How did you discover the Bible teaches a pre-trib rapture?

The great tribulation would be followed right after by the the second coming, and that did not happen yet!

 

There is no "The Great Tribulation". It is a fiction concocted by Darbyism.

 

Jesus said that there was coming one, like the World have never seen nor would ever see again, so AD 70 cannot be that!

 

It doesn't, you are correct. But Paul said "You are the temple of the living God" and temple is mentioned in Revelation.

• 1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
• 1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
• 2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

The early church writers (Theologians) recognised that, and said that in Revelation referred to the Church.

 

Why are Darbyites anti Calvin, when Darby was a Calvinist. Or made out that he was. B W Newton, his former Brethren Colleague later claimed that Darby was a Jesuit

 

He indeed held to sovereign grace!

 

"Such as" is the phrase. There never was a great tribulation "Such As" that in AD 66- 70. The city and Temple destroyed, the priesthood ended, the Jewish economy ended. Many Jews crucified, so many that there were not enough crosses. and several were nailed to the same cross. Many were sold as slaves, some were sent to mines in Egypt as prophecied by Moses in Deut 28. So many were sold as slaves that the cost of slaves throughout the empire plummeted, also fullfilling a prophedcy by Moses.

 

In each of these verses the "you" ("ye") is plural in the Greek, meaning that Paul is speaking to them as individual Christians, and not to the church at Corinth. If he were speaking to the church as a whole, he would have used the singular.

I challenge you on this. Can you give me a quote or a source for this?

 

The Great tribulation is still future, the time period just before the Second Coming of Christ!

 

Some who wish to deny a premil Kingdom, or even the second coming as a future event, have found weird ways to see the temple as being somehow the Church, as sthe Antichrist was a Pope or else a Caesar or something!

 

There are actually many Calvinist dispensationalists. So my question is, why are not more Calvinists Darbyites, since he was Calvinistic? John MacArthur and his The Master's Seminary is both Calvinist and dispensational.

By the way, I don't like the pejorative term "Darbyites." What I am teaching right now is much more like the theology of Isaac Watts than that of Darby. I teach from Ryrie's book, and anyone who calls him a Darbyite has not read both Darby and Ryrie.

 

Do you have a source for this? Without a proper source, I don't believe it. There is a ton of stuff on the Internet that is made up. To repeat it without proof is akin to gossip.

 

I would say just the opposite. If he meant individuals he would have said temples. If he had, I would have believed that. He said temple. One temple, the Church.

 

I have heard it. Heard it many times when I was in the Brethren (Peebs, as my wife calls them) You Neo Brethren keep repeating it. Doesn't make it any more true. It isn't.

 

My source was The Origins of the Brethren by Harold H Rowden, Pickering and Inglis Ltd 1967. (This is before me now.) He says that Neton said that he never saw anything in Darby's writings that a papist could not have written. He also said he thought that Darby was sent by the papists to spy on the Evangelicals at Oxford. At that time one had to be an Anglican to be at Oxforfd Unitversity (I believe) The Anglicans were split into two camps, the Churchmen and the Evangelicals aka Calvinists. At Oxford at that time were John Newman, leader of the Oxford Movement, later Cardinal Newman, and his brother FW Newman who seemed to be an evangelical, but I am not sure about that. Darby visited at that time as also did Edward Irving.

Rowden quotes from some unpublished MS he calls the Fry MS, but doesn't say that Darby was a Jesuit, but he wouldn't, he was a Brethren man. The Fry MS are now online and thereyou ncan see thnat he thought Darby was a Jesuit. I asked my dad if he knew about this as I know hje had studied Darby for many years. He said he hadn't heard of that, but it didn't surprise him as he certainly taught Jesuit doctrines.

Newton was one of the Early Brethren in Plymouth, but he and Darby fell out over a matter of meetings but more probably on the matter of prophecy. Newton became a baptist and joined George Muller in Bristol. Many of the Evangelicals left the Anglicans and became Brethren, Baptist and Irvingites.

Irving Claimed to be the first to preach on dispensationalism on Christmas day 1825, in his Morning Watch Magazine, available on Google books.

 

Well, thanks for sourcing it. From what you've referred to in the book, it just sounds like speculation from one man. It just seems bizarre. I can't imagine why a Jesuit would be interested in the Brethren. They don't operate that way, even though Jack Chick has tracts saying similar things (from questionable sources). And I'm bemused at what "Jesuit doctrines" might have been taught in the Brethren. I've always thought them to be more intelligent (and certainly independent thinkers) than to swallow Catholic doctrine. (My grandfather and H. A. Ironside were close friends.)

As for Darby, all of this is interesting, but whatever he taught and believed doesn't affect my theology in the slightest. His dispensationalism is quite different from what I teach. Scofield (with whom I disagree in some key areas) was much closer to Isaac Watts than Darby. So I'm certainly not a "Darbyite," whatever that is.

 

John, I apologize for interrupting your discussion with David, but I have a question if you don't mind. Could you elaborate a bit on what you teach regarding Dispensationalism? If it's not the same as Darby and Scofield taught, how is it different? I thought there was only one form of this doctrine. What makes it closer to Watts? Thank you, Brother.

 

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 does not give a timing of His second advent, ergo, all eschatological systems use it for proof theirs is the correct one.

1 Corinthians 15:50ff is the same way.

Then Revelation 4:1 says John was called up, not anyone else, not ary other believer, just John alone. So to use that as proof the church is raptured at that time is speculation at best.

Those who hold to pre-trib use the ark as proof God will rapture believers pre-trib. Hmmmmph, that ark went through the flood and were not raptured out and then brought back down after the waters receded.

However, in Matthew 24 we read...29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the SON OF MAN COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF THE SKY with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. So, it seems to me that believers will go through the GT, but will be protected just as Noah and seven others were, and the Jews in Egypt were during those ten plagues.