Way Of Life - When Was The Pre-Tribulation Rapture First Taught?

[DaveW]

And to prove my point, Covey attacked one single aspect of the original article and now claims the victory over the whole subject.
Pointing out similarities in his method and JW and SDA methods is not personal attack - it is OBservable truth.

[Dr. Roberson]

This thread gets a little confusing when we stop talking about the main topic and start fighting with each other.  

 

"When was the pre-tribulation rapture first taught?"

 

This is actually a loaded question used by liberals and atheists a lot. They use it to confuse us on one or two points then say that our beliefs must be false because we can not agree on something. You'll see this used a lot on some websites and blogs such as stuff fundies like as ammo against fundamentalists. Fundamentalist by in large hold to the pre tribulation  & pre millennial doctrines.  

 

The question is not asking if the pre trib position is biblical. I believe it is biblical but that's another matter.

Its asking when it was first taught. As you have seen in the article, it was believed and taught long before Charles Darby. (more on that later).

Was it taught by Jesus and the apostles? I personally believe it was, just not called "pre tribulation."  For that, you must understand the importance on "IMMINENCE".

 

Christ and the apostles taught us to be watchful of His soon coming. Like a thief in the night. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye Christ will come and call his bride away! Knowing that Christ may come at any moment is pre tribulation by default. If you wait till the the events of the first half of the tribulation happens and expect to be saved from the second half, "the great and terrible wrath of God", they why bother with imminence at all? Why bother looking for that great and blessed hope if all you have to do is wait for the first half of the 7 years of tribulation to happen?

 

For those who are post tribulationalist, do you really want to go through all that? Are you not saved from the wrath that is to come?

 

For Christ to allow his bride to go through the tribulation would be spousal abuse!

 

Now, back to Darby and Dispensationalism. Of all the views about the end times, the pre tribulation view is always linked with dispensationalism.

Darby did not come up with the pre tribulation doctrine by way of dispensationalism, but his system that he came up with lines up the best with the pre tribulation rapture.

It is also the best system that lines up with a LITERAL INTERPITATION of the Bible.

 

In the book "Things to Come" by J. Dwight Pentecost, it states: "Pretribulation rapturism rests essentially on one major premise- the literal method of interpretation of the Scriptures." If you don't have this book, stop what you are doing and GO GET IT AND READ IT!!

 

So! back to the main focus of this thread: When was the pre tribulation rapture first taught? If you interpret the Bible literally and you are fully knowing that Christ can come at any moment, then you can say it was first taught in the new testament.

Therefor the pre tribulation rapture is both a historic doctrine and more important, a BIBLICAL one.

 

I hope this is a help to everyone and a good reason why we need to be a faithful steward of God's Word.  

 

 

Dr. ROBerson 

[Covenanter]

Thanks, Dr ROBerson, for a reasoned, on-topic reply.

 

I'll take one point - that we will know that Jesus is coming in 7 years once the trib starts, therefore Post trib cannot be right. 

 

The NT makes it clear that Christians will suffer trib at the hands of the ungodly, & that will happen until Jesus returns. See 2 Thes. 1 & John 16:33 Acts 14:22 etc. The trib suffered by the ungodly is hell - the wrath to come which believers have been delivered from. 

 

The great trib of Mat. 24:21 is specifically referring to the temple destruction Jesus is prophesying, & too place in AD 70, in the lifetime of the generation that rejected him.

 

Some of our brothers & sisters are suffering appalling trib at present, while the ungodly claim victory. It is not an indication of the Lord's return within 7 years. 

[DaveW]

Matt 24: 33 and 34 is talking about the generation that sees the things spoken of in the passage, not the generation he was speaking to.

[Invicta]

Matt 24: 33 and 34 is talking about the generation that sees the things spoken of in the passage, not the generation he was speaking to.

Nonsense.

[DaveW]

Nonsense.

Great argument.
Actually it is plain English.


Matt 24
 33  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
 34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

[DaveW]

And how about this: Luke 17:22  And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
 

Jesus, talking to His Disciples, says taht they WILL NOT SEE the days of the Son of Man.

 

These two passages combined indicate to me that what the Bible is actually teaching here is not in fact nonsense.

 

The only reason to take the Matthew passage as meaning the people listening right then is to force it to fit with your false claim that everything was fulfilled in AD 70.

Without that presupposition there is no need to change what the structure of the language says, nor to ignore the passage in Luke.

[Invicta]

This thread gets a little confusing when we stop talking about the main topic and start fighting with each other.  

 

"When was the pre-tribulation rapture first taught?"

 

This is actually a loaded question used by liberals and atheists a lot. They use it to confuse us on one or two points then say that our beliefs must be false because we can not agree on something. You'll see this used a lot on some websites and blogs such as stuff fundies like as ammo against fundamentalists. Fundamentalist by in large hold to the pre tribulation  & pre millennial doctrines.  Yes they got them from Scofield who got them from Darby and his Brethren Sect.  Darby got the secret ratpture teaching from Edward Irving and his Charismatic followers.  Irving got it from a book he translated from Spanish, entitled The coming of the Christ in Power and Majesty. by J J ben Ezra,  A converted Jew.  A false name as his true name was Manuel Lacunza, a South American Jesuit.  It was a fraud.

 

The question is not asking if the pre trib position is biblical. I believe it is biblical but that's another matter.

Its asking when it was first taught. As you have seen in the article, it was believed and taught long before Charles Darby. (more on that later).

Was it taught by Jesus and the apostles? I personally believe it was, just not called "pre tribulation."  For that, you must understand the importance on "IMMINENCE".

 

Christ and the apostles taught us to be watchful of His soon coming. Like a thief in the night. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye Christ will come and call his bride away! Knowing that Christ may come at any moment is pre tribulation by default. If you wait till the the events of the first half of the tribulation happens and expect to be saved from the second half, "the great and terrible wrath of God", they why bother with imminence at all? Why bother looking for that great and blessed hope if all you have to do is wait for the first half of the 7 years of tribulation to happen?

 

For those who are post tribulationalist, do you really want to go through all that? Are you not saved from the wrath that is to come?

I have a frien who says he doesn't believe the church will go through the tribulation.  I say "What world are you living in?"  "What history do you read?"   Do you know history?  Do you read when the church was almost wiped out due to persecution or tribulattion.

You Americans have had it too easy and have gone soft. We in Europe know the tribulation that the saints have gone through under the Church of Rome. Within 20 miles of here many saints were burnt to death, starved to death or died of other persecutions. The French coast is nearer to wh, ere I live than London.  Have you heard of the massacre of Wassy (or Vassy)?  Or the massacre of St Bartholomew?  Have you nheard of vthe French Galleys when you would be sent  if you were caught attending preaching if you were a man or to imprisonment in the Tower of Constance if you were a woman.  For life.  The Tower was in a town called Aigues Mortes.  (Bitter deaths.)  When the persecution ended one man freed was 82 years old and a woman aged 52 was freed from the Tower having been sent  there when she and her mother were caught attending a service when she was eight years old.  Oh and you preachers, if you were caught leading a service, the sentence was to have your body broken on the wheel and then hung.  But then that wasn't tribulation. was it?  McGrath said he did not want tribulation because he didn't like a minor operation.  

 

Christians have suffered in their millions, all over Europe.  Have you heard of the Inquisition?  Not only in Spain but all over Europe?   Have you heard of the Iron Virgin?

 

The wrath to come is the judgment.

 

For Christ to allow his bride to go through the tribulation would be spousal abuse!

 

Now, back to Darby and Dispensationalism. Of all the views about the end times, the pre tribulation view is always linked with dispensationalism. Nearly always.

Darby did not come up with the pre tribulation doctrine by way of dispensationalism, but his system that he came up with lines up the best with the pre tribulation rapture.

It is also the best system that lines up with a LITERAL INTERPITATION of the Bible.

 

 

In the book "Things to Come" by J. Dwight Pentecost, it states: "Pretribulation rapturism rests essentially on one major premise- the literal method of interpretation of the Scriptures." If you don't have this book, stop what you are doing and GO GET IT AND READ IT!!  If it is a literal interpretation it is false for REv 1:1 says     1 ¶  The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: 2  Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Signified means it was told by signs, or figures,

 

So! back to the main focus of this thread: When was the pre tribulation rapture first taught? If you interpret the Bible literally and you are fully knowing that Christ can come at any moment, then you can say it was first taught in the new testament.

Therefor the pre tribulation rapture is both a historic doctrine and more important, a BIBLICAL one.

 

I hope this is a help to everyone and a good reason why we need to be a faithful steward of God's Word.  

 

 

Dr. ROBerson 

 

I never hear any literalists mention Rev 10.  

[Invicta]

And how about this: Luke 17:22  And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
 

Jesus, talking to His Disciples, says taht they WILL NOT SEE the days of the Son of Man.

 

These two passages combined indicate to me that what the Bible is actually teaching here is not in fact nonsense.

 

The only reason to take the Matthew passage as meaning the people listening right then is to force it to fit with your false claim that everything was fulfilled in AD 70.

Without that presupposition there is no need to change what the structure of the language says, nor to ignore the passage in Luke.

 They did not see His days when he was in the grave.

[Genevanpreacher]

Great argument.
Actually it is plain English.


Matt 24
 33  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
 34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

 

Whoa there 'Tex', you just proved his point.

And if one would just look at all the you's, and ye's in Matthew 24, it seems to say exactly what some of us believe.

So to 'condemn' someone for believing what scripture is teaching is kinda cruel.

So what, you see it different, why is that to be condemned?

 

And, let me say this, it doesn't matter if nOBody in the past 1900 years believed it.

If the scripture teaches it, what does it matter if all 'christianity' that we hear of didn't?

 

I don't remember any of the one's quoted in support of either side, that agreed with modern IFB's in the other doctrines.

[Steve Schwenke]

[Genevanpreacher]

 

I guess anyone who doesn't agree with your 'framed-in' way of thinking would. No disrespect meant, but you do know it all?

 

[Well... atleast you are consistent in your 'flattery', anyway.]

[Genevanpreacher]

And how about this: Luke 17:22  And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
 

Jesus, talking to His Disciples, says that they WILL NOT SEE the days of the Son of Man.

 

So? The days of the Son of man were over at the cross. The Son of man died. The Son of God arose! (yes, I know about all the plethora of 'Son of man' verses!)

The Son of man is the human side, where the memories of the disciples focused too much on, but the Son of God reigns in might!

They were going to desire 'the old days', but the Lord had better days planned!

I don't see the significance.

[Covenanter]

And how about this: Luke 17:22  And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
 

Jesus, talking to His Disciples, says taht they WILL NOT SEE the days of the Son of Man.

 

Why do you deliberately alter the Words of Jesus? 

Scripture: ONE OF the days of the Son of man,

DaveW:  the days of the Son of Man.

You falsify Scripture & you accuse others of lying. 

 

These two passages combined indicate to me that what the Bible is actually teaching here is not in fact nonsense.

The other passage is Mat. 24, & Mark 13 & Luke 21, the Olivet prophecy specifically about the destruction.

Read Luke 21:5-7 and of course the whole chapter.  

 

The only reason to take the Matthew passage as meaning the people listening right then is to force it to fit with your false claim that everything was fulfilled in AD 70.

Without that presupposition there is no need to change what the structure of the language says, nor to ignore the passage in Luke.

 

It is you who are deliberately changing Scripture to fit it into your own false claims. Jesus says:

Luke 21:20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

 Then read Acts 2 to read about the Kingdom of God coming with power. 

[DaveW]

Mark 13
10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

Not to mention the myriad of prophecies in that chapter that have not been fulfilled as yet.

Luke 21
20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.
21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.
22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people.
24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;

(I note that while I quoted the verse in its entirety, you conveniently left out the verses that cause you trouble - and then you call me a liar.......)

Of course this was fulfilled in 1099 when Jerusalem was compassed with armies wasn't it.....

Jerusalem has been besieged many times - but none of them have been accompanied by the signs of vs 25.

But of course you falsely accuse me (yet again) so that you can ignore the plain English point of the verse, and introduce a variety of other arguments to save yourself from having explain your false position.
Just like a Jehovah's Witness at the door.

Standard methodology as I already said.

And then you wonder why I won't discuss it, but simply point out that you are a false teacher. Maybe if you actually discussed the points properly it would be worthwhile, but not with your twisting side tracking ways.