Darby and the Secret Rapture

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

See source of quote:

http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess025.htm

The Rapture Theory - Its Surprising Origin

Almost all Christians are interested in prophecy. This is especially true if the prophecies show what will happen to Christians themselves. There is nothing wrong in desiring such personal knowledge. Even our Lord gave a considerable amount of teaching about the circumstances to befall His people at the end of the age (Matthew 24:22–25). We all share a common concern in wanting to know about the participants, the chronology, and the geography of those prophecies. To comprehend the full knowledge of them it is obvious that all relevant statements of our Lord and His apostles must be properly interpreted and placed in a coherent order.

Many Christians have attempted to do this. As a consequence, the doctrine of the Rapture has arisen. So important has it become to many that the teaching is now sanctioned in some circles as the prime revelation from God to show what will happen to members of His ekklesia just before and during the Second Coming of Christ. Some of the greatest friends of the Holy Scriptures have accepted this teaching (and they teach this false doctrine even by mistranslating the phrase “first resurrection” as “the former resurrection” in Revelation 20:5). If one translates the word correctly as “first,” then it means the resurrection of Christians occurs after the Tribulation, and the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory is shown to be false. 1

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory, however, is a menacing doctrine that perverts the plain language of the text of the New Testament. Some preachers today look on the doctrine as the heart and core of present Christian expectations in regard to prophetic truth for the near future! Many believe this false teaching is the principle hope of the Body of Christ for their redemption and safety during the Great Tribulation. We need to look at this teaching carefully.

The Doctrine of the Rapture

First understand that the word “Rapture” is not found in the King James translation. There is also no single word used by biblical authors to describe the prophetic factors that comprise the doctrine. Its formulation came about by means of inductive reasoning. Certain biblical passages concerning the Second Coming, and the role Christians will play in that event, were blended together inductively to establish the teaching.

The modern expression “Rapture” has been invented to explain the overall teaching and the term suits the subject well. The basic tenets of the doctrine are simple. It purports that Christ will come back to this earth in two phases. He will first return secretly to rapture His church away from this world so that they might escape the Great Tribulation to occur at the end of the age. Christ then returns in a visible advent to dispense His wrath on the world’s nations. This is the general teaching.

Many details concerning these prime factors are hotly debated. There is especially much argument over the chronological features associated with it. Some think the time lapse between the two phases will be 3 ½ years, others say 7 years. Some feel that the Rapture of the ekklesia occurs before the Tribulation, others about mid-way through. Many suggest that the saints of God will be taken to heaven for protection, while others suggest a geographical area on this earth (as I have shown in various articles). 2 Some feel that only part of the ekklesia will escape, while others say all will be rescued.

These variations and others have multiplied the interpretations among those holding the belief. But all are unanimous on one point: the central theme of the “Rapture Theory” (as it is normally called in the theological world) shows that Christ will return to earth in two phases. They think Christ will come at first secretly for His saints and then He will come visibly with His saints returning with Him from heaven at the actual Second Advent. In this book, when I use the term “Rapture” standing alone, I always mean the “Rapture Theory” of the pre-tribulation theorists.

The Newness of the Doctrine

It may come as a surprise but the doctrine of the Rapture is not mentioned in any Christian writings, of which we have knowledge, until after the year 1830 C.E. Whether the early writers were Greek or Latin, Armenian or Coptic, Syrian or Ethiopian, English or German, orthodox or heretic, no one mentioned it before 1830 (though a sentence in Pseudo-Dionysius in about 500 C.E. could be so interpreted). Of course, those who feel the origin of the teaching is in the Bible would say that it ceased being taught for some unknown reason at the close of the apostolic age only to reappear in 1830. But if the doctrine were so clearly stated in Scripture, it seems incredible that no one should have referred to it before the 19th century.

The lateness of the doctrine does not necessarily mean the teaching is wrong (only the plain statements of the Bible can reveal that). It does show that thousands of eminent scholars over seventeen centuries (including the most astute “Christian Fathers” and those of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods) must be considered prophetic dunces for not having understood so fundamental a teaching. This lapse of seventeen centuries when no one elaborated on the doctrine must be viewed as an obstacle to accepting its reliability.
The Beginnings of the Doctrine

The result of a careful investigation into the origin of the Rapture was published in 1976. This was in an excellent research book that deserves to be read by all people interested in the subject. Its title: The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin by Dave MacPherson. 3 He catalogs a great deal of historical material that answers the doctrine’s mysterious derivation. I wish to review the results of his research.

In the middle 1820’s a religious environment began to be established among a few Christians in London, England which proved to be the catalyst from which the doctrine of the Rapture emerged. Expectations of the soon coming of our Lord were being voiced. This was no new thing, but what was unusual was the teaching by a Presbyterian minister named Edward Irving that there had to be a restoration of the spiritual gifts mentioned in 1 Corinthians chapters 12–14 just before Christ’s Second Advent. To Irving, the time had come for those spiritual manifestations to occur. Among the expected gifts was the renewal of speaking in tongues and of prophetic utterances motivated by the spirit.

Irving began to propagate his beliefs. His oratorical skills and enthusiasm caused his congregation in London to grow. Then a number of people began to experience the “gifts.” Once this happened, opposition from the organized churches set in. It resulted in Irving’s dismissal from the Presbyterian Church in 1832. His group established themselves as the Catholic Apostolic Church and continued the teachings of Irving. These events were the beginnings of what some call present day Pentecostalism. Some church historians referred to Irving as “the father of modern Pentecostalism.”

What does this have to do with the origin of the Rapture doctrine? Look at what happened in the year 1830 — two years before Irving’s dismissal from the Presbyterian Church. In that year a revival of the “gifts” began to be manifested among some people living in the lowlands of Scotland. They experienced what they called the outpouring of the Spirit. It was accompanied with speak*ing in “tongues” and other charismatic phenomena. Irving preached that these things must occur and now they were.

On one particular evening, the power of the Holy Spirit was said to have rested on a Miss Margaret Macdonald while she was ill at home. She was dangerously sick and thought she was dying. In spite of this (or perhaps because she is supposed to have come under the “power” of the spirit) for several successive hours she experienced manifestations of “mingled prophecy and vision.” She found her mind in an altered state and began to experience considerable visionary activity.

The message she received during this prophetic vision convinced her that Christ was going to appear in two stages at His Second Advent, and not a single occasion as most all people formerly believed. The spirit emanation revealed that Christ would first come in glory to those who look for Him and again later in a final stage when every eye would see Him. This visionary experience of Miss Macdonald represented the prime source of the modern Rapture doctrine as the historical evidence compiled by Mr. MacPherson reveals.

The Influence of John Darby

Many people have thought that John Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, was the originator of the Rapture doctrine. This is not the case. Darby was a brilliant theologian with outstanding scholarly abilities. Even those who disagreed with his teachings admit that he, and many associated with him, helped cause a revival in biblical learning throughout the evangelical world which has perpetuated down to the present day. All who love biblical research ought to be thankful for what Darby and especially his associates accomplished for biblical scholarship. These early men helped pave the way particularly for the renewal of modern lexical studies in the biblical languages.

This renewal of language studies was not the only thing they produced. The doctrine of “dispensationalism” was also a teaching they brought to the attention of the Protestant world. And then, there was this new doctrine termed the “Rapture.” While many Christians long thought the Rapture doctrine originated with John Darby, it is now known that this was not true. Darby did popularize it. Scofield and others took it over. But Darby provided the intellectual mantle that helped make it respectable. Many of those in the evangelical sphere of Christianity today are so certain of its veracity that it is accepted as the absolute truth of God. The fact is, however, John Darby received the knowledge of the doctrine from someone else. His source was Margaret Macdonald.

The studies of Mr. MacPherson show that her sickness during which she received her visions and revelations occurred sometime between February 1 and April 14, 1830. By late spring and early summer of 1830, her belief in the two phases of Christ’s coming was mentioned in praise and prayer meetings in several towns of western Scotland. In these meetings some people were speaking in “tongues” and other charismatic occurrences were in evidence. Modern “Pentecostalism” had its birth.

These extraordinary and strange events so attracted John Darby that he made a trip to the area to witness what was going on. Though he did not approve of the ecstatic episodes that he witnessed, it is nonetheless significant that Darby, after returning from Scotland, began to teach that Christ’s Advent would occur in two phases. MacPherson shows good evidence that Darby even visited Miss Macdonald in her home. There can hardly be any doubt that the visions and spiritual experiences of Miss Macdonald are the source of the modern doctrine. But belief in such paranormal experiences is dangerous, especially when they are contrary to scriptural teachings.
Visions and Dreams

While it is possible that visionary revelations can come from God, it is always prudent to be cautious in such matters. Near the same time Miss Macdonald was receiving her visions, Joseph Smith in America was experiencing his apparitions that brought Mormon doctrines to the world. John Wilson also had his dreams that were the spark that started the false teaching of British-Israelism. Not long afterwards, Ellen G. White received her visions that resulted in many Seventh Day Adventist teachings. And remarkably, all these individuals received revelations of doctrines supposedly from God that were much at variance with one another and contrary to biblical teachings. Such incidents bring to mind the warning that God gave to Moses.

“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto you, saying, ‘let us go after other gods, which you have not known, and let us serve them’; you shall not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord proves [tests] you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. ~Deuteronomy 13:1

In regard to the teachings of visionaries, recall what the apostle John commanded Christians: “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” 4 ~1 John 4:1

And though some refer to the prophecy of Daniel that “knowledge shall be increased” (Daniel 12:4) as proof that the revival of doctrinal truths will occur at the end of the age, this is not what Daniel meant. If you read the prophet carefully you will find Daniel was speaking that “the knowledge” of his prophecies will be increased, not the revival of general doctrines. In the original text of Daniel, the definite article occurs before the word “knowledge.” Daniel said “THE knowledge will be increased,” and the text shows he meant “the knowledge of his prophecies.” Daniel was in no way speaking about a renewing of doctrines at the Time of the End.

A further admonition is necessary concerning the origins of visionary teachings that might emerge near our own time. It is by the apostle Paul and we should pay close attention to it: “Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.” ~1 Timothy 4:1

These warnings from God’s word are a reminder that we should exercise caution in accepting the truthfulness of visionary revelations, particularly those near the end of the age, and which are contradictory to one another and to the Bible. The Pre-Tribulation Rapture Theory is such a doctrine; a teaching with no scriptural warrant. After all, the Holy Scriptures makes it plain that the first resurrection (when Christians from the past have their resurrections and we are caught up to heaven with Christ) occurs after the Tribulation is over (Revelation 20:5). And though a number of people within the Body of Christ have taken up with this false doctrine, it is time to jettison it from Christian belief.

The truth is, we will be protected from the evils of the Antichrist system (and the judgments of the Great Tribulation) by a mantle of safety from God that will protect us on earth. There is only one Second Advent of Christ and that is the moment (for all of us then living) we will be changed into immortality and the resurrection of the dead takes place. That is when all of us will meet Christ in the clouds (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18). We can believe this teaching with full assurance and faith. Remember, God cares for you and all the Body of Christ.

1 To prevent people from understanding this natural meaning of the word, even the Concordant Version incorrectly translated the word as “former.” This is sad! This departure from the principles of true translation is against the very principles of proper translation that Concordant Version correctly endorse. The Concordant Version is in most places, however, an excellent translation of the New Testament. The lapse in this Version shows how strong doctrinal beliefs can be and how they influence translators to mistranslate texts of the Scriptures to support their false theories. All of us must reject this type of approach. ELM

2 See Dr. Martin’s articles “The Place of Safety” at http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p971116.htm and “Personal Safety During End-Time Prophecy” at http://www.askelm.com/prophecy/p991123.htm. DWS

3 An updated edition of this work by David MacPherson is retitled, The Rapture Plot (Simpsonville, SC: Millennium III Pub, 1995). ELM

4 This verse is also saying that false prophets have a relationship (in various and sundry ways) with spirits. DWS

[aron]

I'm not arguing one way or another on Christ's soon return. I just note that Darby, an Anglican minister who became a 'dissenter' and withdrew, became a divisive force within the congregation in which he met. Today you can buy the collected works of John Nelson Darby in 47 fine leather-bound volumes, and you can also read the testimonies of many who said that his teachings brought in animosity and recrimination among the flock. Many bitter and disillusioned Christians left Darby's group, because they had talked to someone who Darby had "quarantined", or violated some other technicality. They weren't "one" enough.

Secondly, Darby wrote (I can't quote it but remember reading it) that spiritual lethargy and ennui came into the flock that wasn't ready for Christ's second coming. So focusing on this subject made the church ready: "Behold the Bride has made Herself ready" etc.

But the point must also be made that the ignorant hype of Christ's soon return caused many to sell their possessions and wait on the mountaintop, while Christ Himself said that it wasn't to know the times or seasons (Acts 1:7). We should all be ready, always. Life is short. But unbalanced focus on the topic caused many to become tossed about in turmoil. "It is better to eat a dry crust of bread in peace, than a big dinner in a house full of fighting" (Proverbs 17:1)

One 19th century group made such a hype about Christ's second coming, that they fixed the date, and all got ready. Then when the bright glory in the clouds didn't appear, some leaders said that Christ came from Heaven to a hidden cloud, where He now reigns. If you go to the facebook sites of the members, they mark the day, like Oct 15, 1857 (or something like that). Like Christ secretly moved from one part of heaven to another, on a fixed date. O great, that really changes my life.

So Darby wasn't the only one. But the point is that:

1. Darby's writings, like Nee's are shot through with spirituality, and seem impressive. You can read the 47 volumes and come away marveling at his zeal, fervor, care, dedication, and devotion to Christ. But he caused great harm in the flock. He got the first part right: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul and mind", but failed at the second part: "Love your neighbor as yourself". He loved doctrine too much, and his weeding out error in thought ruined the spiritual lives of many in the church.

2. A zeal for God's soon return in Christ's Millennial Kingdom was the antidote for the perceived lethargy in the church. But an obsession with this led to disappointment and fanaticism. Even today people think Christ "secretly came" back in the 19th century, and they have essentially founded their church on this. (I think the 7th Day Adventists hold this, or some of them.)

3. Darby's revealed truth, imposed on his brethren associates, was that Christ would come immediately, and to them. Darby was wrong. All the turmoil and rancor, for what? To be 'rapture-ready'? What about "love your neighbor"? Darby held the Brethren together by his iron hand, but when he died, no personality remaining could do it. So Darby's followers splintered. Today all these isolated groups can read Darby's works and marvel at the spirituality of the man. But what fruit was left? Elitism, division and bitterness.

Similarly, Nee and Lee left behind extensive writings, and everybody agrees they were zealous men. But they divided the flock, according to their private revelations of "recovered truths" which supposedly had been hidden from everyone else, and the movements they founded couldn't even be held together by these recovered truths, so-called. Once the dominant personality was gone, the groups splintered. The newly recovered "truth" revealed itself: every man to his own tent, and the devil take the hindmost. What kind of recovered flock is that?

[OBW]

I love reading this story over and over. The whole of dispensational theology starts with the visionary fits of a seriously ill Pentecostal and not from the storehouse of the Bible.

Yet so many are now almost entirely focused on the life-to-come at the expense of the life that now is. To quote a certain green wrinkled Muppet

All his life has he looked away… to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm?

Maybe a little too much. But maybe not. There is clearly more concern for what is coming that what is going on now. We all have our ticket, so this life is essentially irrelevant.

Of course, that does not explain the constant prayers to get over illness so we can stay here longer (for no apparent reason other than to pine about being elsewhere).

I know. This is a little too sarcastic. But then the Rapture hyperbole is worthy of much sarcasm. Not because there is any question that Jesus is coming again, but because of the misplaced emphasis on the future rather than on the here and now.

As for Darby's "spirituality," and the chasing after things spiritual that has followed ever since, it is part of the errant divide between the secular and divine, or spiritual. For the Christian, life should not be secular , but spiritual. All the way down to the hoeing of potatoes, activities in the marketplace, and the washing of clothes. It is not just something that happens in quiet times, or meetings of the church.

[aron]

An interesting thing about Darby, like Nee and later Lee, is that they didn't originate their teachings. They came onto a pre-existing separatist, or dissenting group, latched onto some aspect of the teachings, and bulldozed their way to the top. And with all three, when they passed and their iron grip no longer was the force binding the assembly, it split asunder, with little fiefdoms of wanna-be's popping up all over.

With Darby the ex-Anglican priest, his new home group the Peebs was full of 'Darbyisms', some of which weren't even his ideas; later I hear that the group is now being run by the Australian Hales family, the current EB bosses.

With Nee, he came onto the already pre-existant Shanghai Christian Assembly, removed senior co-workers like Leland Wang (see Lee's "Seer of the Divine Revelation", p. 19) due to his "local ground" theory, then once he was Alpha Dog he discovered "Authority and Submission" and so forth. How convenient.

And Lee was clearly a pea in Nee's pod, hijacking the movement post-Nee to the now Dong-ites, Chu-ites, and Blended-ites. All these little kingdoms with their carefully reasoned arguments, who alone have the vision.

Originally Posted by OBW

I know. This is a little too sarcastic. But then the Rapture hyperbole is worthy of much sarcasm. Not because there is any question that Jesus is coming again, but because of the misplaced emphasis on the future rather than on the here and now.

I grew up on dispensationalist fundamental teaching, then took the Nee/Lee's version for years, and never challenged any of it. So it was kind of shocking for me to see its emergence on the scene so recently. What I stress here is OBW's point that it leads tomisplaced emphasis. A lot of LC lore is not necessarily false, any more than what is held to be true at the Podunk Community Church. But there is clearly misplaced emphasis. Grace over works, "life" over righteousness, loving theology over loving one's neighbor, despising those who cannot repay you in this age, I could go on and on.

It's questionable teaching that, unquestioned, leads to orthopraxy. The fruit is too clear.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

This idea of seeing something and finding yourself in the minority is both the way forward and the way into lala land. Sometimes we as a larger group really are stuck. It takes someone willing to read what is there, have a revelation as to what it is actually saying, and raising their voice/hand and suggesting that we rethink.

And yet it is the allure of unique thinking that captures so many into cults or other marginal sects. The idea that I/we have knowledge that only a few others have and that the majority is ignorant.

It is a dangerous place to be. . .

And therefore, the one, or few, who come up with a different way may be precursors to either the forward movement of the church, or the exit of some from "the way."

Or they may just be pushed-down without any real consideration by those who have decided that it is all settled. Yet they are unable to see that their "settled" position was not the settled position of not that many years ago, therefore who is to say that we should be settled.

And it is "we" and not just "me" who should be concluding. I can read. I can suggest. I can engage. But I cannot dictate or determine alone.

I dragged this over from another thread, because it speaks to something vis-a-vis, the discussion of Darby, Nee, and Lee. The pattern I see is of someone who gets caught by an idea, whether "secret rapture" or "local ground" or whatnot; they come into a dissenting, isolated fellowship that has rejected the status quo as "dead Christianity", and then proceed to dominate this closed and vulnerable flock with their promulgation of said idea. They may not be the originators, but they become the champions: they do a kind of scorched-earth warfare with the idea and everyone who doesn't get on board is excluded. The human cost of their theology's triumph is merely a cost of doing business.

Now, they're left with the Bible, which they outwardly profess to love and obey, and the voice in their head, which tells them what the Bible is saying. None other can intrude; the thrice-recommended "safety of many counselors" in Proverbs is now long gone. Only them, their Bible, the voice in their head, and their submissive acolytes are left. The group into which they've come now has no recourse but to go into the ditch. None can restrain the madness of the prophet, the self-anointed "seer of the divine revelation."

With Lee, an example can be seen when the voice in his head told him that many scripture passages, both OT and NT, were low, natural, fallen human concepts and he believed it. His interpretive metric must prevail, and increase, and the Bible itself lost -- we prayed over ministry outlines and rejected scriptures as unprofitable. (I've gone into this in some detail in the "Psalms" thread, and elsewhere.)

With Nee, it can be seen in some of his bizarre later statements, when he was trying to run 'his' Little Flock. . . orientalisms like "get in line" and "know who's in front of you" and "handing over"; the sudden revelation of the centralizing "Jerusalem Principle"; his responses to the threats his hegemony faced by the newly-triumphant Maoists; all this exposed Nee as a fallible human like the rest of us, yet one now devoid of any help from peers. He'd already determined that he had no peers, and only one voice in the room mattered, which was his own, and now his voice was cracking, but what could he do? He'd built his nest and now he and the rest had to live in it.

With Darby, there's a misplaced emphasis on previously hidden truths: a secret coming, for example, which will precede the bright glory that will be seen from East to West. Commensurate with the obsessive promotion of these recently "recovered truths", there's the ejection of everyone that can't toe the line of doctrinal dead letters. There's a complete absence of love for any other human being, which makes his obvious devotion to his mystical hidden Christ seem quite unbalanced (i.e. unreal) indeed.

And so on; I'm unqualified to offer detailed critiques of these men or their ideas. But what little I see is plain: "The Bible alone" was merely a vehicle for "my ideas alone" which ultimately made for a deformed Christian assembly: it was no longer the Christian assembly of "we", but had become the assembly of "me". Not a normal Christian church life at all.

(Perhaps not coincidentally, Lee's Blended Lieutenants referred to such dominant ministries as spiritual "giants". But the scriptural record of the Giants isn't good, unfortunately; they ate up men, until the cries of the afflicted earth reached to heaven. Such Giants [Gk: "grigori"] dominating the intellectual and behavioral landscape of the Christian church probably isn't healthy, at all. See e.g. Gen 6:4)

[Ohio]

I came across this short youtube video titled Plymouth Brethren & John Nelson Darby Founder Of Dispensationalism & The Pre Trib Rapture Exposed. Very well done with numerous scholars cited. What I found so interesting, especially concerning Darby himself, was that I could almost perfectly substitute WL in place of Darby, with minor changes like inserting "God's Economy" for "dispensationalism."

One can readily see the similarities between these two men, their talents, their rise to prominence in the movement, their attitudes towards others, their views of the church and recovery, etc.

[Sons to Glory!]

Since this older thread has been resurrected, I thought to add something regarding dispensationalism that we've discussed on another Christian forum I'm on in some length. Amillennialists purport that dispensationalism wasn't around before it was popularized in the 1800s. This is not the case. The idea can be found in many early church writers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and to a degree Augustine. But it seems that after the RCC firmly took over much of the church, amillennialism was the basic theme for over a thousand years.

See here: Dispensationalism And The Early Church Fathers

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Since this older thread has been resurrected, I thought to add something regarding dispensationalism that we've discussed on another Christian forum I'm on in some length. Amillennialists purport that dispensationalism wasn't around before it was popularized in the 1800s. This is not the case. The idea can be found in many early church writers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and to a degree Augustine. But it seems that after the RCC firmly took over much of the church, amillennialism was the basic theme for over a thousand years.

See here: Dispensationalism And The Early Church Fathers

Good point. I found this also true of the so-called creation Gap Theory. It was discussed way back in time and actually was the prevalent thought concerning creation until the last century.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good point. I found this also true of the so-called creation Gap Theory. It was discussed way back in time and actually was the prevalent thought concerning creation until the last century.

I've seen that too. It seems to be a common thing to say to discredit certain teachings --> "This is a newer thought that the early church didn't have."

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Since this older thread has been resurrected, I thought to add something regarding dispensationalism that we've discussed on another Christian forum I'm on in some length. Amillennialists purport that dispensationalism wasn't around before it was popularized in the 1800s. This is not the case. The idea can be found in many early church writers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and to a degree Augustine. But it seems that after the RCC firmly took over much of the church, amillennialism was the basic theme for over a thousand years.

See here: Dispensationalism And The Early Church Fathers

I’m going to politely object here. While early Church writers may have had flavors of what is now known today as dispensationalism, this theological system wasn’t a formal system until Darby. Darby defined the dispensations and presented how the Bible should be viewed through this theological system.

None of the early church writers or leaders that we know of used what is known as the dispensational framework to read the Bible . They (as noted in the article) saw different ways God interacted with man and commented on it, however they never formalized an entire system of biblical interpretation.

It’s important to point this out, because the Recovery will have you believe that this framework is something that has always existed, it’s a recovered truth. However, it simply isn’t and was formalized in the last 200 years. During my time in the recovery I never knew that there was other systems of biblical interpretation. I never knew that the recovery’s view of secret rapture was a fringe belief, I never knew that the recovery’s view of Israel being separate from the church was not a widely held belief.

While salvation doesn’t hinge on what theological system you use, a lot of other beliefs do. Specifically eschatology, the only way certain end time beliefs work is if they are viewed through specific theological system lenses. When beliefs about the end times dictate a huge portion of your Christian life (being an over comer, secret rapture) it’s good practice to understand where that lens comes from. With the Lords Recovery, it’s a lens that is relatively new in the grand scheme of things.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Zezima

I’m going to politely object here. While early Church writers may have had flavors of what is now known today as dispensationalism, this theological system wasn’t a formal system until Darby. Darby defined the dispensations and presented how the Bible should be viewed through this theological system.

Instead of saying Darby was the Father of Dispensationalism, some say he was actually the father of systematized dispensationalism. That may be a more accurate moniker.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

I’m going to politely object here. While early Church writers may have had flavors of what is now known today as dispensationalism, this theological system wasn’t a formal system until Darby. Darby defined the dispensations and presented how the Bible should be viewed through this theological system.

While salvation doesn’t hinge on what theological system you use, a lot of other beliefs do. Specifically eschatology, the only way certain end time beliefs work is if they are viewed through specific theological system lenses. When beliefs about the end times dictate a huge portion of your Christian life (being an over comer, secret rapture) it’s good practice to understand where that lens comes from. With the Lords Recovery, it’s a lens that is relatively new in the grand scheme of things.

Zezima, it seems that you oppose all Biblical teachings just because JND, WN, or WL used it. The reason many embrace elements of "Dispensationalism" is because it does have some value to help our understanding of the scriptures. Of course, as Sons to Glory alludes to, all teaching paradigms or systems can be taken to extremes, and go beyond the limits of scripture. Hyper Calvinistic teachings also come to mind here. Pentecostal teachings are another by their equating all mentions of Spirit/spirit with tongues.

I believe it's far better to examine each teaching, i.e. "test all things, hold on to the good,"as the Apostle admonishes us. Otherwise we end up discarding the good with the bad just because we abhor one particular messenger or system. And let's be fair that Dispensationalism is not the only teaching system prone to errors or extremes. Better to be like the Bereans who examined all teachings with the Word of God.

Regardless of what Darby or others teach, the entire Bible, and Revelations chapters 2-3 in particular, provide numerous blessings upon those who "overcome." Jesus' own Sermon on the Mount also provides unique blessings to those who "overcome" for lack of a better word. Paul's faith stories in Hebrews 11 list numerous accounts of specific men who overcame by faith.

I do agree with you that there is no privileged class of believers called "overcomers," rather this word is always used as an action of faith and obedience to the Lord during those trials His believers are confronted with. For any sect, such as the Recovery versions, to label their adherents alone as "overcomers" is a horrible deception.

There are also numerous verses on the (secret) rapture. Do you oppose them too?

[Ohio]

It would be nice to see aron also respond here. It's been awhile since we have seen him. I sure hope all is well with him.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Zezima, it seems that you oppose all Biblical teachings just because JND, WN, or WL used it. The reason many embrace elements of "Dispensationalism" is because it does have some value to help our understanding of the scriptures. Of course, as Sons to Glory alludes to, all teaching paradigms or systems can be taken to extremes, and go beyond the limits of scripture. Hyper Calvinistic teachings also come to mind here. Pentecostal teachings are another by their equating all mentions of Spirit/spirit with tongues.

There are also numerous verses on the (secret) rapture. Do you oppose them too?

It’s hard for me now to agree with any biblical teaching that first requires you to put on a special pair of glasses in order for it to make sense. A lot of the biblical teachings outside the matters of the faith in the Lord’s Recovery are only “biblical” through a specific pair of glasses, in this case dispensationalism.

They will give entire conferences on topics like “the man child” or “to be an overcomer to bring back god” or entire messages on the “secret rapture”. They’ll say “the second coming is near because Israel is now a national state!” “A missile will soon hit the temple on the mount, and the end will be begin!”

However, these beliefs are dependent on a pair of glasses that are pretty new in the entire history of the Christian church. While I’m not saying dispensationalism is wrong, it’s important to make note that this system is new in the scope of Christian history.

For the longest time while I was in the Lord’s Recovery I had a hard time believing a secret rapture, and chalked it up to me “not having the vision”. Then one day I discovered that it’s not a doctrine that’s existed throughout church history, that it stems from a theological system that’s only 200ish years old, and the majority of Christianity doesn’t even hold it to be true. Wait a second, there’s other systems for interpreting the Bible that don’t differ in matters of the faith? There’s other views on how the end times will play out?

That’s what my understanding of this thread is, pointing out the pair of glasses the recovery uses to interpret the Bible. More so, that these glasses are relatively new.

About the secret rapture, I’m referring to the recovery’s view that a group gets left behind and some are taken. This is something I just don’t find biblical evidence for.

[Bible-believer]

1Co 9:17

For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Eph 1:10

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Eph 3:2

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Col 1:25

Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

1Co 9:17

For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

Eph 1:10

That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Eph 3:2

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

Col 1:25

Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

Odd that despite the appearance of the word "dispensation" in whatever version of the bible you are using (KJV?), I cannot discover that the use of the word is in any way meant to imply some unifying method of understanding the whole of the scripture, but rather an alternative way of saying something else (that other versions say much more clearly). For example, in 1 Cor 9, "dispensation" is not a magical word, but rather part of a more archaic way of saying that Paul was given a charge (to preach the gospel). Not to understand "dispensation" as some kind of overarching principle of everything.

Of all the ways that each of these passages could have been worded (both in the time of King James and today) and we latch onto one of them has defining doctrine that the alternatives would suggest was never even imagined by the translators.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

It’s hard for me now to agree with any biblical teaching that first requires you to put on a special pair of glasses in order for it to make sense. A lot of the biblical teachings outside the matters of the faith in the Lord’s Recovery are only “biblical” through a specific pair of glasses, in this case dispensationalism.

I agree. And that's why I have discarded the systems of theology in order to return to the scriptures. I suggest you do a basic word study, for example, study every verse in the NT that includes the word "overcome."

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I agree. And that's why I have discarded the systems of theology in order to return to the scriptures. I suggest you do a basic word study, for example, study every verse in the NT that includes the word "overcome."

Thumbs up sign!