A
disastrous worldwide tribulation of seven years is coming; the Bible says so,
particularly in Matthew 24, Daniel 9, and in Revelation. (Preterist followers
take note: The happenings predicted in those and other chapters did not already
occur by AD 70.) The tribulation may be in the distant future—or it may be
soon. You may not be in it--or you may. So we need to prepare, just in case. It
would be nice if we could figure out what will happen when. There is, after all, a Second Coming of Jesus
as Judge of each of us spoken in the Bible chapters above, as well as elsewhere.
Will it be heaven or hell for you? Matthew 7:13-14 say the majority will end up
in hell. We all deserve hell, either ignoring God or in rebellion against God
by repeating sin, and not feeling like stopping—or not able to stop. Scripture
elsewhere will tell you how to avoid hell. We must learn to really study
Scripture and find out His requirements to gain heaven.
Unfortunately, the chapters above also say that
those that are His disciples will suffer persecution in the last half of the tribulation.
Many will become martyrs.
Could Christians be raptured before those terrible
events, called the pre-tribulation rapture theory, or do they have
to suffer through it, and only get raptured toward the end of it (the
post-tribulation theory)?
The two opposite theories have been under hot debate for over a
century. I would like to share this thought,
which may shake you of your fondness for thinking you’ll escape all the trouble
of the tribulation and don’t want to read anything else. The pre-tribulation rapture theory of that
seven years has a severe weakness: it requires a “two stage” Second Coming by the Lord; the first, in “secret,” to
rapture Christians for heaven before
the tribulation; then, 7 years later, after the tribulation, the second “stage”
of His return would basically be His coming in Judgment. But this really makes
the Second Coming into the Second and Third Coming. That’s how the pre-trib would
actually be. You simply can’t make the “secret coming” a secret event. But
Scripture talks only of a one-event Second Coming. Having this gigantic
doctrinal problem, “pre-trib” should have been a dead theory on arrival. But
such has not been the case. It is
popular—but only, I suspect, because (1) People don’t read their Bible with
some detail; or (2) People want the future to be rosy, not like ending up as a
martyr or, as Jesus also said, carrying a cross for Him (Luke 9:23).
Consider the earliest church fathers, like
Polycarp and Irenaeus--those who were close to the Lord’s apostles, who knew
Greek and who, as their own writings show, knew their Bible like nobody’s
business. (We’re talking from 50 AD to 200 AD, so we’re not talking Catholics.)
Most of those early scholars believed His Second Coming would be one event, at the end of tribulation, to rescue His saints from God’s wrath, which happens
in Revelation 8 and 9. (The tribulation and God’s wrath are not the same thing,
Scriptures show.) So they believed in a post-tribulation
rapture. That adds to the credibility of the “post” view, due to the advantages
these church fathers had over us. Christians would, under that theory, have to
suffer through almost all of the 7-year tribulation. Then Christ would come to save Christians
from the worst disaster, called God’s wrath. God’s wrath, once Christians
are removed, would then be poured out.
Thus, the post-tribulation view held the sway among
those who believed that there would actually be such a future event. It was the most widely taught for almost 1800
years. (In fairness, there are large Christian groups that have taught that
there are NO future rapture events laid out in the Book of
Revelation—maintaining that those Scriptures are just “spiritualizing.”)
Scripture
teaches the post-tribulation view. II
Thessalonians 2:1, 3, and 4 says:
Now,
brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our
gathering together to Him, we ask you…3 Let no one deceive you
by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away
comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of
perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts
himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he
sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
The “man of sin,” as Scripture elsewhere confirms,
is the Antichrist-- unfortunately the main character in the worldwide
tribulation. Particularly note vv. 3-4,
where it says the Antichrist will be revealed when he “sits as God in
the temple of God.” That particular detail happens in the middle of the
tribulation, according to Daniel 9:27:
He will confirm a
covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the
‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the
temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end
that is decreed is poured out on him. ”
What is the
‘covenant?’ The Antichrist (most likely the person spoken here) makes a
covenant, most likely with the Jews, probably an effort of peace to stop a
Mideast war. As Scripture shows, he “revealed” who he really was. By demanding that
he be worshipped. He knew that the Jews and the Christians would never do that,
so he would have to declare war on them. That happens after one-half of the
tribulation has passed. You may also question, what is ‘seven?’ Since in
diplomacy, you don’t have something as serious as a covenant for seven weeks,
or seven months, it has to be for years—seven years—the time of the
tribulation. Halfway through he “sits as God in the Temple” by sitting in the
holy of holies place in the Jewish new Temple, and he discontinues the sacrifices
and offerings to God—because he wants to be worshipped as God. This is
desolation to the eyes of God, and what he does will be an abomination. Perhaps
setting up an image of himself would qualify as an abomination. His sitting in
the holy of holies definitely was.
That’s when he begins persecuting Jews and
Christians all the way to the end of the tribulation. So you may feel that I
have too many “likelies” and “probablies” in my theory, and you are not
convinced that Christians have to go through the tribulation. So you maybe
still like the “pre-tribulation” theory. Well, I have another approach to prove
it: Let’s look at the men who created
this theory of the pre-tribulation rapture.
Scripture warns us repeatedly not to be
deceived on this important subject, and to dismiss the words of a false
prophet who would tell you otherwise. Look at Matthew 24:4: Take heed that no one
deceives you…and at II Peter 2:1:
But there were false prophets
also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among
you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that
bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow
their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken
of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of
you
Next, Scripture insists that it is confident
that with unbiased study, it is possible to ascertain the important chronology
of events about rapture in Revelation, since in Rev. 1:3 it says:
Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this
prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it…
How is it possible to “keep those things
written in it” if the meaning is totally unclear and can’t be determined? Why
would God urge us to read Revelation and promises a blessing if we do, if in
fact it is incomprehensible? I believe
God has His truth in there, able to be found. We just have to keep our emotions
out of it—like making the mistake of choosing a theology that promises we won’t
suffer in those days. Truth is, though,
Jesus promises that His people have to suffer.
See John 16:33:
…in me you may have peace. In the world you will
have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome
the world.”
Now I’m getting to the point of this paper: one
way to find out which tribulation theory is correct, let’s see if a founder of
that theory is a false prophet.
The way to do that, it is necessary to look at their fruits—i.e, the
outward manifestation of whether this kind of person was of godly behavior and
doctrine that agrees with Scripture. If a man’s life doesn’t bear fruit, that
demeans the credibility for his rapture theory. Therefore, to find out, there
is nothing wrong with looking up a serious biography of a theory’s
founder. God would not put His truth
into the mind of a worldly man, or a false prophet. So, this week and next week, let’s “check the
fruit” of the “pre-trib” theory’s founders.
Let’s see if the theory’s founders are godly men. The founders of the pre-tribulation rapture are
John Nelson Darby and C.I. Scofield.
This week we check the fruit of Mr. Darby; next week, Mr. Scofield. I dug into the past, as the acknowledgements
below indicate.
As far as calling him a “founder,” John Darby
was the first to broadcast the “pre-trib” theory, beginning around 1833, for almost
50 years--but he got the idea from others. But he was the first to be a
persuasive speaker on the subject--and he had connections.
His theory is really claiming a lot: he is
really saying that the church (speaking of ALL believers here), despite many
Scriptures and many scholars on this important subject, was in the dark
for 1800 years. And Mr. Darby gave us
the light. Seems presumptuous,
especially since he never took a
theology class. I have several blogs elsewhere on this—on one blog, we took
3 weeks to carefully give Scriptural proof behind the post-tribulation theory.
Mr. Darby lived from 1800-1882. He was
outwardly holy, even as a young man in his 20s; he met with other Christians
frequently to discuss principles and ideas and for prayer. Fate turned in his direction when, in a
prayer meeting in England, he met Edward Irving. Irving has been called “the
father of modern pentecostalism.” Irving led or was involved with many
charismatic revivals that were breaking out in England, Scotland, and
Ireland—and these included tongues and prophesying. As a result, he was kicked out of his
Presbyterian bishopric, so he ended up founding a group, and called it the
Catholic Apostolic Church. His strong arm of leadership caused it to also be
called the “Irvingite” group. Most of
Irving’s small groups would try to get “in the Spirit” and worship and
prophesy. People would rush and travel
the country when they would hear that “the Lord is speaking” somewhere, or
people are laying forth new prophecy.
The End of Times was a big subject in that day. As it turned out, in one group there were
many followers of Mary MacDonald, a 15-year-old waif who was often sick (she
died in her mid-30s). She spent much of her life seemingly in an altered state
of consciousness, speaking, sometimes in tongues, sometimes loudly, about
visions that she saw, or about what the future holds. In a fateful March 30,
1830 session, a writer who kept a journal about everything MacDonald said,
wrote about one of her visions, and she quoted this: “here we first see the
distinction between that final stage of the Lord’s coming, when every eye shall
see him, and His prior appearing in
glory to them that look for Him.” Thus
the two-stage second advent was born.
Placing the first stage, the “prior appearing,” before the tribulation
was a brilliant choice, as it became popular as Irving and Darby
interpreted it. So, then, the
pre-tribulation theory was born from the mouth of a sickly 15-year old
charismatic. So, was this based on
Scripture? No--it was created from her
vision.
Mr. Darby was also at that session, and didn’t take to the
theory at first, but grew to like it, and was busy by 1833 spreading the idea
around in his speeches, which he did frequently. Britain liked it. He also visited America at least five times,
and got the friendship of Dwight L. Moody, who passed it on in America. Mr.
C.I. Scofield later took the ball on this one by inserting it in his Bible
(next week on him).
Darby was also the leader of several prayer groups himself,
and named them the “Brethren,” or “Plymouth Brethren.” (I was a member of one of them). But while he
got a lot of followers, he had trouble within his groups. It seems that he was a bit of a tyrant,
wanting the groups to accept his doctrines, and not consider anything
else. For many, the “pre-trib” doctrine
had a lot of holes that he couldn't satisfactorily explain. But they could see that Darby chafed under
authority or accountability. One of his
24-page papers has the title of Episcopacy
(this means church structure, teamwork, and leadership): What Ground is there in Scripture or
History for Calling it an Institution of God? He concludes there wasn’t supposed to be any
hierarchy, despite Scripture which confirmed otherwise (I Timothy 3 and
elsewhere). Here’s a quote of his from Wikipedia: the very notion of a clergyman was a sin against the Holy
Spirit. He liked the laity (regular members)
preaching. But this seems to be an effort to reduce Scriptural competence.
That way he got to meet with the lay preacher, and tell him what was good, and
what was missing the mark.
This “no hierarchy” ecclesiology is heretical, though a
milder one. But he continued this tendency, being a determined skeptic of tradition
and criticism. In this, as in many others, his new ideas disagreed with
the Bible. Who is correct? The inspired Word of God, of course. Not Mr.
Darby.
He seemed to lack the
compassion that we would expect from a godly leader. Jesus taught leaders to be servants at heart
(Luke 22:25-26). Darby liked to rule over men.
Here is a rebuke from a letter he got from his
friend, Anthony Norris: “they
(ie, some people in the groups) felt that though you are only a brother in an
Elder's house, you exercised more than a Father’s power, without a Father’s
heart of mercy.”
For the adept among
my readers, he also taught an ultra-dispensationalism. This was about God’s covenants with different
groups of Jews over different periods of time. There were problems with how he
took it to extremes—some of his doctrine just came out of his head, without a
clear Scripture basis; and it forced him, when backed into a corner, to chase
things into many odd rabbit-holes. For
instance, he believed the Book of James does not belong in the New
Testament. Here’s his original Introduction to the Book (not in later
editions): “The Epistle of James is
not addressed to the “assembly” (or churches),
and does not take the ground of apostolic authority.” You see, he first
makes the outlandish statement that James is not addressed to the church (thus
saying, we would get no benefit from reading this important Book). Then he beats
that by saying the Book does not have “apostolic authority.” That’s saying it’s
not inspired.
Such
a statement is heretical, and it tries to throw out II Timothy 3:16:
ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.
What was
in the Bible was decided in 325 AD. Darby, as usual, decided we have it
wrong, and he is smarter than that. Darby felt that James was addressed
to Israelites, not the church. Darby has this thing about separating Jews
from Gentiles when it’s convenient. His
notes from his book include the following for Matthew 5‑7,
the Sermon on the Mount: “The multitudes (ed., note that that includes
Gentiles) were present, but the discourse (i.e, the Sermon on the Mount) was
addressed to His disciples” (who were Jewish)—so he claimed. It's like Jesus said, "OK, Jews on this
side of me, Gentiles on the other. Now,
I've got a few words for the Jews, here, so you Gentiles ignore us right now,
I'll address you shortly.” I’ve always
felt that all the Word was for everyone, as II Timothy (above) says. All of us
get a benefit from every word. Jesus’
New Testament (or New Covenant) was for all who wanted to follow Him. There is One Gospel, One faith now.
Darby's
comments said, basically, that most of Matthew is critical reading for
everyone, but we Gentiles should just skip the Sermon on the Mount, they only
apply to Jews. Darby does the same thing
in Matthew 24-25, about the end times, claiming that those particular verses
only apply to Jews. But there is no
Scripture that backs that kind of dividing people. He created it out of
speculation.
Getting
back to Matthew 5-7, here is another note Darby made: “… moral principles and precepts, not
redemption, are the subject of the (Sermon on the Mount) discourse.” But, I argue, what about Matthew 5:22? It emphasizes that hate is like murder, and says: “whoever says ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.” Who gets
an eternity in hell, is definitely talking about redemption, or lack of it.
And what about 5:29?
It emphasizes that we need to control our sin (if we don’t, we love sin
more than God, and that’s idolatry). The
verse, a hyperbole (exaggeration to prove a point) says:
“And if thy right eye offend
thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and. not that thy whole body should be cast
into hell.
That last phrase certainly has a lot to do with
redemption. But, not to worry, supposedly, about this verse: I'm a
Gentile. In the same vein, see Matthew 6:14-15 and 6:19-21. The point is, to dismiss the Sermon on the
Mount as not having redemptive power is seriously heretical. If we get saved, and repent, we must live a
holy life. These verses are relevant to
all His saved--they tell us what a holy life consists of. They emphasize that
thought should be holy as well as action.
They therefore have redemption as their goal.
Mr. Darby got so high-minded that he said, and wrote, that
all the Christian churches of his day were apostate (ie, fell away from Jesus’
doctrine). This is from his written papers: "The actings (sic)
of Satan...in corrupting the church, must be familiar to anyone acquainted with
the word of God." So, Mr. Darby must school us with the Truth--as he
sees it.
He also
had some issues with the humanity of Christ. He taught that when Christ became
incarnate, He fully assumed sinful human nature so that His sinless life
depended on the power of the Holy Spirit. This was considered heretical, since
orthodoxy taught that Jesus had an innately sinless human nature (PS: He got
his own idea from Irving).
He also
got in trouble, on another very important issue. This is from a tract he wrote called “Remarks
on a tract, circulated by the Irvingites.” In it Darby says: “if they taught that
God was not manifest in the flesh at all, a Christian ought' not to look to the scriptures to see if it
was right, and that if he did, he would get no good out of it” You can see how wishy-washy he was on
whether Jesus was in the flesh—he’s suggesting that Jesus’ presence on earth,
it’s possible that He was like a ghost. This is bordering on an extremely
important heresy. Here is what II John 1:7 has to say about being uncertain
about Jesus appearing in the flesh:
"For many deceivers have gone out into
the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.
Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist."
I am not saying he
was The Antichrist. The word is used in the above verse as a high condemnation
of heresy, the kind that destroys the beliefs of Christians and deceives them
into following a demonic vein about Jesus. This by itself should mean that
whatever he comes up with is not from God, but from the devil. Not a light thing
to pass over. This in itself would be an effective reason to disavow any of his
theories. He was a false prophet.
Well, all this was too much for scholars like George Muller (a godly man who later built orphanages and
Christian schooling for over 100,000 children), who refused to accept many of
his ideas or his questionable Scriptural backing. Muller, who originally was a follower of
Darby, split and formed a separate group, called the “Open Brethren.” Darby was miffed at that, since he was losing
complete control, and he was angered enough to not allow ANY of his own group
(now called the Exclusive Brethren) to take communion with ANYone from the Open
groups. But this is divisive: these are saved brothers! These are all Brethren! This punitiveness became an ongoing trait of
his: for instance, he also made a rule where if one of their branches had
excluded a person from Christian fellowship, that person remained excluded from
all other of his branches, who must
then treat the excluded person as a leper (a violation of Matthew 18’s
rules on church discipline). He also took the liberty of attacking church
“enemies” in public. It should have been
dealt with in private, as Matthew 18 commands.
These behaviors of divisiveness and punishment are totally
anti-Spiritual. Christ counseled us in
His last prayer to be one, not divided by argumentation (John 17:21). Granted,
with the denominations, we have the same sin of not being in unity, but he
carried divisiveness to new lengths. Paul definitely would call Darby
“controlled by his sinful nature” when he says in 1 Corinthians 3:3:
You are jealous of one
another and quarrel with each other. Doesn’t that prove you are controlled by
your sinful nature? Aren’t you living like people of the world?
In fact, he took his exclusivism so far as to also ban any
member of a group called the Bethesda Brethren as well, since they harbored a
man named Newton, who, he felt, tried to take over his group while he was
gone. All this was way past petty--it
was plain mean-spirited, and grudging as well, not something a Christian person
would do. Darby’s childish tyranny of always wanting HIS ecclesiology and HIS
eschatology was coming forth too loud and strong. Paul in the book of Romans urges us to avoid
people like Darby:
Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions
and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid
them. 18 For
those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ
Jude tells us in verse 19 that people like Darby are people
of the world, “devoid of the Spirit.”
Note that that phrase means Darby might not be saved:
It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid of
the Spirit.
While he was leader of his groups, many other splits
occurred. The whole Plymouth Brethren’s
growth was stunted by these rules. The Gospel didn’t go out like it should
have. Even after his death, some of the Exclusive groups of Plymouth Brethren
divided more, and some groups delved into even more strange behaviors, and were
even considered cults. They had many
people assessing their doctrines as heretical.
One of the best Christian orators and scholars of that day, Charles H.
Spurgeon, pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, actually was so
concerned that he published criticism of Darby and Brethrenism. And he accused them that they “rejected the vicarious
purpose of Christ's obedience as well as imputed righteousness.”
Accusing him of denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers
is a serious heresy. Darby’s quote on the matter in an 1865 tract confirms
this:
“My adversaries
insist that Christ kept the law for us, and that that constitutes our positive
righteousness before God. This I deny: Scripture teaches no such doctrine; but
it teaches the contrary…I affirm that those who teach it are in this respect
false teachers.”
One Scripture alone
makes Mr. Darby mistaken: Romans 4:6:
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man,
unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works…
Spurgeon viewed these heresies of such
importance and so central to the Gospel that it led him to publish a statement
about the rest of their belief in his magazine, the Sword and Trowel. This kind of direct criticism was seldom seen
in that day.
There can be no
final word about Mr. Darby better than a prophetic word to him spoken by a
German group that he conferenced with.
It was written rather early in 1836, but predictive of his worsened
behavior later:
your union (is) daily
becoming one of doctrine and opinion more than life and love, your government
will become – unseen, perhaps, and unexpressed, yet – one wherein,
overwhelmingly, is felt the authority of men; you will be known more by what
you witness against than what you witness for…
Acknowledgements: Wikipedia, Stem Publishing, Bible Truth
Publishers, Plymouth Brethren Archives, and a book: The Incredible Cover-Up, by Dave MacPherson. YouTube:
The Church Impotent: Dispensationalism
Thank God for the internet
No comments:
Post a Comment