Pre tribulationalists Before 1800, Not just Premillenialists. Provable pretribers

[Ray Carsjens]

How many Taught the Pre Tribulational view before 1800AD. Not Premillenialists that aren't concise and clear on this view But actual provable Pre- -tribulationalist.

[Albert McIlhenny]

There are no pre-tribulationaists in the patristic period. There can be some debate as to whether certain post-Reformation writers may have approached this position but that really doesn't get around the fact that the dispensationalist view is a modern invention.

Even those who were pre-millennialists in the patristic period held nothing like the pre-trib rapture. They believed the Church would go through the tribulation and that the Jews who would accept Christ at the end of days would do so by joining the Body of Christ. The real departure from the historic view for dispensationalism is its insistence that there is a radical separation between Israel and the Church and the Church age is a parenthetical period between God's dealings with national Israel. This forces a pre-trib rapture. All of this is foreign to a natural reading of the Biblical texts and has no precedent in Church history.

[Ray Carsjens]

I agree with you as I have already studied the past writers. I Did come across 5 people that sounded Pre tribulational, but upon further study found that they in deed were premillenialists but nothing close to a Pretribulational View. Only one Had stated that He believed that God would take the church out of the world. And even I would agree with that. We are only waiting for The Rapture at the End of this Age, end of this cosmos, I just am trying to let our Brothers in Christ who Believe in Dispensationalism know that they are the ones Believing in a New Age Doctrine. So many think that what we understand and can prove Is new Doctrine. It was really scary for me to realize this as well, because of a 25 yr belief in Pre Trib Rapture. When I saw that Jehovahs witnesses ,Mormons, 7th Day adventists and dispensationalists were all started at the same time. Pretty Terrible thought. Hope that some of them will see all the Evidence until the 1830s, and be questionable about where is the rest of the people with the same view. They Dont have any, But we have two thousand years of witnesses. In Christ Jesus RC, Thanks for commenting.

[Dave Kellogg]

I don't understand the importance of discussing if there are/were those who believed in the pre-tribulational rapture of the church. Shouldn't the question instead be "Is this teaching scriptural or not?" and then debate the merits of that view rather than arguing if anyone existed before 1800 who believed that teaching?

[Scott]

Dave -

For starters, I am not arguing for a pre-trib rapture or not. I am just providing some general thoughts to your question.

I think it would come to down to the argument that, if no one held a particular belief prior to a certain date (i.e., 1800 here), then that could possibly cut at the validity of the belief. Meaning, if the historic orthodox church for the past 1800 years did not hold to this particular belief, then one has to ask why none of our fathers ever held to or taught something. Of course, it comes down to what Scripture teaches. We are all generally on that page. But if no one ever believed in a pre-trib rapture before 1800, then why all of a sudden are people reading particular passages and saying it teaches such.

[Ray Carsjens]

Well this is important to discuss, because if you have no relative understanding in the past then it falls into a catagory of New Revelation, Which there is only new revelation as in , to the person doing a study for the first time, there isnt new revelation, as in God now revealing to us something different that has never been known before. No record of a doctrine of this importance means that no one has known about, it before the 1800s. Hence New, Since we and if we, are to base our days as the last days, then we need to let scripture speak about them not man. Point is timothy was told by Paul that only deceptive doctrines would be listened to before Christs coming or better put Christs presence arriving.2 Tim 4:3-4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having (itching ears;)
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
(Note itching ears means wanting desiress comfortable teaching liberalisim if you will)

Now if we were in the last days and a new doctrine would come around it would be very adventatious not to listen to them. Since of that view we are in the last days we better and especially shouldnt listen to them considering its only a last minute teaching. Now as far as understanding or why should we care if anyone didnt teach this is precisely why we shouldnt accept it, because it wasnt taught ever. When you come to realize the severity of scripture and our being judged greater than anyone else we better be right, or atleast in the right side of History of the church. Concerning weather its scriptural or not, and or wheigh the balance of false teaching there is no merit of how scriptural a false doctrine is. If it is scriptural it is fact. I would like to have you write what merits the pre trib rapture has, if you can think of any that are scriptural. Thats like saying well even if its false we should or could get something out of it anyway. Give me a list of merits for pre trib, and I will be sure to give you an answer. GOD Bless in Presently our KING CHRIST JESUS RC If Matt24 is judgement against the whole world, why can they escape judgement by fleeing to the mountains of Judea.


Dave Kellogg said:

I don't understand the importance of discussing if there are/were those who believed in the pre-tribulational rapture of the church. Shouldn't the question instead be "Is this teaching scriptural or not?" and then debate the merits of that view rather than arguing if anyone existed before 1800 who believed that teaching?

[Ray Carsjens]

Well its not why all of a sudden Remember it is 180 yrs old. The validity of why now is easy, The southern Baptists when believeing that this was an old doctrine newly revealed accepted and claimed that it was an old key to understanding Eschatology, They claimed that the lost key had been found. Darby precisely. After this exclamation most of all of our learning institutions teach mostly pretrib rapture because of the late date theory of the dating of Johns rev. In total most evengelicalism teaches what was taught by Darby inso much that you have to hold to that view inorder to receive your degree. Hence we are a pretrib Church because of an age old fallicy of the 19th century. And most pastors dont Study History anymore, atleast as far back as then as is witnessed in their beliefs, thats the real fallicy. The Old Judeaism records have a lot to say on this matter even though they werent Christian. GOD BLESS in King Christ JESUS Presence. RC Amillenialism is what most of the Church futurists taught all along the last 1800 yrs. My view is even different than that, I actually hold to a Past tense view known as Preterism, except I dont agree with all of that either. Im mostly a Historcal Preterist. My own is called AGE Squared Eschatology, There are three ages, two described in our Bible, the old age Judaism, The new age where Christ is our Temple and we are still awaiting his appearing. His coming or Presence returned in 70 AD.

ScottL said:

Dave -

For starters, I am not arguing for a pre-trib rapture or not. I am just providing some general thoughts to your question.

I think it would come to down to the argument that, if no one held a particular belief prior to a certain date (i.e., 1800 here), then that could possibly cut at the validity of the belief. Meaning, if the historic orthodox church for the past 1800 years did not hold to this particular belief, then one has to ask why none of our fathers ever held to or taught something. Of course, it comes down to what Scripture teaches. We are all generally on that page. But if no one ever believed in a pre-trib rapture before 1800, then why all of a sudden are people reading particular passages and saying it teaches such.

[Scott]

Ray -

We've been in the last days for almost 2,000 years.

I lean towards an amillenial and/or partial preterist view. But I do note that some early church fathers say John's writing of Revelation as a later date, as in the 90's AD - i.e. what people like Irenaeus had written. So a late date of Revelation is something new with dispensationalists. It's been around for about 1800 years.

[Ray Carsjens]

Your theory that Johns Rev had the late date for 1800 years is not correct, it at best is only one statement by Irenaeus, and was never deemed a evidencial statement for the fact that it is so obscure. The others that are witnesses to it are just that regurgitating Ires statement.
Here is a study from both sides. Which at the end of will show just eight reasons for the early Date compared to only one for the late date theory. Gods word is our rule. Which states that we have to by GODS word have atleast two individual witnesses. I hope you enjoy this little study, GOD Bless. RC

1. Irenaeus' Quote (Used as Grounds for Late Date Theory) "We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the Revelation. For ‘he’ [John?] or ‘it’ [Revelation?] was seen . . . towards the end of Domitian’s reign." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:30:3)
All the other witnesses must be dealt with, those witnesses who regurgitate what Ire Says, are only repeating His words, which cannot be clearly understood at best. Other witnesses from History as Eusibius are those which are only recounting what Ire says, to the effect that we really only have one document by Ire, not mountains of reasons of other evidence.

2. Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
"For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, end with Nero." (Miscellanies 7:17.)

3. Epiphanies (A. D. 315-403)
States Revelation was written under "Claudius [Nero] Caesar." (Epiphanies, Heresies 51:12,)


4. Muratorian Canon (A.D. 170)
"the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name. "
"John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes to only seven churches, yet addresses all. " (ANF 5:603).

5. Tertullian“Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which the apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s! where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile.”


6. An ancient document known as the Muratorian Canon which comes down to us from AD 170–210 states, "Paul, following the order of his own predecessor John the Apostle and revelator, writes to no more than seven churches by name." The seven churches that Paul wrote to were: Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Colossi and Thessalonica. John, in his addressing the writing of Revelation, wrote to seven churches as indicated in Revelation 1:4.
The implication of this statement in the Muratorian Canon is that John had written his book of Revelation BEFORE the completion of Paul's writings to the seven churches he had written to. Paul died under Nero's persecution. Nero's rule ended in AD 68!

7. There is also in existence, a number of Syriac translations of the book of Revelation which have the following inscription: "The Revelation, which was made by God to John the Evangelist, in the island of Patmos, to which he was banished by Nero the Emperor." Most of the Syriac translations, which are known as the "Peshito," "Curetonian," the "Philoexenian" and the "Harclean" are supposed to have been translated late in the first century or very early in the second, but the ones co ntaining Revelation are not believed to be quite that old. 600AD But are indeed copies of the first or second centuries.The superscription on this manuscript does provide support that the dating of the Revelation goes back to the time of Nero.

8. Cerinthus was a first century AD author who wrote The Pseudo-Apocalypse. He died long before John did, and that is well before 95AD, and his Pseudo-Apocalypse contains many references to John's Apocalypse (the Book of Revelation).


9. Clement ascribes to John -- running all over Asia, riding a horse chasing after an apostate church leader -- makes more sense attributed to a man in his 50s or 60s than (50-65AD) than they do to a man in his 90s or 100s. Finally, elsewhere Clement states that the teaching of the Apostles was completed at the time of Nero.

10. There are many other reasons to accept an early Date not to mention even more witnesses from History past. We feel that 8 witnesses surly must be proof enough compared to the single reason of believing one obscured historical writing

What about the evidence of Irenaeus ?

1. b When we have such an overwhelming amount of Historical witnesses who say otherwise, it is and becomes overwhelming, that one author can be taken as a witness above all other witnesses. Especially in light of History and the fact that, when we know that Irenaeus had several questionable writings which none the less include a writing where He indicates that Christ was 50 yrs old when He was crucified, and other comparable writings, to the deficiency of His abilities and or knowledge. We can take Him as a witness, but do we put Him above many witnesses, of course not. We accept that He did have credibility however when what's supposed to be a plain reason for accepting and early date, we prefer to have a mountain of evidence before we can accept a minuscule which at best is indiscriminate to determine just what the author meant. To ignore a plethora of evidence in light of a single minuscule obscured piece of evidence, we have to side with an early date, even the internal Evidence sides and points to and with the pre 65 Date. We cannot allow our eschatological view and or traditions any longer to mold us into a fixed frozen mindset, when everything in an age of Scientific enlightenment shows us otherwise.

This forgoing article Added 2004 Copyright © 1996 Defending R. Faith Ministries 01/16/1996
Hank Hanegraaff (2004)
"More and more, people who have embraced the Futurist paradigm, when they recognize.. that the book of Revelation was not written in the mid-nineties, but rather was written in the mid-sixties, ..they have a different view of what the book of Revelation is actually dealing with in terms of substance." (Voice of Reason, 11/21)
[e-mail]
RC Scrolls

ScottL said:

Ray -

We've been in the last days for almost 2,000 years.

I lean towards an amillenial and/or partial preterist view. But I do note that some early church fathers say John's writing of Revelation as a later date, as in the 90's AD - i.e. what people like Irenaeus had written. So a late date of Revelation is something new with dispensationalists. It's been around for about 1800 years.

Scott I have never heard of a partial Preterist that claimed we are still in the last days since 70AD. On the contrary most Partial Preterists I know believe that 70AD ended the last days with Christs Presence being ushered in at the destruction of Judaism and the Temple. Have a nice day

[Scott]

Ray -

Scott I have never heard of a partial Preterist that claimed we are still in the last days since 70AD. On the contrary most Partial Preterists I know believe that 70AD ended the last days with Christs Presence being ushered in at the destruction of Judaism and the Temple. Have a nice day

Full preterists would say the last days ended in AD 70. I am partial, or have leanings towards partial preterism. I actually have leanings towards amillenialism (and historicism) as well. I am not too boxed in this area. But, the last days are the entire Messianic age in which the Messiah would reign. This is evidenced in the outpouring of the Spirit on all God's people, which is still a reality today, since the Messiah is still reigning today. This is all fleshed out in Peter's words in Acts 2.

Your comments are so long, Ray, that I never really feel I can read them. Maybe try to interact with a little bit at a time rather than just copying and pasting stuff from other places.

Thanks.

[Ray Carsjens]

I assure you nothing is cut and pasted. I prefer to give evidence and not others words.
The last days were for Israel not the continueing Newer Church, as stated by Johns letter it is the last time, and that concluded in 70 AD. I dont understand that your a partially fulfilled Prphecy, while being a futurist on many of the Prophecys that even Partial Preterists claim fulfillment. I think perhapps you shouldnt claim any until you have found just what you believe, it would be wise. Have a nice day.

ScottL said:

Ray -

Scott I have never heard of a partial Preterist that claimed we are still in the last days since 70AD. On the contrary most Partial Preterists I know believe that 70AD ended the last days with Christs Presence being ushered in at the destruction of Judaism and the Temple. Have a nice day

Full preterists would say the last days ended in AD 70. I am partial, or have leanings towards partial preterism. I actually have leanings towards amillenialism (and historicism) as well. I am not too boxed in this area. But, the last days are the entire Messianic age in which the Messiah would reign. This is evidenced in the outpouring of the Spirit on all God's people, which is still a reality today, since the Messiah is still reigning today. This is all fleshed out in Peter's words in Acts 2.

Your comments are so long, Ray, that I never really feel I can read them. Maybe try to interact with a little bit at a time rather than just copying and pasting stuff from other places.

Thanks.

[Ray Carsjens]

Most have been taught the PRetrib Rapture because of a single person generally thought of as Marylin Mc Donald, then to the plymouth Brethren from there to Scofilds Bible and off to the Baptists that believed that John Nelson Darby had uncovered something that was lost. Yet no where else are both Dispensationalism and Pretrib included as they are now with that view. Pretty scarey to think at the most poinent time in History for culkts ie (1800)s this view arises. Momons, Jehovahs witnesess, 7th dayers, pentocostals, pre tribers. All started during the 1800s. If we believethat we are in the last days then lets listen to our word. They will not listen (endure) sound doctrine in the last days. Please stay open minded and have a teachable spirit and GOD will lead you correctly. I come from a family of Pretibers. They also excomunicated me like the cults do for believing differently about the end of the age.

ScottL said:

Dave -

For starters, I am not arguing for a pre-trib rapture or not. I am just providing some general thoughts to your question.

I think it would come to down to the argument that, if no one held a particular belief prior to a certain date (i.e., 1800 here), then that could possibly cut at the validity of the belief. Meaning, if the historic orthodox church for the past 1800 years did not hold to this particular belief, then one has to ask why none of our fathers ever held to or taught something. Of course, it comes down to what Scripture teaches. We are all generally on that page. But if no one ever believed in a pre-trib rapture before 1800, then why all of a sudden are people reading particular passages and saying it teaches such.

[Ray Carsjens]

I have never cut and paste my answers. My answers are from my own studies. God Bless

Ray Carsjens said:

I assure you nothing is cut and pasted. I prefer to give evidence and not others words.
The last days were for Israel not the continueing Newer Church, as stated by Johns letter it is the last time, and that concluded in 70 AD. I dont understand that your a partially fulfilled Prphecy, while being a futurist on many of the Prophecys that even Partial Preterists claim fulfillment. I think perhapps you shouldnt claim any until you have found just what you believe, it would be wise. Have a nice day.

ScottL said:

Ray -

Scott I have never heard of a partial Preterist that claimed we are still in the last days since 70AD. On the contrary most Partial Preterists I know believe that 70AD ended the last days with Christs Presence being ushered in at the destruction of Judaism and the Temple. Have a nice day

Full preterists would say the last days ended in AD 70. I am partial, or have leanings towards partial preterism. I actually have leanings towards amillenialism (and historicism) as well. I am not too boxed in this area. But, the last days are the entire Messianic age in which the Messiah would reign. This is evidenced in the outpouring of the Spirit on all God's people, which is still a reality today, since the Messiah is still reigning today. This is all fleshed out in Peter's words in Acts 2.

Your comments are so long, Ray, that I never really feel I can read them. Maybe try to interact with a little bit at a time rather than just copying and pasting stuff from other places.

Thanks.