There are many accusations against the pre-tribulation rapture, everything from people calling it lies to heretical. Some even going so far to say that if someone believe in the pretrib they are not saved. This is nonsense. It appears to me this sort of venom is directed almost exclusively towards pre-trib believers and is unbecoming of how Christians should behave toward one another.
One common accusation is that John Darby got his ideas from a vision of a 15 year old Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald. Let's put this myth to rest once and for all. Firstly Morgan Edwards suggested a pre-trib rapture some 86 years before Darby*. If you want to go back further, Pseudo-Ephraim made a pre-trib statement in the 4th to 8th century**. The concept of imminency, a crucial feature of pretribulationism, was spoken of by many Apostolic Fathers including Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas.
Second, John Darby coalesced his ideas about the rapture in a period of from December 1827 through January 1828, some three years before MacDonald's vision in 1830. If one actually read's MacDonald's vision it doesn't sound like a pre-trib rapture at all. In anything it sounds like a post-trib statement. She specifically says, "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist." and "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." That is not pretrib, moreover Darby considered MacDonald's vision to be demonic in nature.
Another accusation is that the pre-trib rapture is new. Well the reality is the early church did not have a defined doctrine or census regarding the rapture of the Church. Sure, you can find elements from every rapture position in their writings, from pre to post, but elements does not a doctrine make. The truth is all rapture positions are modern. For example:
Mid-tribulationalism emerged in 1941 with the publication of the book, "The End: Rethinking the Revelation" by Norman B. Harrison. Prewrath was conceived in the 1970's by Robert Van Kampen and only came to public attention in 1990 with Marvin Rosenthal's book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church". And there are a number of posttribulation views developed in the 19th and 20th centuries:
Classic post-tribulationism (J. Barton Payne, et al); (1855 – 1935)
Semi-classic post-tribulation ism (Alexander Reese); (1881-1969)
Futuristic post-tribulationism (George E. Ladd); (1911 – 1982)
Dispensational post-tribulationism (Robert H. Gundry). (1932 – Present)
So as you can see, they were all conceived in the last century or two. I believe there are several reasons for this. It comes down to literacy and availability. For one, bibles weren't readily available to the lay person for much of Church history. The printing press wasn't even invented until 15th century, even then there were times they were prohibited from translating the bible into different languages. John Wycliffe was posthumously condemned and William Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536 for translating the bible into English. Illiteracy was high and even when they had access to bibles they weren't always permitted from reading it. One of the reasons the Pilgrims came to America was because public reading of the bible was prohibited in England. So it wasn’t until the translation of the New Testament into the English and German languages in the 16th century did Bibles become readily available. It was only then that ideas about the rapture were able to get fleshed out.
Second sometimes doctrine can take centuries to develop such as the trinity, which took a couple of hundred years after Christ to become an established Church doctrine. Things are never revealed to us all at once but in increments.
Lastly interest of the end-times didn’t really begin until the 19th century and really took off in the 20th century after for formation of Israel in 1948. I do believe God is allowing us insights into the end-times the closer we get to it. When the angel gave Daniel the scroll, he couldn’t understand it. The angel told him it to seal it up until the time of the end when knowledge shall increase (Dan 12). Daniel’s generation couldn’t understand these things but we are gaining insights that they did not have. We gain knowledge and understanding in proportion to the resources and education available to us. The point of mentioning all this is that age should not be a determining factor is something is true or not.
One a final note, the rapture is a non-essential doctrine. Rather one is pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, pos-trib or no-trib, it should not matter because it is NOT a salvation issue. It should not be a divisive issue for the Church. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
*Morgan Edwards (May 9, 1722 – January 25, 1795) was a Welsh historian of religion, Baptist pastor, and notable for his teaching on the 'rapture' before its popularization by John Nelson Darby (1800–1882). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Edwards
Edwards wrote, “II. The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more—, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in the air” (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment must begin,” and that will be “at the house of God” (I Pet. iv. 17)...(p. 7; The spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized.)” - Morgan Edwards, Two Academical Exercised on Subjects Bearing the following Titles: Millennium, Last-Novelties Philadelphia: self-published, 1788).
**Pseudo-Ephraim, not to be confused with Ephraim the Syrian, wrote, “Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” 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.”
Rather “taken to the Lord” implies death or a rapture is open to debate. By faith Enoch was “taken away” so that he did not see death (Heb 11:5). Clearly then, “taken” by the Lord does not always result in death. Pseudo-Ephraim’s statement may not contain all the elements of modern pretribulationism, but it does represent an early version of it and well before any of the other rapture positions.
One common accusation is that John Darby got his ideas from a vision of a 15 year old Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald. Let's put this myth to rest once and for all. Firstly Morgan Edwards suggested a pre-trib rapture some 86 years before Darby*. If you want to go back further, Pseudo-Ephraim made a pre-trib statement in the 4th to 8th century**. The concept of imminency, a crucial feature of pretribulationism, was spoken of by many Apostolic Fathers including Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Shepherd of Hermas.
Second, John Darby coalesced his ideas about the rapture in a period of from December 1827 through January 1828, some three years before MacDonald's vision in 1830. If one actually read's MacDonald's vision it doesn't sound like a pre-trib rapture at all. In anything it sounds like a post-trib statement. She specifically says, "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist." and "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." That is not pretrib, moreover Darby considered MacDonald's vision to be demonic in nature.
Another accusation is that the pre-trib rapture is new. Well the reality is the early church did not have a defined doctrine or census regarding the rapture of the Church. Sure, you can find elements from every rapture position in their writings, from pre to post, but elements does not a doctrine make. The truth is all rapture positions are modern. For example:
Mid-tribulationalism emerged in 1941 with the publication of the book, "The End: Rethinking the Revelation" by Norman B. Harrison. Prewrath was conceived in the 1970's by Robert Van Kampen and only came to public attention in 1990 with Marvin Rosenthal's book "The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church". And there are a number of posttribulation views developed in the 19th and 20th centuries:
Classic post-tribulationism (J. Barton Payne, et al); (1855 – 1935)
Semi-classic post-tribulation ism (Alexander Reese); (1881-1969)
Futuristic post-tribulationism (George E. Ladd); (1911 – 1982)
Dispensational post-tribulationism (Robert H. Gundry). (1932 – Present)
So as you can see, they were all conceived in the last century or two. I believe there are several reasons for this. It comes down to literacy and availability. For one, bibles weren't readily available to the lay person for much of Church history. The printing press wasn't even invented until 15th century, even then there were times they were prohibited from translating the bible into different languages. John Wycliffe was posthumously condemned and William Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536 for translating the bible into English. Illiteracy was high and even when they had access to bibles they weren't always permitted from reading it. One of the reasons the Pilgrims came to America was because public reading of the bible was prohibited in England. So it wasn’t until the translation of the New Testament into the English and German languages in the 16th century did Bibles become readily available. It was only then that ideas about the rapture were able to get fleshed out.
Second sometimes doctrine can take centuries to develop such as the trinity, which took a couple of hundred years after Christ to become an established Church doctrine. Things are never revealed to us all at once but in increments.
Lastly interest of the end-times didn’t really begin until the 19th century and really took off in the 20th century after for formation of Israel in 1948. I do believe God is allowing us insights into the end-times the closer we get to it. When the angel gave Daniel the scroll, he couldn’t understand it. The angel told him it to seal it up until the time of the end when knowledge shall increase (Dan 12). Daniel’s generation couldn’t understand these things but we are gaining insights that they did not have. We gain knowledge and understanding in proportion to the resources and education available to us. The point of mentioning all this is that age should not be a determining factor is something is true or not.
One a final note, the rapture is a non-essential doctrine. Rather one is pre-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath, pos-trib or no-trib, it should not matter because it is NOT a salvation issue. It should not be a divisive issue for the Church. We should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
*Morgan Edwards (May 9, 1722 – January 25, 1795) was a Welsh historian of religion, Baptist pastor, and notable for his teaching on the 'rapture' before its popularization by John Nelson Darby (1800–1882). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Edwards
Edwards wrote, “II. The distance between the first and second resurrection will be somewhat more than a thousand years. I say, somewhat more—, because the dead saints will be raised, and the living changed at Christ’s “appearing in the air” (I Thes. iv. 17); and this will be about three years and a half before the millennium, as we shall see hereafter: but will he and they abide in the air all that time? No: they will ascend to paradise, or to some one of those many “mansions in the father’s house” (John xiv. 2), and disappear during the foresaid period of time. The design of this retreat and disappearing will be to judge the risen and changed saints; for “now the time is come that judgment must begin,” and that will be “at the house of God” (I Pet. iv. 17)...(p. 7; The spelling of all Edwards quotes have been modernized.)” - Morgan Edwards, Two Academical Exercised on Subjects Bearing the following Titles: Millennium, Last-Novelties Philadelphia: self-published, 1788).
**Pseudo-Ephraim, not to be confused with Ephraim the Syrian, wrote, “Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” 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.”
Rather “taken to the Lord” implies death or a rapture is open to debate. By faith Enoch was “taken away” so that he did not see death (Heb 11:5). Clearly then, “taken” by the Lord does not always result in death. Pseudo-Ephraim’s statement may not contain all the elements of modern pretribulationism, but it does represent an early version of it and well before any of the other rapture positions.
