What do you believe about the rapture and why?

Surely not. Surely kyredneck doesnt' resort to calling out a brother's character and motives for the world to see; surely not.

 

We'll see how Allan answers J.D.s request in post #94.

 

You are correct on your call regarding Joseph Mede. Those names I posted are from a work I did showing the view of a 'rapture' did not originate with Darby.. IOW, I copied the names from the wrong section . Thus that name should not have been added to the listing and I withdraw it as it is not correct. Though much of Cuninghame's work was built upon Mede's, even quoting Mede often.. he never stated nor implied Mede taught him this view.. remembering also that Mede was in a radical minority of Reformed and Covenant brethren in his view as well.

However, regarding the other three listed the point remains.. I have disproved your 'assumption' and false declaration that a Pre-Trib view BEGAN with Darby or that (like others state) it came from the false prophetess others try to associate with it. You even admit that these people acknowledge the view and they preceded Darby. I find it rather odd that you state he was not a 'prominent' theologian, and yet he is noted to be unquestionably one of most prominent expositors in Britain in the early part of the nineteenth century. The others views are not 'vague' at best, especially when Frere is placed in the same exegetical category as Cuninghame and noted also for his declaration of a Pre-trib view like as Cuninghame himself. The two are usually cited together.

Another is Morgan Edwards (1742-1744) who held not to a post, but did hold to a 7 year period of tribulation and that church will be removed 3 and half years into it (prior to the Great tribulation of the pouring out of God's wrath.

As such.. these views can be found 'pre-Darby' (before Darby set them forth). Therefore, since you wanted proof and now you have it..

Do you want salt with your shoe, or maybe a bit of Tabasco to help with the flavoring

 

First.. there was not 'actual' rebuttal in JD's post. He charge was there was no teaching of a pre-trib view PRIOR to Darby. Now he admits there was. He was correct on the Joseph Mede point and that WAS my fault due to pasting the names from a portion to deals with the rapture in general, that it was even a view held prior to Darby.

You can't and won't find any 'disingenuous information' coming from me, as if I am intending to mislead someone. But since the majority of your posts are slanderous, inflammatory, and rhetorical drivel.. I don't usually interact with you much at all.

 

He was looking for pre-1830 view that taught “a Pre-trib "rapture" in which the Church would be removed from the earth and return back to the earth after seven years,”. I don't see that you did that. He also requested you supply book, chapter and verse, which you did not.

Does he? He said, "...except for Cuninghame (not a prominant theologian) whose theories were contemporary to Darby's."

It's 'disingenuous information' to imply the pre-trib view was proclaimed 300 years earlier, at the very least you're seriously stretching it. And you've still not shown that it was taught that "the Church would be removed from the earth and return back to the earth after seven years".

Coming from you that will probably cause me to not sleep more than eight hours tonight.

 

You want me to provide proof texts when the fact of the matter is the Bible no where teaches a covenant of works, a covenant of redemption and/or a covenant of grace.

The Bible clearly teaches that we are saved by grace but where does it teach that Jehovah made a covenant with man to save him by said grace? And it might be true that God the Father made a covenant of redemption with God the Son but the Bible doesn't speak of such a covenant. And finally, there is no covenant of works mentioned in the Bible. You want me to provide proof texts but I'm not the one who insists that the Bible teaches a covenants of works, redemption and grace.

Covenant theology, even those who call themselves covenant but deny that the Church replaces Israel cannot show one place in the Bible where Jehovah God states that He will break his everlasting covenant with the nation of Israel and give it to the Church. True, the Bibles teaches that the Jews will be punished for their disobedience and the Gentiles blessed through Abraham but where does Jehovah say I will break my covenant and give it to those (the church) who, for all intents and purposes are no more rightous than the Jews were? Unless you disagree with me because you think that the Church is in fine shape, I personally think the church is in big trouble. The church in my view does not keep the precepts of God as outlined in the Bible, you disagree? Does not Paul teach that just as the Gentiles are grafted in they could be grafted out? Is it not other than the grace of God that we are not grafted out or do you think we gentiles keep God's laws in our hearts and do everything he requires?

And where does the Bible teach as covenant theology does that before the end of the age the church will so well evangelize the world that almost everyone will be a Christian when Christ brings this age to a close? My Bible teaches the opposite, it teaches that when Christ returns will he find faith on the earth?

 

Correct, that he wanted pre-1830.. and all that was given are pre-1830. It doesn't take a genius to do a quick google on the names and works on pre-trib views. Which apparently he did Guess that makes him smarter than average.

Darby is said not have 'contemporaries' during his time regarding this view. However it is not hard to note in just some easy and basic googling these people held their views PRIOR to Darby making them popular, not beginning. Darby is noted to have said that this view of Pre-wrath or Pre-trib rapture was something he came to through his own personal studies, NOT hearing it from other but that it "jumped off the pages" at him (so-to-speak) as he continued to study the Word of God.

ALL views regarding the rapture make the above statement and one even Joseph Mede declared. Anyone who denies the church will be raptured (irregardless of timing) and return to a literal Kingdom of Christ is not only unorthodox in their views but have left proper hermeneutics for something less than biblical.

 

The Body of Christ/Bride of Christ is composed of Jews & Greeks, bond & free, Greeks & barbarians, etc.
The NATION of Israel has a destiny to fulfill. God will bring it to pass. You can "take that to the bank". :thumbs:

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise
in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

See also Romans ch. 9, 10 & 11

 

Kyredneck has represented my views well during my absence – thank you - and I have enjoyed the to and fro tonight as I’ve been able to catch up on it.

As he said, I have no where admitted that there is a pre trib rapture theory before 1830 (Darby), and your references are sketchy. Mede, AS YOU HAVE ADMITTED, did not teach a pretrib rapture; I could not make heads or tails of the various others except Morgan who was a historicist and would have been contradicting his larger body of work if he were teaching a pretrib rapture; and as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on Cuninghame, whether he is even orthodox in eschatology.

And your statement, "Anyone who denies the church will be raptured (irregardless of timing)" slyly tries to imply to the undiscerning reader that someone around here holds such a position, which is not the case for either myself or kyredneck. I'm not even sure that full preterists deny a "rapture" of sorts.

But okay, have it your way, I don’t really care that much, good biblical exegisis and hermeneutics is more important to me than some stray theological wildcatter that made novel interpretations a hundred years ago.

 

For readers that may actually want to see proof-texts for covenant theology, just click this link and be prepared for some eye-opening:

http://www.monergismbooks.com/pdfs/pog_003.pdf

 

At the seventh trumpet, before the wrath of God is poured out..

Rev 11:12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, "Come up here!" And they went up to heaven in a cloud, and their enemies watched them.


These are not two individuals, but two groups; Gentile and Jewish Christians. There will be a wholesale slaughter of believers, by the antichrist, and they will be allowed to be defeated. Then God will call them up...and pour His wrath on their persecutors!

 

LOL.. sketchy.. there isn't anything sketchy to it.. Other than Mede the names are historically noted for being pre-trib BEFORE Darby even hit the stage with his views. But then a person has to do his own studies and not just parrot others poor studies or willful misrepresentation of a view. Darby made them popular, he did not invent them and that is historically verifiable.

Then you choose not to read them well.. And for the record, I never stated that Morgan held a pre-trib view nor did he hold to a post rapture view but a Mid-trib rapture. However it is also noted that the rapture was to take place prior to pouring out of God's wrath for the later half of the 3 and half years of the 7.

There is no "jury is still out".. his works PRECEDE Darby and THAT at minimum is proof against your assertion that it began with Darby. The fact you state the above shows you AGREE Cuninghame preceded Darby because him and Frere and others held the Pre-trib view undeniably before Darby hit the scene. As stated earlier, Cuninghame and Frere are noted to be unquestionably some of most prominent expositors in Britain in the early part of the nineteenth century. And it wasn't non-reformed dispensationalists who gave him that distinction, and yet both held to a pre-trib view.

The 'discerning' reader knows the Full preterist DENIES the biblical doctrine of a physical rapture. A literal physical rapture is the ONLY doctrine scripture states, implies, and alludes to. Anyone who holds to less than that IS believing in something less than biblical and highly unorthodox, if not heretical. There is no 'rapture' of sorts, there is only the literal and physical rapture declared from scripture and this is seen and understood only if one applies good biblical exegesis and hermeneutics to the text.

.
Funny.. you are found to be incorrect but still willingly deny the truth and refuse to admit you were wrong. Some things never change.