Pretrib quotes before the 1800s?

Pastor Larry · Jul 4, 2002

Originally posted by ROBERTGUWAPO:
The reason there is a shortage of pretrib quotes before the 1800s is because:

1. THEY DO NOT EXIST.
2. If they exist, they were quotes from Catholic writers (ahhh, what a connection!).
3. Quotes after 1830 trace their source to a Margaret MacDonald who spoke in a trance while being demon-possessed (yikes, another occultic connection!).

If I said it a million times, I'm gonna say it again, there was no doctrine of a pretrib rapture from the time of Christ to the early 1800s.

Old MacDonald (and the demon inside her) originated it. If only pretribbers would examine the doctrine's historicity with an open mind...and an open heart.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone with an open mind and an open heart ... "They don't exist because no one believed it." Argumentation rarely gets more sound than that.

Have you read the recent article in BibSac??

KenH · Jul 4, 2002

Can we narrow this down to saying that pre-, post-, and a-millennialism have all existed down through the 1900 years since the apostles all died, but that the dispensational brand of premillennialism (at least as we know it) did not exist until the 1830s?

Ken

Pastor Larry · Jul 4, 2002

Originally posted by Ken Hamilton:
Can we narrow this down to saying that pre-, post-, and a-millennialism have all existed down through the 1900 years since the apostles all died, but that the dispensational brand of premillennialism (at least as we know it) did not exist until the 1830s?

Ken
Click to expand...

I don't think that is necessarily true. I think there is some evidence that something very similar to DP existed since the first century. I think the exegetical evidence is very strong for DP and therefore serves as evidence that our view goes back to the first century though it may have been swept aside during certain periods of church history. Since the middle of the 19th century, there has been tremendous theolgoical development of eschatology in all camps.

tfisher · Jul 5, 2002

It seems like I remember J. Vernon McGee quoting some men from early in church history in his introduction to his commentary on Revelation. I can't remember if they supported pre-trib or pre-mill, but it was one of the two. I am still in the middle of packing to leave for Bible college and I only kept out the bare essential Bible study tools. Maybe someone could look it up.

BTW, I am leaving the insurance business to go to Bible college and haven't studied this issue throughly enough to have a strong viewpoint other than "pan-trib". That means whatever happens, it will all "pan" out the way God wants it to and that will be ok with me because of Romans 8:28.

ROBERTGUWAPO · Jul 5, 2002

Pastor Larry:

Oh yeah! This page is already three pages long and no one has ever provided the EVIDENCE of any pretrib quotation. Where's the EVIDENCE? Where are the QUOTES? Where's the BEEF? (What a grievous evil has befallen the searcher of pretribulation quotes before the 1800s--it is like chasing the wind!)

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I think there is some evidence that something very similar to DP existed since the first century. I think the exegetical evidence is very strong for DP and therefore serves as evidence that our view goes back to the first century though it may have been swept aside during certain periods of church history.
Click to expand...

HankD · Jul 5, 2002

Personally, I think that there is another point to be made.
Maybe someone already made it.

Anyway, the point is this... Just because a doctrine is not discovered immediately,
does this mean its not a reality?

For instance:
Apart from 1 John 5:7 there is no proof text for the doctrine of the Trinity
which took 2-300 years to fully develope.

BTW and FWIW, I'm not pre-trib.

HankD

[ July 05, 2002, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

BrianT · Jul 5, 2002

I agree that lack of quotes does not equal proof that the view is wrong. I do think it reveals a few attributes about the view: that it is not clear, fundamental, etc. But I don't want the thread to get off-topic.

Is anyone able to post the main points of the BibSac article? Or photocopy it for me, and I'll post them?

Thanks,
Brian

Pastor Larry · Jul 5, 2002

Originally posted by ROBERTGUWAPO:
Pastor Larry:

Oh yeah! This page is already three pages long and no one has ever provided the EVIDENCE of any pretrib quotation. Where's the EVIDENCE? Where are the QUOTES? Where's the BEEF? (What a grievous evil has befallen the searcher of pretribulation quotes before the 1800s--it is like chasing the wind!)
Click to expand...

Relax Robert. You're back for two days and running through here like a bull in a china shop.

I repeat my question: Have you read the article in BibSac? Until you do, and several other articles on the topic, save your diatribes. There is no grievous evil befallen anyone here. Such hyperbole does not contribute much here.

[ July 05, 2002, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

HankD · Jul 6, 2002

Here is a statement by Ambrose (400AD) which I posted along with a Tertullian quote and as far as I can tell, no one responded to the Ambrose quote:

Ambrose writing on the decease of His Brother Saytrus (Two books) Book 2 Commenting on 1 Thessalonians 4:17 says

"And finally, he who has believed that the dead shall rise again “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (for the trumpet shall sound),”70 “shall be caught up amongst the first in the clouds to meet Christ in the air;”71 he who has not believed shall be left, and subject himself to the sentence by his own unbelief."

Remember, I am not pre-trib.
It is difficult to know what search string to use amongst the 20,000 pages of Early Church writers to ferret this out.

HankD

[ July 06, 2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

BrianT · Jul 6, 2002

Hi HankD,

Thanks for the quote. This is more of the type of discussion I was hoping for in this thread. Sorry I missed this quote earlier with the Tertullian quotes. I really appreciate you contributing these.

The quote you provided does not mention timing, ie. does not say this happens 7 years before Christ's final coming. The quote only says those left are subject to sentence, but does not say when. Thus, this quote can be equally applied to mid-trib, pre-wrath, or post-trib. We must consider more of his quotes to determine which he has in mind here.

Earlier in the book (verses 67 and 68), Ambrose talks about the resurrection in Isaiah, and says: " "...Go O my people, and enter into thy chambers; hide thyself for a little until the Lord's wrath pass by." [68] How well did he by the chambers point out the tombs of the dead, in which for a brief space we are hidden, that we may be better able to pass to the judgment of God". I have seen pretrib believers use that passage as support for pretrib, saying the "hinding in the chambers" during the wrath is a reference to the rapture, us hiding in chambers in heaven. But Ambrose is saying that we are hidden from God's wrath by being in the grave, and after God's wrath is over, we come out (ie. the resurrection). Elsewhere he also affirms that those still alive will not precede those who are resurrected. Thus, Ambrose sees a post-wrath (ie. post-trib) resurrection/rapture.

It is also interesting to note that in verse 121, he says Rev 20:12-13 are a "cleary testimony" of the resurrection. This indicates Ambrose may have also believed in some form of amill or postmill.

I have not yet looked at his other writings, just this book.

Brian

rsr · Jul 9, 2002

FWIW:

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/new_evidence.htm

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/examining_an_ancient.htm

BrianT · Jul 9, 2002

Hi rsr,

Thanks for the links. The first does not deal with pretrib, but rather premill. About the second link, in the very first post of this thread I have already provided a link to a sound rebuttal of the article.

Thanks,
Brian

ROBERTGUWAPO · Jul 9, 2002

Hmmmmmmm...still waiting for VALID pretrib quotes before the 1800s. Much of the pretrib quotes presented do not talk about timing so they are not valid.

Tick...tock...tick...tock...yawn...

HankD · Jul 10, 2002

Hmmmmmmm...still waiting for VALID pretrib quotes before the 1800s. Much of the pretrib quotes presented do not
talk about timing so they are not valid.

Tick...tock...tick...tock...yawn...
Click to expand...

Dear Robert,

My opinion:

As I asked before, what difference does it make one way or another whether the pre-trib position is found before the 1800's?
I am not pre-trib myself but just because a doctrine is/was not immediately discovered doesn't mean it isn't true, although great care must be taken not to fall off the edge of the world into the abyss of heresy. In that I would agree.
As I said before the doctrine of the Trinity took 3-400 years to fully develope and the term itself is absent from the earliest church authors.
Another for instance: The phrase "sovereignty of God" cannot be found in the Scripture or early church writers (the Apocrypha yes).
In addition it is difficult to search through 20,000+ pages (even electronically) of early church authors writings looking for this material.
Now that I think about it, my question is : what is the point of all this research and what does it really prove?

HankD

BrianT · Jul 10, 2002

Originally posted by HankD:
what is the point of all this research and what does it really prove?
Click to expand...

Hi HankD,

I sort of answered this above, when I said it reveals attributes about the view. In other words, a doctrine that was completely missed by Christ's church for 1800 years should not be called "clear", "fundamental", etc.

The purpose of this thread is two-fold:

First, it is mainly for my own interest and the interest of others. I have been looking for such quotes for quite a while, and am very interested in church history.

Second, it is to provide some much-needed perspective for many people. There are several well-known pretrib authors who are claiming and "producing" pretrib quotes from before 1800. All quotes so far have been proven to be bogus. Whether these mistakes are intentional or not, I cannot fully tell (though the track-record of some authors is really not a good sign). I think people need to know this. Also, there are churches today (mostly Baptist and Pentecostal) that are so entrenched in the pretrib view that they allow for no leeway on the subject. Many such churches refuse to ordain people (or put them in any position of authority) who do not subscribe to the pretrib view. This is their right, but in my opinion that is a big mistake. Many churches go so far as to not fellowship with other churches who are not as strongly pretrib, or even grant membership to people who hold different views on the rapture. Even groups like AWANA will not even let you use their materials in your church unless you sign a form saying your church holds the pretrib view! This is utterly ridiculous. I was raised in such churches, and it was not until my mid-twenties that I even found out other views existed, and I find that most pretribbers I talk with think the posttrib view is strange at best, and heresy at worst. Yet here we have 1800 years, or 90% of church history, where not only was the pretrib view totally non-existent, but the basic opposing viewpoint was the only view the chuch ever held. You mention searching through 20,000 pages of early church fathers. There is also the countless confessions, creeds, catechisms, lectionaries, commentaries, apologies, theologies, doctrinal statements, sermons, theses, letters and other books and writings across the centuries. We also have thousands of hymns, poems, paintings, sculptures, stained glass windows and other art forms. In short, we have *millions and millions* of pages and other witnesses of doctrine, across nearly two millennia, and not one shred of pretrib can be found. Does this not bother any pretribbers, even a little bit??? I realize this doesn't "prove" the view is false, but I can think of no other examples where such an overwhelming mountain of evidence is brushed aside for a new doctrine which is called "clear" and "fundamental". Maybe I'm not starting this thread to prove pretrib wrong so much as I am trying to prove posttrib is not the big bad enemy.

You mention the Trinity took 300 to 400 years to develop. This is not a good analogy in my opinion, because clear Trinitarian theology can be found in many writings prior, it's just that the church never sat down and "formalized" an explanation of the theology or coined a term for it. It's not like one day the Trinity doctrine appeared out of nowhere while all of prior church history was the opposite of Trinitarian.

I think if people took a step back and considered the big picture, it would be immediately obvious why pretrib quotes prior to 1800 have been found.

Anyways, enough ranting. Back to the topic at hand. I have been able to dig up some more info on Benjamin Keach (DocCas mentioned him, but then disappeared when I asked for context and information). It appears it is not a pretrib quote either (surprise). I'll post more info later about this, when I have my notes with me.

Brian

KenH · Jul 10, 2002

Originally posted by HankD:
As I asked before, what difference does it make one way or another whether the pre-trib position is found before the 1800's?
Click to expand...

I think that the point is that some early Christians were what we now call historic premillennialists but they were not what we now call dispensational premillennialists with the idea of a pretrib secret rapture. The dispensational brand of premill basically began with Darby in the 1830s.

Ken

HankD · Jul 11, 2002

Thanks Brian and Ken.

Ken, I agree with you and said the same thing at the beginning of this post.

Brian, please remember (and I keep saying it - ) that I am not pre-trib and not even a "Dwight Pentecost" dispensationalists as such (although I graduated from a Bible college that promoted his books).

Personally, I do believe that much of dispensationalism is valid.
Even that belief is one not of conviction but preference over the Covenant theology of the Church being spiritual Israel.

You asked if the excesses and abuses (or words to that effect) of Darby-ite dispenstionlism bothered me. Well yes, but I don't lose any sleep over it. Perhaps that's not the proper attitude.

What is clear is that God's children are not appointed to wrath, chastisement and rebuke yes but not wrath.

I once heard a preacher say words to the effect that God has not revealed the details of the "end times" until now when the "end times" are "at the door".

I have a theory (although its self-condemning) : Not knowing what God has not clearly revealed is a result of not doing what He has clearly commanded.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

HankD

[ July 11, 2002, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

postrib · Jul 13, 2002

...God's children are not appointed to wrath...
Click to expand...

In the pre-trib view, will those who "obtain salvation" in the tribulation be "appointed to wrath?" How could that be when being "appointed to wrath" and "obtaining salvation" are mutually exclusive?

"God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians 5:9).

Note that during the tribulation nobody in heaven says God's wrath "is come" until after the 7th trumpet (Revelation 11:15, 18), in the 7 vials of God's wrath (Revelation 15:1; Revelation 16), not one of which is poured out on those of us who have obtained salvation (Revelation 16:15).

http://www.geocities.com/postrib

HankD · Jul 13, 2002

God chastises His children, sometime severly.
Often it feels like wrath when our Father chastises us to modifify our behavior to bring us to repentance. Many of us speak from experience.

1 Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

This is not the same as His wrath against the unregenerate world.

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
11 And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.
12 I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir.
13 Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger.

[ July 13, 2002, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

postrib · Jul 15, 2002

...This [chastisement] is not the same as His wrath against the unregenerate world...
Click to expand...

Amen.

Note that the word "wrath" in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is the Greek word orge, which is used in the NT to refer to the entire range of the levels of God's wrath, from a single angry look by Jesus: "He had looked round about on them with anger (orge)" (Mark 3:5), to the eternal horror of the lake of fire: "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation (orge); and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever" (Revelation 14:10-11). If we who have obtained salvation do wrong, I believe (as you pointed out) that Jesus can still be angry with us, for "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten" (Revelation 3:19), but such chastisement doesn't mean we are appointed to the wrath of the lake of fire (Revelation 14:10), to which only those who will not obtain salvation are appointed (1 Thessalonians 5:9, John 3:36).

http://www.geocities.com/postrib

Pretrib quotes before the 1800s?

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

KenH Well-Known Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

tfisher New Member

ROBERTGUWAPO Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

BrianT New Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

BrianT New Member

rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator

BrianT New Member

ROBERTGUWAPO Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

BrianT New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

postrib New Member

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

postrib New Member

Useful Searches

Pretrib quotes before the 1800s?

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b> Site Supporter

KenH Well-Known Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b> Site Supporter

tfisher New Member

ROBERTGUWAPO Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

BrianT New Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b> Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

BrianT New Member

rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b> Moderator

BrianT New Member

ROBERTGUWAPO Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

BrianT New Member

KenH Well-Known Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

postrib New Member

HankD Well-Known Member Site Supporter

postrib New Member

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
Moderator

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

HankD Well-Known Member
Site Supporter