Historical Basis of Dispensationalism

[Fervent]

I am not trying to sell books. I have better things to do than to post many long passages from y books, to people who have no desire to know the truth.

No one's asking for passages from your book, we want the writings of Irenaeus(and to a lesser extent Victorinus) to see if what you claim they say is actually in them. A citation list will do.

 

[BABerean2]

I am not trying to sell books.

You could have fooled me, because you keep talking about your book.


.

 

[Biblewriter]

You could have fooled me, because you keep talking about your book.


.

My point has never been about my book, but about what I PROVED in my book. But as I now have a little time, I will give actual quotations, with full citation of where they came from.

Irenaeus said, concerning what we now call "the rapture:


“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons ‘as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;’ so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” ( “Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 1, From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D.and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, American reprint Grand Rapids, 1996, vol 1, pg. 558.)

Here we find a clear teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture. But Irenaeus also wrote:

“For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule;” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 35, paragraph 1, pg.565 in the volume previously cited).

Here we see this same ancient writer just as explicitly saying that “the resurrection of the just” “takes place after the coming of Antichrist.” This appears to flatly contradict his other statement. But is this correct? First, we need to notice that Irenaeus did not say that “the resurrection of the just” takes place after the reign of Antichrist. He only said it “takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule.” To see the significance of this, we need to consider another statement from this same ancient document:

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 30, paragraph 4, pg.560 in the volume previously cited).

Here we find first, a distinct statement that Antichrist would reign for three years and six months. But also a distinct statement that this three years and six months would be after “this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world.” Thus we see that Irenaeus placing “the resurrection of the just” “after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule,” was not saying the rapture would be after the three and a half year reign of Antichrist. Rather, he placed the rapture at the beginning of that three and a half year reign. That is, he was saying that the time of “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be” was the three and a half year reign of Antichrist.

Irenaeus very clearly put the church in at least the first part of the time of Antichrist, as we can see in the following:

“‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.’ It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.” ( “Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 26, paragraph 1, pp.554-555 in the volume previously cited).

This is the only place Irenaeus used the word “church” in regard to these events, other that the place where he explicitly said “the Church shall be suddenly caught up” before the “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” But he used the word “we,” which certainly seems to have the same meaning, here:

“But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit.” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 30, paragraph 4, pp.560 in the volume previously cited).



These last two statements make it very clear that Irenaeus placed the rapture at least after “the coming of Antichrist.” We have already noticed that in statements about events before the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, he used the words “the church” and “we.” But in his statements about persecutions during the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, he changed this terminology. We remember that in his statement about the church being “suddenly caught up,” he called the tribulation “the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” He used the term “the righteous” again when he spoke of the faithful in that time in this statement:

“For that image which was set up by Nebuchadnezzar had indeed a height of sixty cubits, while the breadth was six cubits; on account of which Ananias, Azarias, and Misaël, when they did not worship it, were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end. For that image, taken as a whole, was a prefiguring of this man’s coming, decreeing that he should undoubtedly himself alone be worshipped by all men.” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 2, pg. 558.in the volume previously cited)

We remember that Irenaeus used this same term in speaking of the beginning of the kingdom, saying, “bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” He also used a second term for these faithful ones during that time, calling them “saints” in the following statements:

“Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: ‘And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom.’ Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: ‘The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,’ that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 3, pp.553-554 in the volume previously cited)

“And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 4, pg.554 in the volume previously cited).

We need to notice that both of these statements are about the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, and thus speak of a time after Irenaeus placed the “resurrection of the just.”



Why are the exact words Irenaeus used significant? Because a doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture requires words like “the church” or “we” in statements about the godly during events up to and through the time “the Church shall be suddenly caught up.” But when speaking of times after the rapture, the proper (and scriptural) terms for godly people are “the righteous” or “saints.” Again, the doctrine requires a different term for those who are resurrected at the time of the rapture, for that resurrection includes Old Testament believers who were thus not members of the church. And this is exactly what Irenaeus did, calling the resurrection by its scriptural name of “the resurrection of the just.”

Now some will want to discount any claim that Irenaeus was intentionally using well selected terminology in these statements. But he used the same precision in his comments about recognizing the Antichrist when he appeared. For, as we have already noticed, when he was speaking of true believers he said “But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him” But when he was speaking of men who might be deceived by the Antichrist, he stuck strictly with the scriptural terminology by referring to them as “those,” “these,” “they,” and “them,” as we see in the following statements:

“Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 30, end of paragraph 1, pg.559 in the volume previously cited)

“These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 30, beginning of paragraph 2, pg.559 in the volume previously cited).

Thus we see that Irenaeus used precise terminology that clearly distinguished between these two groups. He again used the scriptural words “those,” along with “ye” and “he,” rather than his own words, when speaking of the need for the inhabitants of the land of Judea to flee when they see the abomination of desolation.

“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 2, pg.553 in the volume previously cited)

Finally, Irenaeus made one more statement that touches this matter, saying:

“Has the Word come for the ruin and for the resurrection of many? For the ruin, certainly, of those who do not believe Him, to whom also He has threatened a greater damnation in the judgment-day than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; but for the resurrection of believers, and those who do the will of His Father in heaven.” ( “Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 27, paragraph 1, pg.556 in the volume previously cited)

In this passage Irenaeus implies a simultaneous judgment-day for unbelievers and resurrection of believers. Some will assume that this proves he was not saying that the rapture will be before the tribulation. But this is in full accord with the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture. For there will be people who turn to God during the time of the tribulation, and they will be persecuted and slain for their faith. These will be resurrected at approximately the same time as when Christ comes in power and glory to judge the world. (The scriptures do not say their resurrection happens when He comes. But Revelation 20:4 says “they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” So we know that their resurrection takes place at least approximately the same time as He comes.

So now we are faced with two choices. We can either assume that Irenaeus was exceedingly careless as to his wording, and simply did not mean what he said. Or we can assume that the precision of his wording was not a mere coincidence, but that he chose his exact words carefully and with intent. In that case, we are forced to conclude that Irenaeus meant exactly what he said when he wrote:

And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’

(continued next post)

 

[Biblewriter]

Continuation of post #23:

So we have seen that Irenaeus taught what would today be called a mid trib rapture. But as he only called the last half of Daniel's seventieth week the "great tribulation," this was pre-trib from his standpoint.

But what did he say about the "the Jews"?

“The fraud, pride, and tyrannical kingdom of Antichrist, as described by Daniel and Paul.
“1. And not only by the particulars already mentioned, but also by means of the events which shall occur in the time of Antichrist is it shown that he, being an apostate and a robber, is anxious to be adored as God; and that, although a mere slave, he wishes himself to be proclaimed as a king. For he (Antichrist) being endued with all the power of the devil, shall come, not as a righteous king, nor as a legitimate king, [i.e., one] in subjection to God, but an impious, unjust, and lawless one; as an apostate, iniquitous and murderous; as a robber, concentrating in himself [all] satanic apostasy, and setting aside idols to persuade [men] that he himself is God, raising up himself as the only idol, having in himself the multifarious errors of the other idols. This he does, in order that they who do [now] worship the devil by means of many abominations, may serve himself by this one idol, of whom the apostle thus speaks in the second Epistle to the Thessalonians: “Unless there shall come a failing away first, and the man of sin shall be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God.” The apostle therefore clearly points out his apostasy, and that he is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped — that is, above every idol — for these are indeed so called by men, but are not [really] gods; and that he will endeavour in a tyrannical manner to set himself forth as God.
“2. Moreover, he (the apostle) has also pointed out this which I have shown in many ways, that the temple in Jerusalem was made by the direction of the true God. For the apostle himself, speaking in his own person, distinctly called it the temple of God. Now I have shown in the third book, that no one is termed God by the apostles when speaking for themselves, except Him who truly is God, the Father of our Lord, by whose directions the temple which is at Jerusalem was constructed for those purposes which I have already mentioned; in which [temple] the enemy shall sit, endeavouring to show himself as Christ, as the Lord also declares: ‘But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.’
“3. Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: ‘And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom.’ Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: ‘The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,’ that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth. Of whom also the Apostle Paul again, speaking in the second [Epistle] to the Thessalonians, and at the same time proclaiming the cause of his advent, thus says: ‘And then shall the wicked one be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with the spirit of His mouth, and destroy by the presence of His coming; whose coming [i.e., the wicked one’s] is after the working of Satan, in all power, and signs, and portents of lies, and with all deceivableness of wickedness for those who perish; because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And therefore God will send them the working of error, that they may believe a lie; that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but gave consent to iniquity,’
“4. The Lord also spoke as follows to those who did not believe in Him: ‘I have come in my Father’s name, and ye have not received Me: when another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive,’ calling Antichrist ‘the other,’ because he is alienated from the Lord. This is also the unjust judge, whom the Lord mentioned as one ‘who feared not God, neither regarded man,’ to whom the widow fled in her forgetfulness of God, — that is, the earthly Jerusalem, — to be avenged of her adversary. Which also he shall do in the time of his kingdom: he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. To this purpose Daniel says again: ‘And he shall desolate the holy place; and sin has been given for a sacrifice, and righteousness been cast away in the earth, and he has been active (fecit), and gone on prosperously.’ And the angel Gabriel, when explaining his vision, states with regard to this person: ‘And towards the end of their kingdom a king of a most fierce countenance shall arise, one understanding [dark] questions, and exceedingly powerful, full of wonders; and he shall corrupt, direct, influence (faciet), and put strong men down, the holy people likewise; and his yoke shall be directed as a wreath [round their neck]; deceit shall be in his hand, and he shall be lifted up in his heart: he shall also ruin many by deceit, and lead many to perdition, bruising them in his hand like eggs.’ And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.
“5. From all these passages are revealed to us, not merely the particulars of the apostasy, and [the doings] of him who concentrates in himself every satanic error, but also, that there is one and the same God the Father, who was declared by the prophets, but made manifest by Christ. For if what Daniel prophesied concerning the end has been confirmed by the Lord, when He said, ‘When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet’ (and the angel Gabriel gave the interpretation of the visions to Daniel, and he is the archangel of the Creator (Demiurgi), who also proclaimed to Mary the visible coming and the incarnation of Christ), then one and the same God is most manifestly pointed out, who sent the prophets, and made promise of the Son, and called us into His knowledge.” (“Against Heresies”, by Irenaeus, book 5, chapter 25, “The fraud, pride, and tyrannical kingdom of Antichrist, as described by Daniel and Paul,” sections 1-5, from “The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers,”vol. 1, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, as found in its American edition ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe)

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom, that is, the rest, the hallowed seventh day; and restoring to Abraham the promised inheritance, in which kingdom the Lord declared, that ‘many coming from the east and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.’ ” (“Against Heresies”, by Irenaeus, book 5, chapter 30, section 4, from “The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers,”vol. 1, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, as found in its American edition ed. by A. Cleveland Coxe)

(continued next post)

 

[Biblewriter]

(continued from post #24)

Now we come to Victorinus. First, we need to understand that the version of the "Commentary on the Apocalypse" found in the set of volumes commonly published as "The Early Church Fathers," is a version edited by Jerome, who ass Amillennial. So Jerome deleted much of what Victorinus actually said. Therefore, he text I have used here is not the one in "The Early Church Fathers," but the text of Martine Dulaey, (Victorin de Poetovio. Sur l'Apocalypse et autres écrits (Source Chrétiennes 423. Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1997.))

Jerome’s own statement concerning his revision of this work is found in his letter to Anatolius, which is in the prologue to his revision of the Commentary on the Apocalypse by Victorinus. In this letter, Jerome said:

“Those crossing over the perilous seas find different dangers. If a storm of winds has become violent, it is a terror; if the moderate air has calmed the back of the elements, lying calm, they fear traps. Thus is seen in this book which you have sent to me, which is seen to contain the explanation of the Apocalypse by Victorinus. Also, it is dangerous, and opens to the barkings of detractors, to judge the short works of eminent men. For even earlier Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis, and Nepos, the bishop of parts of Egypt, perceived of the kingdom of the thousand years just as Victorinus. And because you are in your letters entreating me, I do not want to delay, but nor do I want to scorn praying. I immediately unwound the books of the greats, and what I found in their commentaries about the kingdom of the thousand years, I added to the little work of Victorinus, erasing from there those things which he perceived according to the letter.
“From the beginning of the book to the sign of the cross, we have corrected things which are the corruptions of inexperience of scribes. Know that from there to the end of the book is added. Now it is yours to judge, and to confirm what pleases. If our life will be made longer and the Lord will give health, for you, our most capable genius will sweat over this book, dearest Anatolius.”


Victorinus said concerning what we call "the rapture:"


He said concerning Revelation 6:14:

“ ‘And the heaven withdrew as a scroll that is rolled up.' For the heaven to be rolled way, that is, that the Church shall be taken away.’ ‘And the mountain and the islands were moved from their places." Mountains and islands removed from their places intimate that in the last persecution all men departed from their places; that is, that the good will be removed, seeking to avoid the persecution."

We need to notice here that Victorinus did not make these clauses active, saying “the church shall go away,” or “the good will flee.” Instead these clauses are both in the passive, that the church “shall be taken away,” and that the good “will be removed.” So this is not, as some allege, a statement that the church will flee out of society, hiding in wilderness places.

Again, he said concerning Revelation 15:1:

“ ‘And I saw another great and wonderful sign, seven angels having the seven last plagues; for in them is completed the indignation of God.’ For the wrath of God always strikes the obstinate people with seven plagues, that is, perfectly, as it is said in Leviticus; and these shall be in the last time, when the Church shall have gone out of the midst.”

This, being in the active, could refer to flight. But when taken in connection to the previous statement, we see that this was not what Victorinus was saying.

So Victorinus indeed taught “that the Church shall be taken away,” and that “the good will be removed, seeking to avoid the persecution.” And that in the last time “the church shall have gone out of the midst.” This most certainly appears to be a teaching of a rapture before the great tribulation.

But what did he say concerning "the Jews"?

“7 And an angel descending from the rising of the sun: he speaks of the Prophet Elijah who is coming before the time of Antichrist, for the restoring and strengthening of the churches against the overwhelming persecution. We read of this in the opening of the books of the Old Testament and the new prophecy, for the Lord says through Malachi: Behold, I am sending to you Elijah the Tishbite, to turn back the heart of the father to the son, and the heart of a man to his neighbor,a that is, to Christ through repentance; to turn back the heart of the father to the son: the time of a second calling, to recall the Jews to the faith of the following People. And therefore he also shows the number of the Jews, and the great multitude of the gentiles, who will believe.
a Mal 4.5-6" (“Commentary On the Apocalypse,” by Victorinus Poetovionensis, comments on Revelation 7.)

“20 And the scarlet devil is imprisoned and all his fugitive angels in the Tartarus of Gehenna at the coming of the Lord; no one is ignorant of this. And after the thousand years he is released, because of the nations which will have served Antichrist: so that they alone might perish, as they deserved. Then is the general judgment. Therefore he says: And they lived, he says, the dead who were written in the book of life, and they reigned with Christ a thousand years. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has a part in the first resurrection: toward this one the second death has no power. Of this resurrection, he says: And I saw the Lamb standing, and with him 144 thousands, that is, standing with Christ, namely those of the Jews in the last time who become believers through the preaching of Elijah, those who, the Spirit bears witness, are virgins not only in body, but also in language. Therefore, as he reminds above, the 24 elder-aged said: Grace we bring to You, O Lord God who has reigned; and the nations are angry.” (“Commentary On the Apocalypse,” by Victorinus Poetovionensis, comments on Revelation 20.)

 

[BABerean2]

“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons ‘as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;’ so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” ( “Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 1, From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D.and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, American reprint Grand Rapids, 1996, vol 1, pg. 558.)

Here we find a clear teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture. But Irenaeus also wrote:

The quote above is promoting the post-trib removal of the Church, instead of what you are claiming, and it agrees with what John recorded below.

Rev_1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev_2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Rev_2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.


Take off your Dispensational glasses and read it again.

.

 

[Fervent]

My point has never been about my book, but about what I PROVED in my book. But as I now have a little time, I will give actual quotations, with full citation of where they came from.

Irenaeus said, concerning what we now call "the rapture:


“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons ‘as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;’ so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” ( “Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 1, From “Ante-Nicean Fathers,” ed. Alexander Roberts, D.D.and James Donaldson, D.D., Edinburgh, 1884, American reprint Grand Rapids, 1996, vol 1, pg. 558.)

Here we find a clear teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture. But Irenaeus also wrote:

“For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule;” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 35, paragraph 1, pg.565 in the volume previously cited).

Here we see this same ancient writer just as explicitly saying that “the resurrection of the just” “takes place after the coming of Antichrist.” This appears to flatly contradict his other statement. But is this correct? First, we need to notice that Irenaeus did not say that “the resurrection of the just” takes place after the reign of Antichrist. He only said it “takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule.” To see the significance of this, we need to consider another statement from this same ancient document:

“But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem; and then the Lord will come from heaven in the clouds, in the glory of the Father, sending this man and those who follow him into the lake of fire; but bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 30, paragraph 4, pg.560 in the volume previously cited).

Here we find first, a distinct statement that Antichrist would reign for three years and six months. But also a distinct statement that this three years and six months would be after “this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world.” Thus we see that Irenaeus placing “the resurrection of the just” “after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule,” was not saying the rapture would be after the three and a half year reign of Antichrist. Rather, he placed the rapture at the beginning of that three and a half year reign. That is, he was saying that the time of “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be” was the three and a half year reign of Antichrist.

Irenaeus very clearly put the church in at least the first part of the time of Antichrist, as we can see in the following:

“‘And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but shall receive power as if kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and give their strength and power to the beast. These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, because He is the Lord of lords and the King of kings.’ It is manifest, therefore, that of these [potentates], he who is to come shall slay three, and subject the remainder to his power, and that he shall be himself the eighth among them. And they shall lay Babylon waste, and burn her with fire, and shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the Church to flight. After that they shall be destroyed by the coming of our Lord.” ( “Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 26, paragraph 1, pp.554-555 in the volume previously cited).

This is the only place Irenaeus used the word “church” in regard to these events, other that the place where he explicitly said “the Church shall be suddenly caught up” before the “tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” But he used the word “we,” which certainly seems to have the same meaning, here:

“But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him, being aware who he is: the name, however, is suppressed, because it is not worthy of being proclaimed by the Holy Spirit.” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 30, paragraph 4, pp.560 in the volume previously cited).



These last two statements make it very clear that Irenaeus placed the rapture at least after “the coming of Antichrist.” We have already noticed that in statements about events before the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, he used the words “the church” and “we.” But in his statements about persecutions during the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, he changed this terminology. We remember that in his statement about the church being “suddenly caught up,” he called the tribulation “the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” He used the term “the righteous” again when he spoke of the faithful in that time in this statement:

“For that image which was set up by Nebuchadnezzar had indeed a height of sixty cubits, while the breadth was six cubits; on account of which Ananias, Azarias, and Misaël, when they did not worship it, were cast into a furnace of fire, pointing out prophetically, by what happened to them, the wrath against the righteous which shall arise towards the [time of the] end. For that image, taken as a whole, was a prefiguring of this man’s coming, decreeing that he should undoubtedly himself alone be worshipped by all men.” (“Against Heresies”, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 2, pg. 558.in the volume previously cited)

We remember that Irenaeus used this same term in speaking of the beginning of the kingdom, saying, “bringing in for the righteous the times of the kingdom.” He also used a second term for these faithful ones during that time, calling them “saints” in the following statements:

“Daniel too, looking forward to the end of the last kingdom, i.e., the ten last kings, amongst whom the kingdom of those men shall be partitioned, and upon whom the son of perdition shall come, declares that ten horns shall spring from the beast, and that another little horn shall arise in the midst of them, and that three of the former shall be rooted up before his face. He says: ‘And, behold, eyes were in this horn as the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things, and his look was more stout than his fellows. I was looking, and this horn made war against the saints, and prevailed against them, until the Ancient of days came and gave judgment to the saints of the most high God, and the time came, and the saints obtained the kingdom.’ Then, further on, in the interpretation of the vision, there was said to him: ‘The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall excel all other kingdoms, and devour the whole earth, and tread it down, and cut it in pieces. And its ten horns are ten kings which shall arise; and after them shall arise another, who shall surpass in evil deeds all that were before him, and shall overthrow three kings; and he shall speak words against the most high God, and wear out the saints of the most high God, and shall purpose to change times and laws; and [everything] shall be given into his hand until a time of times and a half time,’ that is, for three years and six months, during which time, when he comes, he shall reign over the earth.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 3, pp.553-554 in the volume previously cited)

“And then he points out the time that his tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: ‘And in the midst of the week,’ he says, ‘the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete.’ Now three years and six months constitute the half-week.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 4, pg.554 in the volume previously cited).

We need to notice that both of these statements are about the three and a half year reign of Antichrist, and thus speak of a time after Irenaeus placed the “resurrection of the just.”



Why are the exact words Irenaeus used significant? Because a doctrine of a pre-tribulation rapture requires words like “the church” or “we” in statements about the godly during events up to and through the time “the Church shall be suddenly caught up.” But when speaking of times after the rapture, the proper (and scriptural) terms for godly people are “the righteous” or “saints.” Again, the doctrine requires a different term for those who are resurrected at the time of the rapture, for that resurrection includes Old Testament believers who were thus not members of the church. And this is exactly what Irenaeus did, calling the resurrection by its scriptural name of “the resurrection of the just.”

Now some will want to discount any claim that Irenaeus was intentionally using well selected terminology in these statements. But he used the same precision in his comments about recognizing the Antichrist when he appeared. For, as we have already noticed, when he was speaking of true believers he said “But he indicates the number of the name now, that when this man comes we may avoid him” But when he was speaking of men who might be deceived by the Antichrist, he stuck strictly with the scriptural terminology by referring to them as “those,” “these,” “they,” and “them,” as we see in the following statements:

“Moreover, another danger, by no means trifling, shall overtake those who falsely presume that they know the name of Antichrist. For if these men assume one [number], when this [Antichrist] shall come having another, they will be easily led away by him, as supposing him not to be the expected one, who must be guarded against.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 30, end of paragraph 1, pg.559 in the volume previously cited)

“These men, therefore, ought to learn [what really is the state of the case], and go back to the true number of the name, that they be not reckoned among false prophets. But, knowing the sure number declared by Scripture, that is, six hundred sixty and six, let them await, in the first place, the division of the kingdom into ten; then, in the next place, when these kings are reigning, and beginning to set their affairs in order, and advance their kingdom, [let them learn] to acknowledge that he who shall come claiming the kingdom for himself, and shall terrify those men of whom we have been speaking, having a name containing the aforesaid number, is truly the abomination of desolation.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 30, beginning of paragraph 2, pg.559 in the volume previously cited).

Thus we see that Irenaeus used precise terminology that clearly distinguished between these two groups. He again used the scriptural words “those,” along with “ye” and “he,” rather than his own words, when speaking of the need for the inhabitants of the land of Judea to flee when they see the abomination of desolation.

“But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, which has been spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let those who are in Judea flee into the mountains; and he who is upon the house-top, let him not come down to take anything out of his house: for there shall then be great hardship, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, nor ever shall be.” (“Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 25, paragraph 2, pg.553 in the volume previously cited)

Finally, Irenaeus made one more statement that touches this matter, saying:

“Has the Word come for the ruin and for the resurrection of many? For the ruin, certainly, of those who do not believe Him, to whom also He has threatened a greater damnation in the judgment-day than that of Sodom and Gomorrah; but for the resurrection of believers, and those who do the will of His Father in heaven.” ( “Against Heresies,” Book V, chapter 27, paragraph 1, pg.556 in the volume previously cited)

In this passage Irenaeus implies a simultaneous judgment-day for unbelievers and resurrection of believers. Some will assume that this proves he was not saying that the rapture will be before the tribulation. But this is in full accord with the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture. For there will be people who turn to God during the time of the tribulation, and they will be persecuted and slain for their faith. These will be resurrected at approximately the same time as when Christ comes in power and glory to judge the world. (The scriptures do not say their resurrection happens when He comes. But Revelation 20:4 says “they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” So we know that their resurrection takes place at least approximately the same time as He comes.

So now we are faced with two choices. We can either assume that Irenaeus was exceedingly careless as to his wording, and simply did not mean what he said. Or we can assume that the precision of his wording was not a mere coincidence, but that he chose his exact words carefully and with intent. In that case, we are forced to conclude that Irenaeus meant exactly what he said when he wrote:

And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’

(continued next post)

Seems it's as I suspected, you're looking for phrases that are close to modern phrases and then looking for somewhere something resembling that phrase is used. But this is nothing more than fallaciously reading into the text, because the words used have to be defined by their context. It's clear that Irenaeus' eschatology is not in line with pre-millenial claims when his actual words are considered since whatever he meant by "caught up" is to be understood by his next line as a final trial for the righteous. The ancient debates surrounding the millenium are of an entirely different character from our modern discussion, with the distinctive of interpreting Rev. 20 in a perfectly literal fashion and then having that interpretation dominate all of eschatology being what developed with Darby. Your "proof" is little more than an ahistorical scavenger hunt of out of context quotes.

 

[Biblewriter]

Seems it's as I suspected, you're looking for phrases that are close to modern phrases and then looking for somewhere something resembling that phrase is used. But this is nothing more than fallaciously reading into the text, because the words used have to be defined by their context. It's clear that Irenaeus' eschatology is not in line with pre-millenial claims when his actual words are considered since whatever he meant by "caught up" is to be understood by his next line as a final trial for the righteous. The ancient debates surrounding the millenium are of an entirely different character from our modern discussion, with the distinctive of interpreting Rev. 20 in a perfectly literal fashion and then having that interpretation dominate all of eschatology being what developed with Darby. Your "proof" is little more than an ahistorical scavenger hunt of out of context quotes.

I you had even bothered to actually read what I posted, you would know that This had nothing to do with premillennialism And you would also know that I PROVED the conclusions I posted.

 

[Biblewriter]

The quote above is promoting the post-trib removal of the Church, instead of what you are claiming, and it agrees with what John recorded below.

Rev_1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Rev_2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

Rev_2:10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.


Take off your Dispensational glasses and read it again.

.

If you had bothered to actually read what I posted, you would know that I have already answered your cavils.

 

[Fervent]

I you had even bothered to actually read what I posted, you would know that This had nothing to do with premillennialism And you would also know that I PROVED the conclusions I posted.

I read what you said, and what you said was not present in the texts but something you were reading into the texts. You've convinced yourself, but has anyone else considered what you've claimed to be proof? I see no evidence of that, just your declaration that you've proven it which amounts to nothing.

 

[BABerean2]

If you had bothered to actually read what I posted, you would know that I have already answered your cavils.

Pretrib author Grant Jeffrey selectively copied and pasted the writings of the Early Church Fathers in an attempt to prove his doctrine.
Others have followed in the same footsteps.

In the article below Pastor Tim Warner reveals the difference between what the Early Church Fathers actually said, and what Grant Jeffrey claimed they said.

Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdf


.

 

[Biblewriter]

I read what you said, and what you said was not present in the texts but something you were reading into the texts. You've convinced yourself, but has anyone else considered what you've claimed to be proof? I see no evidence of that, just your declaration that you've proven it which amounts to nothing.

Actually, my book has become widely circulated and has been highly praised among dispensational circles. But I can understand that, as a non-dispensationalist, you fail to see the distinctly dispensational nature of what these ancient writers explicitly said, in plain, clear, words.

Pretrib author Grant Jeffrey selectively copied and pasted the writings of the Early Church Fathers in an attempt to prove his doctrine.
Others have followed in the same footsteps.

In the article below Pastor Tim Warner reveals the difference between what the Early Church Fathers actually said, and what Grant Jeffrey claimed they said.

Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.4windsfellowships.net/articles/rapture_22.pdf


.

Whether someone else did, or did not, say or do has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. But YOU have PERSONALLY been EXPOSED as having repeatedly made posts that were OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED to DECEIVE those who were not thoroughly acquainted with the facts.

 

[Fervent]

Actually, my book has become widely circulated and has been highly praised among dispensational circles. But I can understand that, as a non-dispensationalist, you fail to see the distinctly dispensational nature of what these ancient writers explicitly said, in plain, clear, words.

So basically, those who are already convinced find your book persuasive...generally proof isn't for those who already believe something but needs to be persuasive to those who are skeptical. As I said, what it appears you are doing is seeing terms that have become theologically loaded post-darbyism and reading the modern understanding into those phrases rather than looking to see how the ancient writers were using those terms. It's completely anachronistic and contrary to how historical documents are analyzed.

 

[BABerean2]

Whether someone else did, or did not, say or do has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. But YOU have PERSONALLY been EXPOSED as having repeatedly made posts that were OBVIOUSLY DESIGNED to DECEIVE those who were not thoroughly acquainted with the facts.

At one time Benjamin Newton and John Nelson Darby worked together in the early Plymouth Brethren movement. After Darby divided scripture into that for the Church and that for Israel, Newton would not accept Darby's new doctrine. Darby then launched a personal attack on Newton that split the group.

Darby's spirit of attack is alive and well today by those who are still attempting to justify his Two Peoples of God doctrine.

When you point one finger at others, you have three fingers pointing back in your direction.


Luk_6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Luk_6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?

(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)



The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?


1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Galatians 3:8)


2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?


3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?


4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?


5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?


6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?


7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?


8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)


9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9)



10. Watch the YouTube video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.



Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:



“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)

What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?

Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?

Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13?

Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?

.

 

[Biblewriter]

At one time Benjamin Newton and John Nelson Darby worked together in the early Plymouth Brethren movement. After Darby divided scripture into that for the Church and that for Israel, Newton would not accept Darby's new doctrine. Darby then launched a personal attack on Newton that split the group.

Darby's spirit of attack is alive and well today by those who are still attempting to justify his Two Peoples of God doctrine.

When you point one finger at others, you have three fingers pointing back in your direction.


Luk_6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Luk_6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?

(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)



The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?


1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Galatians 3:8)


2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?


3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?


4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?


5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?


6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?


7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?


8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)


9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9)



10. Watch the YouTube video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.



Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:



“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)

What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?

Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?

Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13?

Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?

.

This is typical of the dishonest accusations that have consistently been made upon Dispensationalists for the last almost 200 years.

Darby's contention with Newton had nothing to do with Dispensational doctrine. It was entirely centered around doctrines of Newton which Darby considered blasphemous. Newton said he had retracted the doctrines in question. But Darby accused him of continuing to teach them in secret meetings. Now, 200 years later, there is no way to determine who was right about this.

But Darby actually continued to be in fellowship with many that did not agree with him about his Dispensational ideas.

 

[Biblewriter]

So basically, those who are already convinced find your book persuasive...generally proof isn't for those who already believe something but needs to be persuasive to those who are skeptical. As I said, what it appears you are doing is seeing terms that have become theologically loaded post-darbyism and reading the modern understanding into those phrases rather than looking to see how the ancient writers were using those terms. It's completely anachronistic and contrary to how historical documents are analyzed.

Rather, those who actually understand pre-tib doctrine understand that the statements of these early writers are completely compatible with that doctrine, instead, of contradicting it, as many imagine.

I pointed out that Irenaeus changed his pronouns at the point where he located the rapture in his scenario. Up to that point, he ALWAYS called those that he described as going through the events he described, "the church," or either "we" or "us." But after that point, he suddenly changed the pronouns he used to describe the people he said would be going through these events. Thereafter he ALWAYS called them either "they," "them," or "those."

This was NOT "cherry picking" to find "familiar terms." it was a THOROUGH ANALYSIS of ALL the pronouns used by Ireneus THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE twelve chapters he used to describe the "end times" scenario he foresaw. And it constituted HARD PROOF that Irenaeus really meant what he actually said, that at that point, before the "great tribulation," the church would be "suddenly caught up."

 

[BABerean2]

But Darby actually continued to be in fellowship with many that did not agree with him about his Dispensational ideas.

Pastor Charles Spurgeon tells another version of the story.

According to Spurgeon, Darby considered his "Exclusive Brethren" to be the only true church.
This makes Darby's group a cult.


A Brethren historian reveals the truth below about the conflict between Newton and Darby.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


The history of Dispensationalism is found below. Much of this is revealed by former proponents of the doctrine.

.

 

[Fervent]

Rather, those who actually understand pre-tib doctrine understand that the statements of these early writers are completely compatible with that doctrine, instead, of contradicting it, as many imagine.

I pointed out that Irenaeus changed his pronouns at the point where he located the rapture in his scenario. Up to that point, he ALWAYS called those that he described as going through the events he described, "the church," or either "we" or "us." But after that point, he suddenly changed the pronouns he used to describe the people he said would be going through these events. Thereafter he ALWAYS called them either "they," "them," or "those."

This was NOT "cherry picking" to find "familiar terms." it was a THOROUGH ANALYSIS of ALL the pronouns used by Ireneus THROUGHOUT the ENTIRE twelve chapters he used to describe the "end times" scenario he foresaw. And it constituted HARD PROOF that Irenaeus really meant what he actually said, that at that point, before the "great tribulation," the church would be "suddenly caught up."

It seems you're attaching a significance that doesn't follow, which again comes from approaching these letters in an anachronistic manner. I'm trying not to be combative, because I'm not completely opposed to there being a pre-existent strain of dispensationalism, but your evidence is not nearly as compelling as you seem to think it is. And what little persuasive value it may have is further diminished by the fact that you are so evidently biased and determined to find anything that can be twisted to claim it is support. There's no indication of an honest critical analysis of the text and conclusions being drawn based on it, instead it is clear you are intent to find in the text some way to argue it supports.

 

[Biblewriter]

Pastor Charles Spurgeon tells another version of the story.

According to Spurgeon, Darby considered his "Exclusive Brethren" to be the only true church.
This makes Darby's group a cult.


A Brethren historian reveals the truth below about the conflict between Newton and Darby.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


The history of Dispensationalism is found below. Much of this is revealed by former proponents of the doctrine.

.

The HARD TRUTH is that Darby fought with might and main against that doctrine, which had reared its ugly head in his group.

 

[Biblewriter]

It seems you're attaching a significance that doesn't follow, which again comes from approaching these letters in an anachronistic manner. I'm trying not to be combative, because I'm not completely opposed to there being a pre-existent strain of dispensationalism, but your evidence is not nearly as compelling as you seem to think it is. And what little persuasive value it may have is further diminished by the fact that you are so evidently biased and determined to find anything that can be twisted to claim it is support. There's no indication of an honest critical analysis of the text and conclusions being drawn based on it, instead it is clear you are intent to find in the text some way to argue it supports.

And it is clear to me, that you have not actually considered the analysis that I have presented.

As to whether or not Irenaeus was teaching a rapture before the "great tribulation," His DISTINCT change pf pronouns is HARD EVIDENCE that he really meant what he appeared to have been saying.

And as to other things he taught:

He used the word "dispensations" (or, of course, more properly, the Greek word that we translate as "dispensations," in exactly the same way modern Dispensationalists do. And He specifically named three past and one present Dispensations, and speculated about possible future ones.

He insisted that Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally.

He taught that "the Jews" would be brought back to their homeland.

He taught that the physical temple in Jerusalem would be rebuilt, and that "the Antichrist" would sit in that temple, proclaiming himself to be God

And he taught that the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy remained to be fulfilled in the end times.

Hippolytus taught that the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy remained to be fulfilled in the end times.

He taught that "the Jews" would be brought back to their homeland, and that, after they were brought back, they would be converted en masse.

And even Augustine, writing as late as the fifth century, clearly stated that this last doctine was "a familiar theme" among the Christoan commentators.