Pre trib rapture is fake

[enoob57]

}snip{

The Margaret MacDonald Origin

One of the most widely circulated attacks against the pre-trib rapture is the notion that a girl named Margaret MacDonald started this theological view back in 1830. The claim is typically made that MacDonald received a demonic vision, passed it on to John Darby, who in turn popularized it. Disproving this assertion proves rather easy. Pre-trib scholars have discovered a host of rapture writings that predate Margaret MacDonald.

Epharaem the Syrian said, in 373 AD, "For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

One post-trib author offered a reward to anyone who could find a quote that predated MacDonald. He had to quickly cough up the money when someone identified a scholar who wrote about the pre-trib rapture several years before MacDonald. As of late, dozens of examples have been found, and the literary surface has hardly been scratched.

With the revealing of all these pre-MacDonald writings, you would think that this argument has been debunked. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We seem to be involved in a tug-of-war with the truth. Apparently, due to their lack of research, pre-trib opponents continue to pump out publications that cite MacDonald as the originator of the pre-trib rapture.

}snip{

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-pre-trib-rapture.html

[Ezra]

58 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

 Apparently, due to their lack of research, pre-trib opponents continue to pump out publications that cite MacDonald as the originator of the pre-trib rapture.

Enoob57,

This reference to MacDonald is part of anti-Dispensational and anti-Pre-Trib Rapture propaganda.  And it is propaganda, since these are ad hominem attacks.  Attacks on Darby, Scofield, Walvoord, Ryrie and others who hold to this view are generally included. What is incomprehensible is the vitriol of these attacks.  Perhaps that reflects the fact that truth is generally more hated than fiction.

[WilliamL]

27 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Enoob57,

This reference to MacDonald is part of anti-Dispensational and anti-Pre-Trib Rapture propaganda.  And it is propaganda, since these are ad hominem attacks.  Attacks on Darby, Scofield, Walvoord, Ryrie and others who hold to this view are generally included. What is incomprehensible is the vitriol of these attacks.  Perhaps that reflects the fact that truth is generally more hated than fiction.

That more likely reflects the fact that Satan stirs up contention using whatever means he can find. Vitriol is certainly not limited to those opposed to pre-trib, there has been plenty from out of that side also. All part of Satan's overall scheme to discourage some and to enrage others, to the detriment of the Church providing reasoned debate about the End Time scriptures.

[Last Daze]

2 hours ago, Ezra said:

Enoob57,

This reference to MacDonald is part of anti-Dispensational and anti-Pre-Trib Rapture propaganda.  And it is propaganda, since these are ad hominem attacks.  Attacks on Darby, Scofield, Walvoord, Ryrie and others who hold to this view are generally included. What is incomprehensible is the vitriol of these attacks.  Perhaps that reflects the fact that truth is generally more hated than fiction.

No need to stoke the emotions.  Here is a plainly stated truth:

• But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.  Matthew 24:13

A word to the wise is sufficient.

[Omegaman 3.0]

On 3/20/2016 at 9:14 AM, MorningGlory said:

I didn't say those who think differently have an inferior understanding.  Y'all have a different one  I consider my own to be correct and let everyone else believe as they will.  I notice many here saying that PreTribbers have a flawed understanding of Scripture.  Isn't that calling OUR understanding inferior?

Well, second part first. When a person says a Pre-tribber has a flawed understanding, then yes, that they are saying your understanding is inferior (unless they admit that their own understanding is also flawed).

However, you are with missing my point (possibly I do not communicate well) or you are sidestepping what  my point is.

What you said was, that I objected to was:

"The Pretrib Rapture is correct, to anyone who can see the truth in Scripture."

That is not just saying that a position is superior or inferior. That would be a comment on a position, which could be supported or refuted with further discussion. It is not your opinion of the position that disturbs me, but your declaration or implication that those who disagree with the position you have chosen are those who cannot see the truth of scripture. There, it has become not a superiority/inferiority of positions, it has moved to persons, a division between those who can see the truth of scripture - pre-tribbers (people) and those who cannot see the truth of scripture (people who disagree with pre-tribbers.

My point is that pre-tribbers do not have a monopoly on seeing the truth in scripture, and I mention this because rather that apologize to those you maligned, rather that really take back what you said, you have seemingly tried to make it look as though you said something different and have also attempted to shift the focus on those who challenged positions as if that is the same as saying that certain individuals belonging to the group of 'everyone' who is not a pre-tribber, do not see the truth of scripture. That strikes me as almost unbelievably arrogant, and I wonder, if you realize what a large group of people you are saying that of, particularly in the first 1900 years of the church, where only a handful of pre-tribbers can be identified as specifically pre-trib. 

[MorningGlory]

5 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Well, second part first. When a person says a Pre-tribber has a flawed understanding, then yes, that they are saying your understanding is inferior (unless they admit that their own understanding is also flawed).

However, you are with missing my point (possibly I do not communicate well) or you are sidestepping what  my point is.

What you said was, that I objected to was:

"The Pretrib Rapture is correct, to anyone who can see the truth in Scripture."

That is not just saying that a position is superior or inferior. That would be a comment on a position, which could be supported or refuted with further discussion. It is not your opinion of the position that disturbs me, but your declaration or implication that those who disagree with the position you have chosen are those who cannot see the truth of scripture. There, it has become not a superiority/inferiority of positions, it has moved to persons, a division between those who can see the truth of scripture - pre-tribbers (people) and those who cannot see the truth of scripture (people who disagree with pre-tribbers.

My point is that pre-tribbers do not have a monopoly on seeing the truth in scripture, and I mention this because rather that apologize to those you maligned, rather that really take back what you said, you have seemingly tried to make it look as though you said something different and have also attempted to shift the focus on those who challenged positions as if that is the same as saying that certain individuals belonging to the group of 'everyone' who is not a pre-tribber, do not see the truth of scripture. That strikes me as almost unbelievably arrogant, and I wonder, if you realize what a large group of people you are saying that of, particularly in the first 1900 years of the church, where only a handful of pre-tribbers can be identified as specifically pre-trib. 

Well, I'm stumped as to why that line was even important.  We all have our opinions and I never try to pressure anyone to accept mine.  On that note, I will tell you I don't back away from what I say or try to wiggle around it.  That's not how I roll.  Now if anyone is so terribly offended and upset by what I wrote all I can say is I've no clue why anyone would be but I regret if I made anyone feel bad.  We PreTribs get lots of insults; I usually don't even slow down when I'm reading them.  We can ALL be a little more civil, especially when it comes to the Rapture.  It seems we've been arguing this for centuries.

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 minute ago, MorningGlory said:

Well, I'm stumped as to why that line was even important.  We all have our opinions and I never try to pressure anyone to accept mine.  On that note, I will tell you I don't back away from what I say or try to wiggle around it.  That's not how I roll.  Now if anyone is so terribly offended and upset by what I wrote all I can say is I've no clue why anyone would be but I regret if I made anyone feel bad.  We PreTribs get lots of insults; I usually don't even slow down when I'm reading them.  We can ALL be a little more civil, especially when it comes to the Rapture.  It seems we've been arguing this for centuries.

Only because it is personal, not topical, even if unintentional. I am sorry to hear though, that you do not back away, sounds like a person who is never wrong, which, I find difficult to believe. I doubt anyone is THAT offended, my only point on this is that it is not correct to be assuming that people who disagree with you, cannot see the truth of scripture.

You pre-tribbers get insults? Pffft. No more that other positions. However, compared to 10 years ago, you do get more heat these days. Post-tribbers finally got enough courage to come out of the closet, I think they no longer feel that everyone thinks they a automatically heretics, unlike years back when even some admins called posties heretics. Pre-tribbers do not get any special victim cards to play.

I agree, more civility is needed, on several topics, and eschatology is frequently one of them. I lot of the problem is, that people come in, and launch into the topic, to show us how smart they are, or to just comment on a topic they are passionate about, not realizing that everything they are going to say, has already been said here ten times over. It spurs activity, and that get a thread noticed and the cycle repeats. We have been had different positions in the church for centuries, but it was never a huge topic for most of church history.

Of course, there was a long period where eschatology was mostly ignored theological discussion. Then we got the movement started by Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, etc. That piques come interest, but not a lot of hubbub.

Later, Darby's eschatology was incorporated into the  Scofield Reference Bible, which  was a standard in seminaries. That led to the pulpits of America, being filled with pre-tribbers, but it still was not a huge debate. Then came 1948, and the rebirth of the nation if Israel. THAT got peoples attention, and suddenly, people were becoming very interested in eschatology.

The rise of certain movements, like the Calvary Chapel denomination and it's later popular radio ministries really got things moving. Pre-tribism was then certainly in it's heyday. Their teaching and similar teachings of others, continued to increase interest in the topic, and that was so much the case, that when Hal Lindsey wrote "The Late, Great, Planet Earth", it was even a best seller among secular readers, who found the marrying of current events to Bible prophecy fascinating.

Of course all of this interest, also lead people to study and search the scriptures on  these things, and that has led people to discover, that the pre-trib rapture doctrine, is not as scripturally supported, as it had been sold. Eventually, other positions also gained popularity and respectability, and that is what you are seeing in some of these debated threads.

At least, that is my short version of the history of eschatological thought in America. You may or may not know this, but in a lot of countries, that were not developing their theology under the influence of the west, there reaction is often "pre-trib what, huh?" Not that they are necessarily posties, but they never discovered a pre-trib rapture.

[coheir]

On 3/24/2016 at 8:45 AM, enoob57 said:

}snip{

The Margaret MacDonald Origin

One of the most widely circulated attacks against the pre-trib rapture is the notion that a girl named Margaret MacDonald started this theological view back in 1830. The claim is typically made that MacDonald received a demonic vision, passed it on to John Darby, who in turn popularized it. Disproving this assertion proves rather easy. Pre-trib scholars have discovered a host of rapture writings that predate Margaret MacDonald.

Epharaem the Syrian said, in 373 AD, "For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

One post-trib author offered a reward to anyone who could find a quote that predated MacDonald. He had to quickly cough up the money when someone identified a scholar who wrote about the pre-trib rapture several years before MacDonald. As of late, dozens of examples have been found, and the literary surface has hardly been scratched.

With the revealing of all these pre-MacDonald writings, you would think that this argument has been debunked. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We seem to be involved in a tug-of-war with the truth. Apparently, due to their lack of research, pre-trib opponents continue to pump out publications that cite MacDonald as the originator of the pre-trib rapture.

}snip{

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-pre-trib-rapture.html

Thanks it a great web page.

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, coheir said:

On 3/24/2016 at 6:45 AM, enoob57 said:

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-pre-trib-rapture.html

Thanks it a great web page.

Speaking of eschatological propaganda, "rapture ready" is the epitome, However, there is truth that Margaret Macdonald, should not get the credit or the blame for the pre-trib rapture theory.  However, back before Dave MacPherson, published Margaret Macdonald's 'vision', pretrib rapture gurus claimed that Margaret Macdonald was fiction. While a connection can be drawn between Macdonald and Irving and Darby, it is difficult to say with any certainty, that she had any influence on their views. Personally, I wish post-tribbers would drop MM out of the story, as it lacks any real credibility.

I have read her vision, and I fail to see a pre-trib rapture in it. In fact, at one point she says:

"Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived. - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will be shaken to the very centre."

and in another place she says:

"The trial of the Church is from Antichrist."

That does not sound much like pre-trib doctrine to me.

If anyone wants to read it, they can do so, but I do not know what profit there is to be had from the vision of a little girl, no matter what position one takes. The scripture is the authority, and really the history of how the various doctrinal opinions came to be, while interesting, is not really relevant

[enoob57]

5 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Speaking of eschatological propaganda, "rapture ready" is the epitome, However, there is truth that Margaret Macdonald, should not get the credit or the blame for the pre-trib rapture theory.  However, back before Dave MacPherson, published Margaret Macdonald's 'vision', pretrib rapture gurus claimed that Margaret Macdonald was fiction. While a connection can be drawn between Macdonald and Irving and Darby, it is difficult to say with any certainty, that she had any influence on their views. Personally, I wish post-tribbers would drop MM out of the story, as it lacks any real credibility.

I have read her vision, and I fail to see a pre-trib rapture in it. In fact, at one point she says:

"Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived. - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will be shaken to the very centre."

and in another place she says:

"The trial of the Church is from Antichrist."

That does not sound much like pre-trib doctrine to me.

If anyone wants to read it, they can do so, but I do not know what profit there is to be had from the vision of a little girl, no matter what position one takes. The scripture is the authority, and really the history of how the various doctrinal opinions came to be, while interesting, is not really relevant

I think the biggest problem your having is not rightly dividing the Scripture - present day persecution is from the wicked
but tribulation is from God upon the wicked and it shall be a time like no other! Ever!... above statements are truths of today.