Historicism - The Reformers eschatology

[jgr]

To ANY pre-tribber, the term "the righteous" applies to all believers of all times. But "the church" does not. So, altough a pre-tribber might call any saint from any period "righteous," he would never use the term "the church" for any tribulation believer, nor would he call one of them "we," or "us." And this is EXACTLY what Irenaeus did. He changed his terms for tribulation believers from "we" or "us" to "they, "them," or "those," and he changed the term "the church" to the generic terms of "the righteous" or "saints." I have analyzed every place where he spoke of people going through the tribulation, and he applied this rule in EVRY case. He did not make even one exception to his application of this rule.

I too am unable to make sense of the foregoing.

"To ANY pre-tribber, the term "the righteous" applies to all believers of all times."
"...he changed the term "the church" to the generic terms of "the righteous" or "saints.""

That is, he changed the term "the church" to "the righteous", which means all believers of all times.

If they are all believers of all times, how do we know specifically that they are tribulation believers, and not non-tribulation believers?

 

[Biblewriter]

Several years ago there was a phone-call from Grant Jeffreys to Thomas Ice about "the Pseudo-Ephraim find". These two pre-tribbers were ecstatic to have even this one "ancient" document that seemed to speak of a PreTrib Rapture. Now in this thread I hear of MULTIPLE "Pseudo-Ephraims" and TONS of "Dispensationalists before Darby".

20 years ago I guess all the pre-Darbyite pre-tribbers were still in the woodwork, hadn't climbed out yet...

Way back when I was pretrib myself, I knew that ancient writers were preMILLENNIAL; but not pre-trib.

Manuel De Lacunza had a pre-Darby book that wasn't even close to modern-day pre-trib, he had a 45 day "trib". Edward Irving translated La Cunza's book into English -- Darby allegedly "got" his pretrib stuff from it; oh - no - wait - Darby "got" his stuff from Margaret Macdonald's VISION, that's the ticket! Thing is, Margaret Macdonald's vision is not PreTrib, it's post-trib. Sigh.

I am no longer pretrib, but things are sure fishy about ORIGINS of the doctrine, and things have changed.

We are at war with Eurasia -- we have always been at war with Eurasia.

You are correct that this information if=s relatively new, as far as the modern pre-trib movement is concerned. A few years ago, a professor of sixteenth and seventeenth century Emglish literature heard, for the first time, the claim that dispensationalism could not be correct because it was never taught before around 1830 or so. He already knew this to be incorrect, but he applied for and obtained a fellowship that allowed him two years to Go to England and rresearch this topic. The result was a 300+ page book titled "Dispensationalism before Darby," by William C. Watson, published in 2015. In this book he traced MUCH dispensational doctrine in old English literature. On page 278 of this book he listed nearly two dozen individuals that had taught a rapture before the great tribulation in the 1600s and 1700s, beginning only about forty years after the publication of the King James version of the Bible, which for the first time made the Bible available at a price common men could afford.

I had researched the same subject for a different period of history, and bumped into him online. shared my findings with him and he pressed me very hard to collect my findings into a book. The result is another book by myself, titled "Ancient Dispensational Doctrine," whose publication is currently being negotiated.

 

[Biblewriter]

That's circular reasoning, not proof. Irene us only uses 'church' a couple times over his 30+ 'books.' It's a rare synonym. He uses the righteous and saints and believerso refer to the living believers of his day many times. There is no reason to assume he thinks the 'church' is a different group than the 'righteous' in the last contest he mentions. It's 'theoretically possible' he means two different groups but not demanded by the text nor the most intuitive given the context and his other writings. One has to read that interpretation into the text.

It can't just be assumed he meant two different groups and that assumption used to then 'prove' he meant two different groups.

I did not ASSUME anything. I REPORTED what Irenaeus actually did. And I just did a quick computer search, in which I found well over a hundred places where Irenaeus used the word "church" in "Against Heresies" alone, to say nothing of the number of times he used this word in other writings.

 

[Anto9us]

So Kelly and Huebner decades ago were ignorant of what this History professor recently found out in a 2-year study; even though those guys were battling the smear campaigns of MacPherson for years, and thus were extremely motivated to prove that the 'origins' of pre-trib were not as MacPherson painted them.

I find that a bit much to believe, Biblewriter, but I guess I reserve judgement on these many forerunners of dispensationalism.

The search for "early evidence of pretrib statements" was not done in a corner -- remember the days of Bray and his offer to pay money to anyone who could come up with a pretrib statement before the days of Darby/Irving/DeLacunza ?

 

[jgr]

On page 278 of this book he listed nearly two dozen individuals that had taught a rapture before the great tribulation in the 1600s and 1700s

Names?

Here is a list of Protestant Reformers. Even if we eliminate all unlinked names and any other legitimate disqualifications, there would still be over 100 names.

Who of them believed in a pretrib rapture?

 

[Anto9us]

Some names were given in an earlier post by Biblewriter, jgr,

as far as the names that
I
threw out;
Roy Huebner and William Kelly were part of Darby's 'Brethren' group (though much later);

Dave MacPherson was a Postribber who wrote books against the PreTrib theory, and

Bray was a preterist who offered money to anyone who could come up with a pretrib statement earlier than Darby/Irving/DeLacunza

The seventies saw the pretrib "Rapture Under Attack" by MacPherson and defended by Huebner and Kelly, who, as far as I know were already across the water (England/Ireland/Scotland) and highly motivated to defend PreTrib and I find it staggering that those two there could not find what a Colorado college professor found out "just a few years ago" about myriad pre-Darby Dispensationalists

 

[jgr]

Some names were given in an earlier post by Biblewriter, jgr,

as far as the names that
I
threw out;
Roy Huebner and William Kelly were part of Darby's 'Brethren' group (though much later);

Dave MacPherson was a Postribber who wrote books against the PreTrib theory, and

Bray was a preterist who offered money to anyone who could come up with a pretrib statement earlier than Darby/Irving/DeLacunza

The seventies saw the pretrib "Rapture Under Attack" by MacPherson and defended by Huebner and Kelly, who, as far as I know were already across the water (England/Ireland/Scotland) and highly motivated to defend PreTrib and I find it staggering that those two there could not find what a Colorado college professor found out "just a few years ago" about myriad pre-Darby Dispensationalists

Thanks Anto9us.

We'll see how many Protestant Reformers believed in pretrib.

Or more likely, we won't, because none of them did.

 

[Biblewriter]

Some names were given in an earlier post by Biblewriter, jgr,

as far as the names that
I
threw out;
Roy Huebner and William Kelly were part of Darby's 'Brethren' group (though much later);

Dave MacPherson was a Postribber who wrote books against the PreTrib theory, and

Bray was a preterist who offered money to anyone who could come up with a pretrib statement earlier than Darby/Irving/DeLacunza

The seventies saw the pretrib "Rapture Under Attack" by MacPherson and defended by Huebner and Kelly, who, as far as I know were already across the water (England/Ireland/Scotland) and highly motivated to defend PreTrib and I find it staggering that those two there could not find what a Colorado college professor found out "just a few years ago" about myriad pre-Darby Dispensationalists

William Kelly wrote in the 1860s. Roy Hubner wrote well before any of the modern research was done.

 

[Biblewriter]

The question of how many did not believe this is wholly immaterial. I was w
answering the false claim that no one taught it before Darby. And I have PROVED this is simply not true.

You need to realize that many large libraries have now been digitized, so it is now, for the first time, possible to very quickly search entire libraries in minutes, as opposed to the literal years such a search required in the past.

 

[jgr]

The question of how many did not believe this is wholly immaterial. I was w
answering the false claim that no one taught it before Darby. And I have PROVED this is simply not true.

You need to realize that many large libraries have now been digitized, so it is now, for the first time, possible to very quickly search entire libraries in minutes, as opposed to the literal years such a search required in the past.

Not at all immaterial if far more did not believe it, than did.

I can save you the search time and trouble, because I can virtually guarantee that you would not find a single Reformer who believed it. The reason is, of course, simple -- every Reformer recognized that he (and she) was suffering tribulation under the antichrist of the apostate papacy. There had been no pretrib rapture to deliver them.

Nor did the recognizable historical scholars and defenders of the faith outside of the Reformation, e.g. the Wesleys, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, George Mueller, Charles Spurgeon, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry; espouse the doctrine.

Before the 19th century, the pretrib rapture qualifies as nothing more than a fringe doctrine.

 

[sdowney717]

http://www.jamesjpn.net/religion/true-meaning-word-antichrist/

Pope is antichrist, I agree with the historical view, I also agree with the futurist view of an antichrist still to be revealed.
We have had many antichrists all through history. And will have false christs right till the genuine Christ returns.
And they are gathered to the battle of armageddon, which is still future, and who is doing the deceiving at that future time which is the battle of the great DAY of God Almighty?
Only a severe distorting-twisting of scripture would deny this is still in the future. And Christ says here in v15, He is still yet to come as a thief.

Revelation 16:13-15 New King James Version (NKJV)
13 And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs coming out of the mouth of the dragon, out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.

14 For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.

15 “Behold, I am coming as a thief. Blessed is he who watches, and keeps his garments, lest he walk naked and they see his shame.”

 

[Biblewriter]

Not at all immaterial if far more did not believe it, than did.

I can save you the search time and trouble, because I can virtually guarantee that you would not find a single Reformer who believed it. The reason is, of course, simple -- every Reformer recognized that he (and she) was suffering tribulation under the antichrist of the apostate papacy. There had been no pretrib rapture to deliver them.

Nor did the recognizable historical scholars and defenders of the faith outside of the Reformation, e.g. the Wesleys, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, George Mueller, Charles Spurgeon, Adam Clarke, Matthew Henry; espouse the doctrine.

Before the 19th century, the pretrib rapture qualifies as nothing more than a fringe doctrine.

If you want to call it a fringe doctrine, I will not argue with you. For I am aware that, even now, it is a minority doctrine. But your claim, like that of many others, was not that it was a fringe doctrine, but that it was never taught before the time of Darby. This has now been wholly disproved.

And it was not just taught by a few, but, both in ancient times and in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, it was taught by a significant fraction of the total number of writers who addressed the subject.

And as a side note, futurism was indeed taught by some of the reformers, as is also clearly demonstrated in William Watson's book.

 

[Anto9us]

So eventually in time I may have the funds to get Watson's book -- and yours too Biblewriter -- for now I just pray that your head injuries are under control.

This whole thread is too Catholic-bashy for me, I have recently been reading through the earlier posts.

 

[Biblewriter]

So eventually in time I may have the funds to get Watson's book -- and yours too Biblewriter -- for now I just pray that your head injuries are under control.

This whole thread is too Catholic-bashy for me, I have recently been reading through the earlier posts.

While I completely reject Catholicism, I also do not care for Catholic bashing. But the central error here is not the bashing of Catholics, but the denial of the overwhelming majority of Bible prophecy, which is a full third of everything God has said to us.

 

[Anto9us]

A THIRD might be a tad high, I dunno, but there is definitely a lot of prophecy not addressed.

I can see myself going back to work in the future, regular Social Security will not be enough once my son gets married in January and I no longer split rent; maybe I can obtain prophecy books again, including the two textbooks I never finished by that Amill professor, they are still in print.

Catholicism is simply another denomination to me, my son has been Greek Orthodox for two years, and I like the Orthodox Study Bible.

In the past, Reformers thought Pope was AntiChrist.

Also in the past, The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, thought slavery was okay.

Sometimes we move on.

 

[Biblewriter]

A THIRD might be a tad high, I dunno, but there is definitely a lot of prophecy not addressed.

I can see myself going back to work in the future, regular Social Security will not be enough once my son gets married in January and I no longer split rent; maybe I can obtain prophecy books again, including the two textbooks I never finished by that Amill professor, they are still in print.

Catholicism is simply another denomination to me, my son has been Greek Orthodox for two years, and I like the Orthodox Study Bible.

In the past, Reformers thought Pope was AntiChrist.

Also in the past, The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, thought slavery was okay.

Sometimes we move on.

You can get most of this material online, free.

 

[Anto9us]

Free is good -- I read stuff online all day anyhow -- at some point in the night I leave the computer and read Bible/other books late

 

[jgr]

And as a side note, futurism was indeed taught by some of the reformers, as is also clearly demonstrated in William Watson's book.

Opinion. Names? Citations?

Were they in the list of Reformers to which I linked?

Their futurism would not have included a pretrib rapture or a futurized antichrist.

They would otherwise be doctrinally disqualified as Reformers.

 

[Anto9us]

That was one huge list of Reformers.

I never thought of Anne Boleyn as a Reformer - but I guess that makes sense.

 

[Biblewriter]

Free is good -- I read stuff online all day anyhow -- at some point in the night I leave the computer and read Bible/other books late

If we leave out the Bible, everything else is waste.