The "Rapture Hoax" Theory

[Job8]

Now how should dispensationalists respond to this?

1. It is time to reject all propaganda and deal with Bible truth. In other words, all accusations of a hoax are pure propaganda by those whose cherished beliefs are threatened by the truth.

2.Those who slander genuine Christians are sinning, and joining hands with the accuser of the brethren. Even if none of the *personalities* had ever existed, the Bible is sufficient in and of itself.

3. There is absolutely no connection between the Tribulation (including the Great Tribulation) and the Rapture. Revelation 7:14 does not necessarily mean that the Church experienced the Great Tribulation. *Came out of* can simply mean *escaped*. Why? Because neither the Tribulation nor the Great Tribulation were designed for those who are children of God and heirs of salvation.

 

[BABerean2]

1. It is time to reject all propaganda and deal with Bible truth. In other words, all accusations of a hoax are pure propaganda by those whose cherished beliefs are threatened by the truth.

2.Those who slander genuine Christians are sinning, and joining hands with the accuser of the brethren. Even if none of the *personalities* had ever existed, the Bible is sufficient in and of itself.

3. There is absolutely no connection between the Tribulation (including the Great Tribulation) and the Rapture. Revelation 7:14 does not necessarily mean that the Church experienced the Great Tribulation. *Came out of* can simply mean *escaped*. Why? Because neither the Tribulation nor the Great Tribulation were designed for those who are children of God and heirs of salvation.

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

A person cannot be under the Blood of the Lamb and not be under the Grace of Christ.

.

 

[ac28]

I agree. There is no such thing as a "Rapture Hoax." I believe tha those who believe in a pre trib rapture (the majority) are sincere in their beliefs and the same with those that believe in a post-trib rapture. I do believe that, since most Christians (including myself) are very interested in knowing, "what will happen to me", there is probably a greater attraction to a pre trib rapture. After all, nobody wants to go through the trib.

I have never studied this as intently as I should have since, for the last 30 years, I have been absolutely positive, according to scripture, that the rapture in Paul's Acts epistle has nothing to do with me, or anyone else during the last 1900+ years. My "rapture" is at the moment of Christ's first appearing in glory, as is only found in Paul's post-Acts epistles.

At present, I can see no scriptural evidence for a pre-trib rapture of the Acts saints. I must admit that I don't even know exactly what scriptures and reasoning people use to support it. I would appreciate it if someone could clue me in. On the other hand, we all know that it occurs at the last trump which, to me, can only mean one thing, the 7th trumpet of Revelation.

However, I promise that I am not trying to perpetrate a Rapture Hoax.

 

[Job8]

Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

A person cannot be under the Blood of the Lamb and not be under the Grace of Christ.

I could not agree more. But what does this have to do with the matter at hand, since Dispensationalists also believe in the power of the blood of the Lamb?

 

[BABerean2]

I could not agree more. But what does this have to do with the matter at hand, since Dispensationalists also believe in the power of the blood of the Lamb?

Most Dispensationalists that I know claim the Age of Grace ends with the removal of the Church at Revelation chapter 4.

.

 

[Job8]

Most Dispensationalists that I know claim the Age of Grace ends with the removal of the Church at Revelation chapter 4.

That should be revised to the Church Age, since grace will be extended to the Tribulation saints, and even more grace will be extended to Jews worldwide at the Second Coming of Christ. Christ will cause them to be gathered from the four corners of the earth and brought to Israel, where they will mourn, repent, and be converted by God's grace. Grace will further extend into the Millennium and beyond.

 

[BABerean2]

That should be revised to the Church Age, since grace will be extended to the Tribulation saints, and even more grace will be extended to Jews worldwide at the Second Coming of Christ. Christ will cause them to be gathered from the four corners of the earth and brought to Israel, where they will mourn, repent, and be converted by God's grace. Grace will further extend into the Millennium and beyond.

The Age of Grace cannot be separated from the Church Age.


Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.


Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
.

 

[Biblewriter]

Although Grant Jeffery was the person that made the modern per-tribulation movement aware of the Pseudo-Ephraem article, he most certainly did not "come up with it." Grant Jeffery not only brought our attention to this article, but also explicitly cited its source. And that source is what I have quoted in this forum, and not only quoted, but analyzed in detail to conclusively prove that it indeed taught a pre-tribulation rapture. And the "older Syriac version" that you are speaking of is an entirely different article, obviously written by an entirely different person. Both of these facts have been repeatedly pointed out to you. So there is no excuse for your continued posting of this disinformation.

 

[BABerean2]

Although Grant Jeffery was the person that made the modern per-tribulation movement aware of the Pseudo-Ephraem article, he most certainly did not "come up with it." Grant Jeffery not only brought our attention to this article, but also explicitly cited its source. And that source is what I have quoted in this forum, and not only quoted, but analyzed in detail to conclusively prove that it indeed taught a pre-tribulation rapture. And the "older Syriac version" that you are speaking of is an entirely different article, obviously written by an entirely different person. Both of these facts have been repeatedly pointed out to you. So there is no excuse for your continued posting of this disinformation.

Then let us ask another source...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Pseudo-Ephraem

The article above confirms what I have said about there being two different sources the Syriac and the Latin and the fact that nobody knows who Pseudo-Epraem was, since the very name means "False Ephraem".

Anyone promoting "False Ephraem" as a proof of an early teaching of a Pretrib Rapture, should be bound by the historical record to show all aspects of the dispute and yet you call it "disinformation".

It looks like the Wikipedia article is posting the same "disinformation".

When this claim first came out a number of years ago, I contacted Dr. John C. Reeves at UNCC, who specializes in religious texts. He did not want to get involved in the rapture timing aspect, but provided the information on the two different sources.

Grant Jeffrey in his normal playing loose with the facts, failed to bring all of the facts of this "disinformation" into the discussion. He was an master at promoting the Pretrib view, even stooping so low as to change the writings of some of the Early Church Fathers if necessary to make his view work.

Pretribulationist Revisionism
(Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints)
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf

.

 

[Biblewriter]

You are simply refusing to admit what is obvious on even a superficial examination, that the two articles, both of which are attributed to "Pseudo-Ephraem," are completely different articles by two entirely different writers.

And you are simply ignoring the UNQUESTIONABLE fact that one of these two articles very clearly taught a pre-tribulation rapture. And that this one article is UNQUESTIONABLY of great antiquity.

And you are forgetting that the name, "false Ephraem," simply means a writer who is falsely claimed to have been Ephraem. The very fact that the claim as to the article's authorship is manifestly false, suggests the OBVIOUS fact that such a false claim could just as easily have been made concerning two different articles, as it could have been made to an article that was modified after its initial writing.

So, in conclusion, EVERY detail of your argument is totally lacking in merit. The UNQUESTIONABLE fact is, that at some time in great antiquity, SOMEONE wrote an article that CLEARLY taught a pre-tribulation rapture. And all your multiplication of meaningless words cannot eliminate this UNQUESTIONABLE fact, which ABSOLUTELY PROVES that the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation DID NOT originate with Margaret MacDonald, or with Edward Irving, or even with Manuel Lacunza.

 

[BABerean2]

You are simply refusing to admit what is obvious on even a superficial examination, that the two articles, both of which are attributed to "Pseudo-Ephraem," are completely different articles by two entirely different writers.

And you are simply ignoring the UNQUESTIONABLE fact that one of these two articles very clearly taught a pre-tribulation rapture. And that this one article is UNQUESTIONABLY of great antiquity.

And you are forgetting that the name, "false Ephraem," simply means a writer who is falsely claimed to have been Ephraem. The very fact that the claim as to the article's authorship is manifestly false, suggests the OBVIOUS fact that such a false claim could just as easily have been made concerning two different articles, as it could have been made to an article that was modified after its initial writing.

So, in conclusion, EVERY detail of your argument is totally lacking in merit. The UNQUESTIONABLE fact is, that at some time in great antiquity, SOMEONE wrote an article that CLEARLY taught a pre-tribulation rapture. And all your multiplication of meaningless words cannot eliminate this UNQUESTIONABLE fact, which ABSOLUTELY PROVES that the doctrine of a rapture before the great tribulation DID NOT originate with Margaret MacDonald, or with Edward Irving, or even with Manuel Lacunza.

Let us assume you are correct and some unknown person named False-Ephraem did write about a Pretrib rapture.


There was also a guy who claimed to have found some gold plates buried in the ground after having a conversation with an angel named Meroni. I do not believe it as the truth.


There was also a group of Sabbath keepers who believed Jesus would return on October 22, 1844.
Jesus did not return on that day.


There have been all sorts of perversion of scripture by those known and unknown down through the ages.


There may have been some who were totally insane and believed in a Pretrib rapture, but their writings have been lost.

The opposite is also possible. Maybe an excellent Bible scholar had the same idea, but their writings were lost.

We do know Morgan Edwards wrote a paper on the idea while in seminary, but never promoted the doctrine as the truth.


However, there is no clear link between John Darby and an unknown person known as False-Ephraem or a link to Morgan Edward's paper written in seminary.


But there is a link between the "Secret Rapture" of the Irvingites and John Darby, based on the quote from Dr. Charles C. Ryrie in his book "Dispensationalism", and Brethren Historian F.R. Coad, and Samuel Tregelles, and Benjamin Newton and George Mueller...


On page 170 of the 2007 edition of his book “Dispensationalism”, Dr. Charles C. Ryrie connects John Nelson Darby to Irving and the Albury Conference.

“It was not until several years after leaving the Church of England that Darby became interested in prophecy. His interest was piqued through conferences at Albury, out of which the Irvingian movement grew.”

.

The real urgency is to find some obscure unknown person who believed in a Pretrib rapture before the Irvingites.

Modern Dispensationalists must disavow any connection between their doctrine and the Irvingites, no matter what Ryrie or the historical writings reveal.

This is the real source of the condemnation...

.

 

[ac28]

There was a man who believed there were 2 main Covenants, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Unfortunately, he found that neither of these covenants exist in the Word of God.

 

[Biblewriter]

You simply WILL NOT let go of your imagined link between John Darby and the Irvingites. There are two problems with this "link." The first is that, regardless of who you can come up with that has made allegations about this link, and in spite of the fact that many have devoted years to the effort, there is STILL no proof WHATSOEVER,that Darby even knew about the alleged Irvingite vision.

But there is clear evidence of three things. The first of these is that Darby absolutely despised the Irvingites, and everything they stood for. The second of these is that Darby highly regarded William Lowth, who taught the future revival of Israel before Lacunza was even born. And the third is that William Lay, who was also a participant in the Albury conferences that both Darby and Irving attended, was already teaching a fully developed Dispensationalism before that series of conferences began, and before either Darby or Irving wrote anything about prophecy.

But these FACTS do not interest you, because they are not helpful in your campaign of defamation against Darby and Dispensationalism, which campaign you persist in, totally disregarding the forum rules against flaming individuals or doctrines.

You pretend that Grant Jeffery was dishinest in not having discussed the "alternate" pseudo-Ephraem document, which is totally irrevelant to the case. But you gloss over and attempt to avoid these facts, which have already been proved to you, and which are exceedingly revalent to the case. Your own accusations of dishonesty in regard to Grant Jeffery convict you, for while his omissions were not significant to the case, your omissions are extremely significant to the case.

 

[BABerean2]

You simply WILL NOT let go of your imagined link between John Darby and the Irvingites. There are two problems with this "link." The first is that, regardless of who you can come up with that has made allegations about this link, and in spite of the fact that many have devoted years to the effort, there is STILL no proof WHATSOEVER,that Darby even knew about the alleged Irvingite vision.

But there is clear evidence of three things. The first of these is that Darby absolutely despised the Irvingites, and everything they stood for. The second of these is that Darby highly regarded William Lowth, who taught the future revival of Israel before Lacunza was even born. And the third is that William Lay, who was also a participant in the Albury conferences that both Darby and Irving attended, was already teaching a fully developed Dispensationalism before that series of conferences began, and before either Darby or Irving wrote anything about prophecy.

But these FACTS do not interest you, because they are not helpful in your campaign of defamation against Darby and Dispensationalism, which campaign you persist in, totally disregarding the forum rules against flaming individuals or doctrines.

You pretend that Grant Jeffery was dishinest in not having discussed the "alternate" pseudo-Ephraem document, which is totally irrevelant to the case. But you gloss over and attempt to avoid these facts, which have already been proved to you, and which are exceedingly revalent to the case. Your own accusations of dishonesty in regard to Grant Jeffery convict you, for while his omissions were not significant to the case, your omissions are extremely significant to the case.

Let us hear from former Dispensationalist Jerry Johnson on the subject, since you insist I am the one who is twisting the facts.

Darby almost married Lady Powerscourt.

Both Irving and Darby attended the Powerscourt conferences and yet you claim Darby knew nothing about the Irvingite "Secret Rapture".

After Irving got himself into trouble on his views of Christ, many people would have nothing to do with him.
Some believe this led to his death in 1834.

Darby was not the only one who wanted to distance himself from Irving.

.

 

[ac28]

Good grief! More totally insignificant garbage from BAB2 concerning some clown that didn't have enough intelligence to remain a dispensationalist.

 

[Biblewriter]

Adding more quotes from people who believe a lie does not make it true.

I did NOT claim that Darby knew nothing about the Irvingite rapture doctrine. What I said, which is unquestionably true, is that it has never been proved that Darby even knew about it.

 

[BABerean2]

Adding more quotes from people who believe a lie does not make it true.

I did NOT claim that Darby knew nothing about the Irvingite rapture doctrine. What I said, which is unquestionably true, is that it has never been proved that Darby even knew about it.

It is now common knowledge, based on the historical writings of those who witnessed the events of that time.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Irving


Lewis Way believed the Jews would return to their homeland, but would embrace Christianity.
He made it his mission to share the Gospel with them.


He never claimed they would come to salvation outside of the Church, based on what I have seen.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14801-way-lewis


.

 

[Biblewriter]

Have you actually read what Lewis Way wrote, or only read ABOUT what he wrote?

And your oft-repeated expression "outside of the Church" is deceptive, and I cannot see it as anything other than willfully and intentionally so. You are well aware of the fact that no one respected by Dispensationalists in general, says that anyone will ever come to salvation outside of a living, active, faith in Christ.

You are magnifying a point of Dispensational doctrine, that "the church" and Israel are two distinct groups, both of which are recognized by God. You are trying to make it seem that by this we mean that people will be saved without a faith in Christ. Yet you know perfectly well that we teach no such thing. I cannot see this as anything other than a willful and intentional attempt to deceive, because you are attempting to convince others that we teach a doctrine they you know we do not teach.

 

[BABerean2]

Have you actually read what Lewis Way wrote, or only read ABOUT what he wrote?

And your oft-repeated expression "outside of the Church" is deceptive, and I cannot see it as anything other than willfully and intentionally so. You are well aware of the fact that no one respected by Dispensationalists in general, says that anyone will ever come to salvation outside of a living, active, faith in Christ.

You are magnifying a point of Dispensational doctrine, that "the church" and Israel are two distinct groups, both of which are recognized by God. You are trying to make it seem that by this we mean that people will be saved without a faith in Christ. Yet you know perfectly well that we teach no such thing. I cannot see this as anything other than a willful and intentional attempt to deceive, because you are attempting to convince others that we teach a doctrine they you know we do not teach.

If Lewis Way believed modern Jews would come to faith in Christ through the Church, then his understanding of the word "dispensation" would be the same as mine.

The greatest error of modern Dispensational Theology is the claim that modern Israelites will come to faith outside of the Church, which is found in Matthew chapter 16.

I will leave it to you to pronounce "willful intentions to deceive" in your condemnation of me, because I have spoken the truth on this part of your doctrine.

Branches broken off of the Olive Tree will wither and die unless they are grafted back into the Olive Tree.

Lewis Way and I are in agreement.
Your claim that he was a promoter of your doctrine could be compared to what you have accused me of...

.

 

[ac28]

I've never understood how the history of dispensationalism has anything to do with its validity. To me, if some totally valid dispensational truth were discovered today, it would be just as truthful as one discovered 200 years ago. History is interesting but it sure doesn't count for much as far as truth is concerned.