that's on it is two bible verses without any annotations. The truth is Margaret McDonald taught multiple raptures with some getting raptured before the tribulation and some Christians going through the tribulation and some getting raptured out at different periods in between. All this talk about her inventing the rapture or giving John Darby his ideas about it is pure fantasy made up by a desperate preterist by the name of James MacPherson in order to sell books. Darby was actually teaching about the rapture before McDonald had her alleged vision and Darby himself said he got the idea when he realized that there was a distinction between Israel and the church. And this nonsense about him getting it from a Jesuit is laughable. Why would a Jesuit, who are notoriously anti-Jew, start a teaching that is pro-Jew at its heart?

As far as the Pre-wrath rapture theory, that was popularized by Marvin Rosenthal who is the editor of Zions Fire. He simply wrested OT verses speaking to the nation of Israel and applied them to the church. Isaiah 26:14-21 is the chief text he uses to teach his heresy.

Interesting.

Even Jack Chick got caught up in trying build the Jesuit's up into some super power which was basically controlling the world behind the scenes. I do like some of Chick's tracts, but he has put forth some false material with regards to some historical matters.

Interesting (there's that word again) that you mention Marvin Rosenthal and Zions Fire. Until about two or three days ago I had heard of neither. Someone was trying to explain to another why they believe in a pre-wrath rapture and they mentioned a book (don't recall the title) but I remember they said the author was Marvin Rosenthal. Before the conversation was over this person also offered to buy a subscription to Zions Fire for them.

I suppose if I googled them I could come up with something unless you happen to have any links to a site which proves or disproves their positions.

I'm finding it amazing just how many different views there are to how the end times will play out and with regards to the aspect of the rapture...from the idea of a pre-mil rapture to no rapture at all and so many varieties in between.

[Invicta]

There is very little written by Margaret McDonald. Much of what she said was word of mouth. The only thing about her teachings that can be found from her hand is a handwritten note and all that's on it is two bible verses without any annotations. The truth is Margaret McDonald taught multiple raptures with some getting raptured before the tribulation and some Christians going through the tribulation and some getting raptured out at different periods in between. All this talk about her inventing the rapture or giving John Darby his ideas about it is pure fantasy made up by a desperate preterist by the name of James MacPherson in order to sell books. Darby was actually teaching about the rapture before McDonald had her alleged vision and Darby himself said he got the idea when he realized that there was a distinction between Israel and the church. And this nonsense about him getting it from a Jesuit is laughable. Why would a Jesuit, who are notoriously anti-Jew, start a teaching that is pro-Jew at its heart?

As far as the Pre-wrath rapture theory, that was popularized by Marvin Rosenthal who is the editor of Zions Fire. He simply wrested OT verses speaking to the nation of Israel and applied them to the church. Isaiah 26:14-21 is the chief text he uses to teach his heresy.

Regardless of that, before Darby and Irving you will not find the doctrine taught in any detail. I have read that the first protestant to teach it was Mr Maitland, in 1825 who was librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote books on it. If you look at the Baptist confession of faith 1689, and earlier confessions like the Westminster and earlier general Baptist, you will not find it mentioned. They all considered the Pope to be the Antichrist, showing that they were not futurists, but historicists. Edited August 22, 2010 by Invicta

[JerryNumbers]

Because someone wrote a book and said they never heard of a certain teaching does not mean it did not exist at that time, even many years before they were even born. And its especially true for the ages before everyone was connected.

[Wilchbla]

Regardless of that, before Darby and Irving you will not find the doctrine taught in any detail. I have read that the first protestant to teach it was Mr Maitland, in 1825 who was librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote books on it. If you look at the Baptist confession of faith 1689, and earlier confessions like the Westminster and earlier general Baptist, you will not find it mentioned. They all considered the Pope to be the Antichrist, showing that they were not futurists, but historicists.

Just because something may have not been taught previously doesn't mean it's heresy. I don't believer the priesthood of the believers was taught prior to Martin Luther. Anyway, it's taught in scripture.

I noticed that you said "taught in detail". Again, big deal. The RCC (as well as many Protestant churches following) had Christians in darkness for 1500 years. Of course nOBody was going to teach it in detail. And I dare you to say that God has revealed all his truth from the Bible so far. Try explaining Ezekiel to me if you think you have. Also don't forget that Daniel was told many things would be sealed up until "the end". The closer we get to the "end" the more truths about "thing to come" will be revealed from God's word. Especially after the rapture of the church.

I have a list of people that taught premillenial dispenastionalism (which includes the rapture of the church) prior to Darby. I'm not going to type it all out but here's three examples:

1)Ephrem of Nisibis (306-373)

2)Hugh Latima (?-1555)

3)Morgan Edwards (1788)

Others taught it Darby was the first to put it in systematic form.

[John81]

Just because something may have not been taught previously doesn't mean it's heresy. I don't believer the priesthood of the believers was taught prior to Martin Luther. Anyway, it's taught in scripture.

I noticed that you said "taught in detail". Again, big deal. The RCC (as well as many Protestant churches following) had Christians in darkness for 1500 years. Of course nOBody was going to teach it in detail. And I dare you to say that God has revealed all his truth from the Bible so far. Try explaining Ezekiel to me if you think you have. Also don't forget that Daniel was told many things would be sealed up until "the end". The closer we get to the "end" the more truths about "thing to come" will be revealed from God's word. Especially after the rapture of the church.

I have a list of people that taught premillenial dispenastionalism (which includes the rapture of the church) prior to Darby. I'm not going to type it all out but here's three examples:

1)Ephrem of Nisibis (306-373)

2)Hugh Latima (?-1555)

3)Morgan Edwards (1788)

Others taught it Darby was the first to put it in systematic form.

It is important to realize that much of what was taught prior to the Reformation which was outside the RCC was under constant attack by the RCC. The RCC worked tirelessly in its attempt to eradicate those Christians who were outside the RCC. The RCC used threats, torture and murder against these Christians along with destroying their material.

I don't know whether dispensationalism was taught or not, but I have read quotes from some early Christians that did mention a pre-trib rapture. No detail that I recall but it was OBvious they believed in a pre-trib rapture.

[Wilchbla]

I'm finding it amazing just how many different views there are to how the end times will play out and with regards to the aspect of the rapture...from the idea of a pre-mil rapture to no rapture at all and so many varieties in between.

That's because the rapture is the next great event on God's calendar. So Satan will cause as much doubt and confusion as he can over it. Also, the teaching of the rapture ties into premillenialism which is a pro-Israel teaching at heart and Satan is Israel's most ancient enemy. It's so pro-Israel you actual have people blaming Scofield for the mess in the Middle East now. I make this not up. You'll also notice that most postmils and amils are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli when it comes to the land of Palestine. If you don't believe me just ask them about their position on the state of Israel.


Every heresy about future events whether concerning the rapture , etc comes from the failure to make a distinction between Israel and the church. Every heretic will wrest scripture that doctrinally applies to the nation of Israel and apply them doctrinally to the church. And really, prOBably 99% of heresies are a result of this. This they do because they have the church replacing Israel. Even with your New Covenant Calvinists you still have Israel as a nation being replaced even though they will still leave an opening for the Jews to be saved. Yet coporately, as nation, they still teach Israel is finished. Also, every cult has one core belief and that the promised future literal Davidic, Abrahamic kingdom of God on earth will not be fulfilled with the Jews. The Moonies, JWs, Mormons, Catholics, etc. etc all teach that the kingdom promised to Israel has been given to them or is fulfilled in them. Even with the Muslims you have them battling over Jersualem. Why? Because someday the kingdom of Christ on earth will be located there and Mohammed lied to them and told them they were the chosen people. If you can't make the distinction between Israel and the church and which promises apply to whom then you unknowingly, or knowingly, become a helper of Israel's ancient enemy; Satan.

[Wilchbla]

It is important to realize that much of what was taught prior to the Reformation which was outside the RCC was under constant attack by the RCC. The RCC worked tirelessly in its attempt to eradicate those Christians who were outside the RCC. The RCC used threats, torture and murder against these Christians along with destroying their material.

I don't know whether dispensationalism was taught or not, but I have read quotes from some early Christians that did mention a pre-trib rapture. No detail that I recall but it was OBvious they believed in a pre-trib rapture.

I imagine if you were running for you life and hiding out all the time from the RCC it was difficult to delve deeply into the word of God. Especially since it was on the list of banned books and your likelyhood of having any scripture was pretty slim.

[trc123]

I imagine if you were running for you life and hiding out all the time from the RCC it was difficult to delve deeply into the word of God. Especially since it was on the list of banned books and your likelyhood of having any scripture was pretty slim.

And, there was not Scriptures available in the language of the common man and there weren't many copies yet as the printing press of Gutenberg was yet to be invented. It wasn't until Gutenberg's press and a common man's translation was done that availability to the masses came about.

[John81]

That's because the rapture is the next great event on God's calendar. So Satan will cause as much doubt and confusion as he can over it. Also, the teaching of the rapture ties into premillenialism which is a pro-Israel teaching at heart and Satan is Israel's most ancient enemy. It's so pro-Israel you actual have people blaming Scofield for the mess in the Middle East now. I make this not up. You'll also notice that most postmils and amils are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli when it comes to the land of Palestine. If you don't believe me just ask them about their position on the state of Israel.


Every heresy about future events whether concerning the rapture , etc comes from the failure to make a distinction between Israel and the church. Every heretic will wrest scripture that doctrinally applies to the nation of Israel and apply them doctrinally to the church. And really, prOBably 99% of heresies are a result of this. This they do because they have the church replacing Israel. Even with your New Covenant Calvinists you still have Israel as a nation being replaced even though they will still leave an opening for the Jews to be saved. Yet coporately, as nation, they still teach Israel is finished. Also, every cult has one core belief and that the promised future literal Davidic, Abrahamic kingdom of God on earth will not be fulfilled with the Jews. The Moonies, JWs, Mormons, Catholics, etc. etc all teach that the kingdom promised to Israel has been given to them or is fulfilled in them. Even with the Muslims you have them battling over Jersualem. Why? Because someday the kingdom of Christ on earth will be located there and Mohammed lied to them and told them they were the chosen people. If you can't make the distinction between Israel and the church and which promises apply to whom then you unknowingly, or knowingly, become a helper of Israel's ancient enemy; Satan.

I've witnessed the truth of much of what you say here. Many who believe in Replacement Theology do indeed support the Arab Muslim "Palestinians". In my studies of Replacement Theology I can see where they may hit a few points but overall, to believe Israel is finished and has been replaced by the church, their positions require a great deal of twisting and turning of Scripture.

No doubt Replacement Theology has been an important part of the RCC as such a view puts them, as the "one true church" (according to their teaching), in an elevated, powerful position.

[anime4christ]

I've witnessed the truth of much of what you say here. Many who believe in Replacement Theology do indeed support the Arab Muslim "Palestinians". In my studies of Replacement Theology I can see where they may hit a few points but overall, to believe Israel is finished and has been replaced by the church, their positions require a great deal of twisting and turning of Scripture.

No doubt Replacement Theology has been an important part of the RCC as such a view puts them, as the "one true church" (according to their teaching), in an elevated, powerful position.

I didn't read all the latest posts here, but for the record, I believe in a "light" version of replacement theology, though I do believe that God is working with ethnic Israel as well. The replacement is spiritual in nature, so promises to ethnic Israel still stand. The key is to discern which is talked about in the Old Testament. For example, the New Covenant isn't only for ethnic Israel even though it says it is for Israel. In that particular case, it is talking about spiritual Israel, IMHO.

[John81]

I didn't read all the latest posts here, but for the record, I believe in a "light" version of replacement theology, though I do believe that God is working with ethnic Israel as well. The replacement is spiritual in nature, so promises to ethnic Israel still stand. The key is to discern which is talked about in the Old Testament. For example, the New Covenant isn't only for ethnic Israel even though it says it is for Israel. In that particular case, it is talking about spiritual Israel, IMHO.

Indeed one has to use discernment because the term Israel is used both to refer to physical Isreal and spiritual Israel.

[Invicta]

And, there was not Scriptures available in the language of the common man and there weren't many copies yet as the printing press of Gutenberg was yet to be invented. It wasn't until Gutenberg's press and a common man's translation was done that availability to the masses came about.

The Wadensians had the scripture in their language from early times. Waldo had it translated into Lyonoise Galois, which was also understood in Metz, so it must have been similar to Alsacienne, a germanic languuage.. No doubt many other minorities had the scriptures in their own dialects. In fact every minoity anti Catholic group of believers must have had the scriptures or they would not have been able to challenge the doctrines of Rome.