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

[John of Japan]

Philip Mauro was one of the early US dispensationalists although he saw the error of that teaching and left the movement His writings are preserved on the Philip Mauro Archive, on the preterist site, although I do not consider him to be a preterist as he still seemed to believe the Antichrist was future. The site has some of his early books when he was a dispensationalist.

In His Gospel of the Kingdom. he wrote

• As regards the origin of the system: the beginnings thereof and its leading features are found in the writings of those known as "Brethren" (sometimes called "Plymouth Brethren," from the name of the English city where the movement first attracted attention) though it is but fair to state that the best known and most spiritual leaders of that movement--as Darby, Kelly, Newberry, Chapman, Mueller and others, "whose names are in the Book of Life" " never held the "Jewish" character of the Kingdom preached by our Lord and John the Baptist, or the "Jewish" character of the Gospels (especially Matthew), or that the Sermon on the Mount is "law and not grace" and pertains to a future "Jewish" kingdom.
• 
  
• From what I have been able to gather by inquiry of others, (who were "in Christ before me") the new system of doctrine we are now discussing was first brought to the vicinity of New York by a very gifted and godly man, Mr. Malachi Taylor, (one of the "Brethren") who taught it with much earnestness and plausibility. That was near the beginning of the present century, either a little before or a little after. And among those who heard and were captivated by it (for truly there is some strange fascination inherent in it) was the late Dr. C. I. Scofield, who was so infatuated with it that he proceeded forthwith to bring out a new edition of the entire Bible, having for its distinctive feature that the peculiar doctrines of this new dispensationalism are woven into the very warp and woof thereof, in the form of notes, headings, subheadings and summaries. There is no doubt whatever that it is mainly to this cleverly executed work that dispensationalism owes its present vogue. For without that aid it doubtless would be clearly seen by all who give close attention to the doctrine, that it is a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible, and not a scheme of doctrine derived from it. Gospel of the Kindom 1927

You are quoting here from an enemy of Scofield. That is not historical proof. It is simply false charges. Give me historical proof from Scofield's life--a biography (even by an opponent), some other kind of historical fact. Simply quoting the opinion of an enemy about a historical figure is not proof at all. In fact, your source does not even link Scofield to the above-mentioned Malachi Taylor. Did Scofield go to hear him, or discuss theology with him? If so, when and where?

Suppose I said about Abraham Lincoln, "He was a jerk, and influenced by pro slavery people from Atlanta." Until I gave historical statements from Lincoln himself, everyone would rightly think I was a rabble rouser, not a historian.

To say that was not influenced by Darby is like saying Darby did not get the teaching from Edward Irving, or that Irving did not get a lot of his teaching from the Jesuit Lacunza, whose book Irving translated from Spanish,

I'm saying it. Prove me wrong.

 

[John of Japan]

To those who think that Scofield followed Darby, here is Darby's scheme contrasted with Scofield (parentheses). Quotes are from Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 78.

"Paradisaical state to the flood." (Innocency, Eden)
"Noah." (Conscience, to the Flood)
"Abraham." (Human Government, to Abraham)
"Israel," "A. Under the law. B. Under the priesthood. C. Under the Kings." (Promise, to the Mosaic Law)
"Gentiles." (Law, "Sinai to Calvary" in Scofield's words)
"The Spirit." (Grace)
"The Millennium." ("The Fullness of Times," in Scofield's words.

As anyone with half a brain (everyone on the BB ) can see, Scofield's scheme is radically different from Darby's. In fact, they only truly intersect at the Millennium, since Darby has "Spirit" instead of "Grace" or "Church."

So, I challenge you would be historians, how in the world did Scofield get anything from Darby?? Can you show the slightest shred of proof that Scofield got his version from Darby?

More from Ryrie: "If Scofield parroted anybody's scheme, it was Watts's, not Darby's. Although we cannot minimize the wide influence of Darby, the glib statement that dispensationalism originated with Darby, whose system was taken over and popularized by Scofield, is not historically accurate" (ibid, p. 79).

 

[Steve of Brownsburg]

When it comes down to it, God's word is the final authority for all we believe. We're all influenced somewhat by other authors and bible scholars. It has been the hope of all God's elect down through history that they would be alive at the coming of Jesus Christ.
No saint has any longer than their own life to wait for their blessed savior and Lord Jesus Christ. It just seems to me that the full Preterist views takes all the joy out of the blessed hope of Christ's literal and visible coming. Any generation since NT times that read the scriptures with a literal interpretation believed that Christ would come again.

Though it doesn't prove it, only God's word came many of the church fathers (closest to apostles) believed the church would face Anti-Christ and the Great Tribulation before Christ came.

Steve

 

[Lodic]

When it comes down to it, God's word is the final authority for all we believe. We're all influenced somewhat by other authors and bible scholars. It has been the hope of all God's elect down through history that they would be alive at the coming of Jesus Christ.
No saint has any longer than their own life to wait for their blessed savior and Lord Jesus Christ. It just seems to me that the full Preterist views takes all the joy out of the blessed hope of Christ's literal and visible coming. Any generation since NT times that read the scriptures with a literal interpretation believed that Christ would come again.

Though it doesn't prove it, only God's word came many of the church fathers (closest to apostles) believed the church would face Anti-Christ and the Great Tribulation before Christ came.

Steve

You are absolutely right, Brother. Although I take the "Partial Preterist" view, it really doesn't make any real difference what view any of us hold. Although this topic is interesting to debate, my wife (who is a Pre-Mil Dispensationalist) likes to tell me, "It's not like any of us are going to change God's plan".

 

[OnlyaSinner]

The time of the wrath of God would though seem to be mid point on, as that is when the Antichrist does his war on organized religions and gets set up as God!

I will admit that nothing in Revelation states that events ch 4 onward are presented in strict chronological order, though nothing says they are not, either. Occam's Razor points toward the simplest time sequence, so that's how I view it. Therefore, I see lots of God's wrath prior to Antichrist's appearance, like war, famine, disease and death from the 4 horsemen, and so on.

Futurism has become the main anti reformation teaching and as such has become the main ally and promoter of the RCC.

Guilt by association? The above seems obviously to imply that futurists - all of us - are "the main ally and promoter of the RCC", a view which I and probably almost all holding the futurist view would utterly reject.

 

[37818]

The time of the wrath of God would though seem to be mid point on, as that is when the Antichrist does his war on organized religions and gets set up as God!

Do you have a Biblicall reference to support that? The mid point seems to be when the two prophets of God make their showing Revelation 11.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's a common misconception that Preterism was invented centuries after the Apostles lived. There is strong evidence that this view of eschatology has been around since the beginning of Christianity. I highly recommend "The Early Church and the End of the World" by Gary DeMar and Francis X. Gumerlock. Even if you don't agree with this view, it shows that this isn't a new doctrine.

On the other hand, I totally agree that the modern "futurist" view was invented around 1830 by Darby. If I remember correctly, you do not believe this view to be correct either.

Historical premil can be found in some of the ECF themselves, and premil of some form would have been the prominent view until Augustine time, when the A Mil view became established and widespread...

 

[Yeshua1]

The wrath of God will be the judgement.

Antichrist will be trying to kill off all believers in last of this age!

 

[Yeshua1]

I will admit that nothing in Revelation states that events ch 4 onward are presented in strict chronological order, though nothing says they are not, either. Occam's Razor points toward the simplest time sequence, so that's how I view it. Therefore, I see lots of God's wrath prior to Antichrist's appearance, like war, famine, disease and death from the 4 horsemen, and so on.

Futurism has become the main anti reformation teaching and as such has become the main ally and promoter of the RCC.

Guilt by association? The above seems obviously to imply that futurists - all of us - are "the main ally and promoter of the RCC", a view which I and probably almost all holding the futurist view would utterly reject.

I am a futurist Reformed person, and last I checked, RCC was still firmly A Mil, same as most reformed!

 

[Yeshua1]

No I am not a preterist, although i have preterist friends on here, Preterism was invented by the Jesuits to counter the reformation and pre reformation teachings that the papacy is Antichrist, Futurism was promoted by the Jesuits for the same reason.

Futurism has become the main anti reformation teaching and as such has become the main ally and promoter of the RCC.



So if Paul had said the coming woul be secret and you taught that it will be the loudest fanfare in history you would say that is OK.



There can only be one last day, just as there can only be one first day in Genesis. If the saints are raised on the last day and the judgement is on the last day there can be no days after that, only Eternity, just as before the first day there was only Eternity.

I am a futurist Reformed, and think official catholic position, and majority reformed position is A Mil

 

[Lodic]

Historical premil can be found in some of the ECF themselves, and premil of some form would have been the prominent view until Augustine time, when the A Mil view became established and widespread...

While we know some of what the ECF taught, we don't have very complete records. As I understand it, there were different views pretty early on.

 

[rsr]

I liked that book so much I moved on to Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth and The Terminal Generation.

Luckily, I kicked the habit — and the entire substructure that supported Hal and others of his ilk — while reading the second book and realized Hal was just making this stuff up.

 

[David Kent]

Um, if you are not a futurist, then you are by definition a preterist. Please make up your mind.

Don't be rediculous, I always thought you were an educated man.

 

[David Kent]

On the other hand, I totally agree that the modern "futurist" view was invented around 1830 by Darby. If I remember correctly, you do not believe this view to be correct either.

Darby got his futurist teaching from Edward Irving who said in his morning watch magazine that he first preached on dispensationalism on Christmas Day in 1825 and next the same day the following year, The Irvinites taught the rapture would be in 1833. Irving's teaching was before Margaret McDonald made her so called prophecy.

 

[John of Japan]

Don't be rediculous, I always thought you were an educated man.

How am I wrong? Don't just rebuke me, tell me how I'm wrong. If a person is a futurist they believe in future events as prophesied. If they are a preterist, they do not. So why am I wrong? What is your definition of futurist?

Here is a page for you to study about the two terms: What is the futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation?

 

[David Kent]

You are quoting here from an enemy of Scofield. That is not historical proof. It is simply false charges. Give me historical proof from Scofield's life--a biography (even by an opponent), some other kind of historical fact. Simply quoting the opinion of an enemy about a historical figure is not proof at all. In fact, your source does not even link Scofield to the above-mentioned Malachi Taylor. Did Scofield go to hear him, or discuss theology with him? If so, when and where?

Mauro was not an enemy of anyone. He says he is not attacking anyone, but just the teaching. That is not being an enemy.

 

[David Kent]

How am I wrong? Don't just rebuke me, tell me how I'm wrong. If a person is a futurist they believe in future events as prophesied. If they are a preterist, they do not. So why am I wrong? What is your definition of futurist?

Here is a page for you to study about the two terms: What is the futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation?

I did write a lengthy answer to this but it seems to have disappeard.

Yes if you read that page, it gives four different views, it seems you havn't read it.

 

[David Kent]

I have read a number of times that Isaac Watts was a dispensationalist but I have never seen any quotes. Does anyone have any?
PLEASE.

 

[David Kent]

I am a futurist Reformed, and think official catholic position, and majority reformed position is A Mil

I cannot say what the majority of reformed are. Catholics in AD999 believed that AD 1000 would be the end of the millenium and bo doubt with teaching of the church, the made all their property over to the church thinking it would bring them salvation. When the year 1000 passed they went to get their property back but found that the priests and monks had made it legal so they lost out and the church became rich.
It seems the reformers at the beginning had three views the first, si,ilar to the Catholics, The second to AD 1096 1000 years after the Revelation was written, and Luther thought it ended with the coming of the Turks, about AD 1100 if I remember correctly. Whether they held that view all the time is a moot point.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:45 AM Pacific.