Is Dispensationalism Elitist?

Margaret McDonald, a 15 year old Scottish girl, and member of Edward Irving's congregation, had visions in early 1830 that included a Secret Rapture of believers before the appearance of the Antichrist. She informed Irving of her visions by letter. Irving then attended the prophecy conferences that began in Dublin Ireland in 1830 at Powerscourt Castle, where he promoted both Futurism and a Secret Rapture. Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792-1866), scholar and librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, further promoted and established Futurism in England after 1826, as a result of reading the work of Manuel De Lacunza.

John Nelson Darby (1800?1882), a Church of Ireland clergyman, later with the Plymouth Brethren, also promoted Futurism and a secret rapture. Darby attended the series of meetings on Bible Prophecy that began in 1830 at Powerscourt, Ireland, and at these conferences Darby apparently learned about the secret rapture as revealed by vision to Margaret McDonald, and promoted by Edward Irving, and he soon visited Margaret MacDonald at her home in Port Glasgow, Scotland. Darby later visited America several times between 1859 and 1874, where his Futurist theology was readily accepted.

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), greatly influenced by the writings of J. N. Darby, incorporated Futurism in the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible. First published by Oxford University Press in 1909, one million copies were printed by 1930. The Scofield Bible was instrumental in firmly establishing the Jesuit inspired Futurist interpretation in the Protestant Bible schools of the United States in the 20th century.

 

I do not see any causal link there. No reason to see his visit as anything other than curiosity. I went to Disney World in Orlando about 17 years ago, does that mean I endorse the pro-homosexual agenda? If I were quar' does that mean I became so as a result of my trip to Disney? What if I even went during gay pride week?

Just because you went to Disney World the Darby/MacDonald connection can't be true???

 

OOOOpps!

This should have gone at the top of the post BEFORE Margaret MacDonald in order to follow the history better.

from website: http://users.chariot.net.au/~aleck/Catholic_Origins_Futurism.htm

Manuel De Lacunza (1731?1801), a Jesuit from Chile, wrote a manuscript in Spanish titled La Venida del Mesías en Gloria y Magestad ("The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty"), under the pen name of Juan Josafa [Rabbi] Ben-Ezra about 1791. Lacunza wrote under an assumed name to obscure the fact that he was a Catholic, in order to give his book better acceptance in Protestantism. Also an advocate of Futurism, Lacunza's manuscript was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris between 1811 and 1826.

Edward Irving (1792-1834), a Scottish Presbyterian and forerunner of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, translated Lacunza's work from Spanish into English and added his own 200+ page preface in Preliminary Discourse to the Work of Ben Ezra entitled the Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, published in London in 1827.

 

Trailblazer,

Thanks for putting the deleted part back in. It shows futurism before Darby! Thought for a minute you took it out on purpose. Went ballistic here for a few minutes.

Upon visiting your link, I found even earlier evidence of Futurism which you have been screaming about being started by Darby after the visions of a demon possessed girl! (Did you actually use the words “demon possessed” somewhere? Think you did, but not sure. May have been someone else or even somewhere else.)

From your source - http://users.chariot.net.au/~aleck/Catholic_Origins_Futurism.htm (saving the page to my hard drive as well, sometimes pages and sites disappear. This one is too good to lose!)

(START QUOTE FROM LINK)

FUTURISM
Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) was a Jesuit doctor of theology, born in Spain, who began writing a lengthy (500 page) commentary in 1585 on the book of Revelation (Apocalypse) titled In Sacrum Beati Ioannis Apostoli, & Evangelistiae Apocalypsin Commentarij, and published it about the year 1590. He died in 1591 at the age of fifty-four, so he was not able to expand on his work or write any other commentaries. In order to remove the Catholic Church from consideration as the antichrist power, Ribera proposed that the first few chapters of the Apocalypse applied to ancient pagan Rome, and the rest he limited to a yet future period of 3 1/2 literal years, immediately prior to the second coming. During that time, the Roman Catholic Church would have fallen away from the pope into apostasy. Then, he proposed, the antichrist, a single individual, would:

Persecute and blaspheme the saints of God.
Rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.
Abolish the Christian religion.
Deny Jesus Christ.
Be received by the Jews.
Pretend to be God.
Kill the two witnesses of God.
Conquer the world.


So, according to Ribera, the 1260 days and 42 months and 3 1/2 times of prophecy were not 1260 years, but a literal 3 1/2 years, and therefore none of the book of Revelation had any application to the middle ages or the papacy, but to the future, to a period immediately prior to the second coming, hence the name Futurism.

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, one of the best known Jesuit apologists, published a work between 1581 and 1593 entitled Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time, in which he also denied the day = year principle in prophecy and pushed the reign of antichrist into a future period of 3 1/2 literal years.

Manuel De Lacunza (1731?1801), a Jesuit from Chile, wrote a manuscript in Spanish titled La Venida del Mesías en Gloria y Magestad ("The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty"), under the pen name of Juan Josafa [Rabbi] Ben-Ezra about 1791. Lacunza wrote under an assumed name to obscure the fact that he was a Catholic, in order to give his book better acceptance in Protestantism. Also an advocate of Futurism, Lacunza's manuscript was published in London, Spain, Mexico and Paris between 1811 and 1826.

Edward Irving (1792-1834), a Scottish Presbyterian and forerunner of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, translated Lacunza's work from Spanish into English and added his own 200+ page preface in Preliminary Discourse to the Work of Ben Ezra entitled the Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, published in London in 1827.

Margaret McDonald, a 15 year old Scottish girl, and member of Edward Irving's congregation, had visions in early 1830 that included a Secret Rapture of believers before the appearance of the Antichrist. She informed Irving of her visions by letter. Irving then attended the prophecy conferences that began in Dublin Ireland in 1830 at Powerscourt Castle, where he promoted both Futurism and a Secret Rapture.

(END QUOTE)

You also left out Maitand, between MacDonald and Darby on the page, but predating both, again, demonstrating futurism before MM and before Darby allegedly met MM (have not verified meeting yet, so not going to concede that one took place at this point).

HERE IS WHAT IS SAID ABOUT MAITLAND: "Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792-1866), scholar and librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, further promoted and established Futurism in England after 1826, as a result of reading the work of Manuel De Lacunza."

You argue that Darby got it from MacDonald, but all your quote says is that he went to the prophecy conference and visited her. If you would but find and read a transcript of her vision (on www), you would readily see that Darby did not copy her, she was post-trib. There are other differences between the transcript and the teaching of Darby as well.

Your argument does not stand up. It has fallen.

 

Just went back and read some more on your link. Are you aware that this is Seventh Day Adventist material you are quoting?

Here is what is at the bottom of your page:

"The above article is based primarily on information obtained from The PROPHETIC FAITH OF OUR FATHERS, The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation, by Le Roy Edwin Froom, Volume II, Pre-Reformation and Reformation Restoration, published by the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington D.C., Copyright 1948, Chapters 21-23 in particular."

(BOLD emphasis added)

 

rj,

1) First, I need to clarify the broken up posts. As I was highlighting the intended post with my mouse (as I do in case something happens and loose the whole thing) my hand slipped. The lower portion of it somehow ended up getting posted but I lost the top portion. No intentional deletion there.

2)What happend with the "Maitland" reference? Will have to look at it - wasn't intentional though.

3) Will also look at the Seventh Day Adventist footnote - although I don't really get the point. Are you trying to say that 7th Day's can't do research?

4) More on the other inaccuries later!

 

Dear Sir,

I have posted a number of posts on this subject in various threads. Some of my posts included detailed history and possible conclusions from that history. Some other posts were more suggestive in nature rather than historically provable. The basic well-established facts are:

• Darby visited James and Margaret McDonald in the spring of 1830.

• Darby did not publish any works prior to 1830 in which a pre-trib rapture or other elements of dispensationalism appear.

• There are no known works published before 1830 in which a pre-trib rapture is clearly mentioned or described. When one takes the time to read the works in which some have claimed there is a mention of a pre-trib rapture, it is found that the claims are at best inaccurate, and often simply fictitious.

If you know of any works published prior to 1830 that refute my statements above, and have personally verified the information and read it in context in the works themselves, please post it. But PLEASE DO NOT post secondhand information as some others have done.

It is my firm conviction that the basic doctrine of dispensationalism is contrary to the clear teachings of the Bible and academically untenable. I believe that this conviction is more than adequately supported by the fact that dispensationalism is a relatively new doctrine that is diametrically opposed to historical exegesis, and by the fact that it is rejected by the vast majority of Bible scholars today.

 

Mag McDonald did not believe in the pretrib rapture. Those who actually know anything about her know this. It is a myth perpetuated by those who wish to appear intelligent, but lack the skills to understand her writings. I am not picking on Craig, but both shoes fit.

 

For those interested, the entire letter written by Margaret MacDonald can be found on this website along with an abundance of information in 8 other sections, one of which describes the lack of Dispensationalism/Rapture Doctrine in the writers of the early church.

http://www.velocity.net/~edju/#POSTTRIBULATIONISM%20vs%20Pretribulationism

Part 1 is very interesting as it shows where the earliest Christian writers did not hold to a "Rapture" view of the church.


Part 1: Is Pretribulationism Found In The Early Church Father's Writings?

Part 2: Psuedo-Ephraem Depicts A Posttrib, Not Pretirb, Rapture

Part 3: The Early Church Was Futurist In Its Prophetic Outlook

Part 4: The Birth Of The Pretribulation Doctrine In The 1800s

Part 5: Margaret Macdonald's Original Secret Coming Vision

Part 6: Discerning The False Spirit That Delivered The Secret Coming Doctrine

Part 7: The Pretrib Doctrine Came From A "Revival" Similar To Today's

Part 8: Is The Pretribber In Danger Of Accepting A New Age Christ?

Finally, RJ and other Dispy's, it was good that you challenged me to do research for myself as I did find an abundance of information that absolutely confirmed for me that the origins of Dispenstionalism and the Rapture theory are not scripturally sound and that because it's foundation was built upon shifting sand it therefore has a multitude of cracks in it.

 

DD,

Although you are technically correct, in that the theory of dispensationalism's rapture did not actually originate because of MacDonald's "revelatory vision," Irving most definately give her credit for having vison of a "secret appearing." This is what is "generalized" when we talk about it. But it was her pastor, Irving, that is attributed for working that basis idea over, and for J.N. Darby for fine tuning it and then for Scofield for fine tuning it even more. But for one to say it originated out of scripture is simply not being honest with the facts of history.

The field is littered with doctrines that were the "ideas of men" taking hold within themselves and then going to scripture to get support for a self-imposed blessing upon that idea. It is precisely the same manner in which the Serpent was able to take "what God said" and, with a slight twist, was able to get her to follow him, instead...

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." 2 Tim 2:3-4

 

No one that I know of has ever written that Margaret McDonald believed in or taught the pre-trib rapture. Please read our posts more carefully.

 

"Part 8: Is The Pretribber In Danger Of Accepting A New Age Christ?"

Whoever comes and resurrects 2,500 Million dead saints,
i'm going with Him in the Rapture.

If this is a "New Age Christ" then yes, i'm in danger
of Accepting a New Age Christ.
Otherwise, I (a pretribber) am not likely to fall for
a New Age Christ.

The Jews are looking for a Messiah who will:

1. Bring peace to Yisrael
2. Restore the daily sacrifice on Temple Mount
3. have a plan to rebuild the Temple on Temple Mount

Obviously they will be fooled when the antichrist
does just that - right after the pretribulation rapture/resurrection.

 

Ed,

I think you are creating a diversionary smokescreen. What the views of the Second Coming of that resource was irrelevant. The information about the origins of how, when, where and the people involved in the present day unscripturally based dispensational rapture theory took root and spread like wildfire is what my (and others) post are all about.

? Where on earth did you get that figure from? Think about it! Only 2,500 million dead saints since the beginning of time until the end of time? Sounds like a failure to me!

But, again, MacDonald's vision was more like "hallucinatory babblings" of a secret appearing which her pastor, Edward Irving, picked up and re-worked it. Darby visited MacDonald and VERY soon afterwards began spreading his reworking of the "vision." The responsibility really lies at the feet of Irving and Darby who took the "vision elements," went to scripture for validation of their sudden "new revelation" it order to put a "blessing" upon it for without the use of scripture, who would have taken it seriously? No one would have and they knew it - they were pastors.

 

I think this whole thing is now a smokescreen. The primary question is not about who "started it" or "when it started." Those are diversions.

The question is, Is this what Scripture teaches? On the basic issues of dispensationalism, the only honest answer is Yes. There is not doubt that there is far more than adequate support in Scripture for dispensationalism. It has been very ably defended by scholars for many years, and its history dates to long before Darby.

A covenantalist approaches Scripture with different (and I believe faulty) presuppositions about the nature of revelation and communication. He will obviously arrive at different conclusions because he started from a different place. If any accord is to be reached, we have to start at that point, namely: How do we approach Scripture? The dispensationalist says that we should use a consistent literal-grammatical-historical interpretation. And covenantalists admit that when you do that, you arrive at dispensationalism. Covenantalists believe in the selective use of the literal-grammatical-historical interpretation. That is why there is a difference and so long as these varied approaches are used, there will continue to be a difference.

 

"Not every one who says to me. 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then wil I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.'" (Mt 7:21:23)

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

 

PastorLarry,

DITTO.


Trailblazer,

When you resort to name calling and announcing "anathema" upon those who disagree, it reveals your inablity to respond with substance.

 

TB,

Maybe you could help us understand what the point of those verses are. As a dispensationalist, I can assure you that I completely affirm them. But I have no idea what relevance they have here.

 

Consistent contextual literal grammatical historical hermeneutic and balances

As long as the consistent starting point is re-examined and reconfirmed on at least an occasional basis in search of truth, with an open mind, I would buy that. Time better spent than arguing over where the ideas came from. M&M candy.

Can a question be asked without allegorizing it? That is my question.

 

Trailblazer: "I think you are creating a diversionary smokescreen."

A diverstionary smokescreen is needed here.
The whole story about MacDonald, Irving, and Darby is
fiction. How does one argue with a fiction.
Here is my fiction, note that it is science fiction

In 1830 John Darby got into a time machine and went back to 1611
and had the KJV translators say this to support his pretribulation
rapture/resurrection theory:

II.Theffalonians II.3 (KJV1611):
Let no man deceiue you by any
meanes, for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that
man of sinne bee reuealed, the sonne of
perdition.

Note the "falling away", i.e. the rapture, instead of
the perfectly good english word normaly used for that
Greek word: "apostasy". Now the famous KJV fits his theory
and was written 1830-1611=219 years earlier.
Likewise Darby visits other translators in his
time machine to change that word to a form of
"departing" in these versions:

Wycliffe Version 1382
Tyndale 1534
Coverdale 1535
Great Bible 1539
Geneva Bible 1560
Bishops' Bible 1568

But we all know that my tale is fiction and
probably wasn't mentioned until the year 2000.
But the earliest mention i find of the
MacDonald, Irving, and Darby tale is 1954.

BTW, in the many disucssions i've had as a
pretribulation rapturist, it is always a
non-pretrib who brings the "secret rapture"
to the table. Can you spell STRAWMAN?

Pastor Larry: "I think this whole thing is now a smokescreen.
The primary question is not about who "started it"
or "when it started." Those are diversions.
The question is, Is this what Scripture teaches? "

Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!
I know i preach the pretribualtion rapture/resurrection
from the Bible, not from the works of Darby, not from
the works of Irving, not from the collected dreams
of Miss MacDonald.

Getting back on subject:
No, Dispensationalism is not elitist,
Dispensationalism is the Biblical
understanding of Truth about God's
intentions in this world.

 

What you ask has great spiritual
truth back in there about seven levels down