Margaret MacDonald Who??

[Bug]

Margaret MacDonald Who??

Ok, I'm ducking here!   
Not for the sake of argument, but truth.
I was first made aware of Mary MacDonald when I read a commentary by Ellis Scholfield. I had never heard of her until then. She is often the one people point to as the inventor of the rapture. So I googled and found this.
   
First, to quote Jack Kinsella:
http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=220
â€alive and meet the Lord 'in the air']where He is.
There are those who argue that the doctrine of the Rapture of the Church is a recent construct, dating to the beginning of the 19th century. It would appear that for that argument to hold water, Paul must have been referring to some event other than the Rapture in these verses.
To date, nobody has demonstrated a satisfactory alternative explanation. Just that Paul's alternative explanation must have been satisfactory, even though they aren't quite sure what it was.”
 
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-pre-trib-rapture.html
The Margaret MacDonald Origin
One of the most widely circulated attacks against the pre-trib rapture is the notion that a girl named Margaret MacDonald started this theological view back in 1830. The claim is typically made that MacDonald received a demonic vision, passed it on to John Darby, who in turn popularized it. Disproving this assertion proves rather easy. Pre-trib scholars have discovered a host of rapture writings that predate Margaret MacDonald.
Epharaem the Syrian said, in 373 AD, "For all the saints and Elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."
One post-trib author offered a reward to anyone who could find a quote that predated MacDonald. He had to quickly cough up the money when someone identified a scholar who wrote about the pre-trib rapture several years before MacDonald. As of late, dozens of examples have been found, and the literary surface has hardly been scratched.
With the revealing of all these pre-MacDonald writings, you would think that this argument has been debunked. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We seem to be involved in a tug-of-war with the truth. Apparently, due to their lack of research, pre-trib opponents continue to pump out publications that cite MacDonald as the originator of the pre-trib rapture.”


And finally this:
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-margaret-mcdonald.html

“Margaret MacDonald is not the mother of the pre-tribulation rapture.

I have visited just about every anti-rapture web site on the internet. One common point used on nearly every one of these sites to oppose the pretribulation doctrine is the claim that the rapture theory was started by a Scottish girl named Margaret MacDonald. Many critics of the rapture declare that MacDonald received her vision from demonic origins, and that she then passed on the message of that vision to infect the Church. Being a staunch pretribulationist, I'm at a loss to explain the connection between Margaret MacDonald and my beliefs in the rapture. I cannot recall ever hearing pre-trib prophetic speakers say, "I believe in the rapture because Margaret MacDonald told me so."

After reading and listening to a number of web sites, books, and radio programs that promote the idea that Margaret MacDonald started pretribulationism, I decided to look into the matter.

To be certain that I made no oversight, I searched through my library of prophecy books for references citing Margaret MacDonald as the founder of the rapture teaching. My hunt turned out to be in vain. It was like looking for the cartoon character "Where's Waldo." Only in this case, no Waldo was to be found.

If MacDonald was the founder of the pretribulation rapture, as most anti-rapture proponents say, then someone needs to explain why rapturists have failed to give her credit. You would expect to find dozens of books that expound upon her every word. From reading the writings of anti-rapture authors, one would think we pre-tribbers would be reverencing MacDonald as Catholics do Mary. But clearly we don't. Pre-tribbers don’t go around reciting, "Hail Margaret full of grace, blessed art thou among visionaries, pray for us sinners at the time of the rapture." If MacDonald were the founder of the doctrine of rapture, the lack of recognition we rapture believers pay her would be comparable to the modern Mormon church failing to recognize Joseph Smith as its founder or to the Jehovah's witnesses neglecting to identify Charles Russell as that group’s originator. Poor Margaret MacDonald, she gets all of the blame, but none of the credit.

After having examined the claims of those critical of the rapture, I have found holes large enough to drive a dump truck through in their so-called evidence:

              The first problem with the MacDonald origin is the fact that she wasn't the one who widely taught the doctrine of the pre-trib rapture. A man named John Darby is believed by many to have sparked modern interest in the rapture. The question here is how Darby came to hear of MacDonald's vision. Proponents like Dave MacPherson and John L. Bray have never been able to prove that Darby had ever heard of MacDonald or her vision.
               
              Darby himself claims the revelation of the rapture came to him when he realized the distinction between Israel and the church.
               
              Darby reported that he discovered the rapture teaching in 1827, three years before MacDonald had her vision.
               
              When one closely examines MacDonald's vision, it becomes clear that her vision could not have been a pretribulational one. MacDonald looked for a "fiery trial which is to try us," and she foresaw the Church being purged by the Antichrist. Any pretribulation rapturist can tell you the Church will be removed before the advent of the Antichrist. John Bray, an anti-rapturist, said himself that Margaret MacDonald was teaching a single coming of our Lord Jesus. This contradicts current rapture doctrine, which teaches a two-staged event—first, Christ coming for His Church and second, seven years later His return to earth. With so many contradictions between MacDonald's vision and today's pretribulationism, it is difficult to see any linkage.
               
              By far the biggest mistake post-tribulationists have made attacking the rapture is claiming that the pretribulation rapture wasn’t taught before 1830. In fact, John L. Bray, a Southern Baptist evangelist, offered $500 to anyone who could prove that someone taught the rapture doctrine prior to MacDonald's 1830 vision. Bray was first proven wrong when he wrote in a newsletter, "Then my own research indicated that it was Emmanuel Lacunza, a Jesuit Catholic priest, who in the 1812 book The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, first taught this theory." Bray stuck his neck out again when he made another $500 offer to anyone who could provide a documented statement earlier than Lacunza's 1812 writings. Apparently he had to cough up the 500 bucks. I quote him again: "I offered $500 to anyone who would give a documented statement earlier than Lacunza's time which taught a two-stage coming of Christ separated by a stated period of time.” No one claimed that offer until someone found writings that forced Bray to write the following: “Now I have the Photostat copies of a book published in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1788 but written in 1742-1744 in England, which taught the pretribulation rapture before Lacunza." Lately, a number of other sources have been located that teach the pretribulation rapture--some written as early as the second century. Where does this leave Margaret MacDonald?

In my life here on earth, I've made a number of observations that I regard as undeniable truths. One of these is the fact that the truth will suffer attacks with no one defending it, while a lie will be allowed to proliferate with no one challenging it. This seems to have taken place in the case of the rapture. For years on end, anti-rapturists have been allowed to attack pretribulationism freely. One assailant called the rapture the mark of the beast while another remarked that when Jesus returns at the battle of Armageddon, He will fight against those who believe in the rapture. The people who should have been contending for the rapture, for the most part, just said, "That may be your opinion."

Finally, it appears that those who hold to a pretribulation rapture are beginning to counter the ridiculous charges. A number of books have been published that cite several pre-MacDonald sources describing a raptured Church. Author Grant Jeffrey deserves a good deal of praise for his work in discovering many of these sources.

As far as being able to find the pretribulation rapture in the Bible, we don’t need to be rocket scientists to discover it. For me, locating the rapture doctrine in the Bible was as simple as finding evidence that Jesus Christ is Messiah.

The evidence that Christians believed in the rapture long before MacDonald does not seem to have sunk into the minds of those opposed to the rapture. They still teach that she is the founder of pretribulationism. When someone is presented with overwhelming proof that he or she is wrong and refuses to accept that truth, then we certainly may conclude that he or she is in spiritual darkness.

I would like to conclude by saying that no evidence whatsoever points to MacDonald as the source of pretribulationism. Every major prophetic author alive today claims the Word of God as the foundation for belief in the rapture. Both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul made statements that clearly establish the rapture doctrine. Jesus said, in Matthew 25:13, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." Paul affirmed in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

[witty1]

Oh Ferg...

[Bug]

  Delete

[Ferg]

Why, thank you Bug, I'm ducking and diving!

In this post, I quote the source references, book references, even page references so that you can look at historical facts for yourselves. I quote all historical figures by name, and each can be verified and studied at your leisure. I urge you to look at history, and deduce from it as you will.

If one is serious about searching out truth, one of the first rules is to look for ourselves. The second rule of seeking, is go to the source. The third rule, is go to the source’s source, and so on. If we ignore the first two rules, we are building on a dubious foundation indeed. There is no quick and easy way to bypass diligent, methodical study. If we do this, we will not be easily swayed by diverse teachings.

It is fortunate for the purposes of this post, that I am a historian.   [of some distinction ]

In regards to Margaret Macdonald, first of all, I am not aware of her being the “inventor” of any rapture. Rather she is ‘credited’ with propounding early ‘partial rapturism’, though the term itself is not her own.
If you read her writings, you will be aware of her influences and subsequent doctrines. [Well documented, and obtainable from the British History Museum Archives.]
Something for a later post perhaps (?)

In actual fact, Margaret Macdonald has been over-credited by ‘pre-tribbers’ as a major player, due to a fundamental lack of understanding, easily rectified by study. To really understand how Margaret fits into the picture, you have to know something of Edward Irving [the ‘apostolic cultist’], and the ‘Irvingates’ of 19th century Britain. It is actually ‘Robert Norton’ the Irvingate who brought credence to Margaret Macdonald. [Who would otherwise have gone un-noticed]

I find it vaguely ironic that she still holds such focus from those that would disassociate themselves from her.

Anyone who has studied the history of the [visible] church, [which I have] will know how Irving impacted the ‘Presbyterian’ movement, and how his eschatological doctrines crept into other established denominations.
For years, the subject of prophecy occupied much of Irvings thoughts, and his belief in the near approach of the second advent had received such wonderful corroboration by the perusal of the work of a Jesuit priest, Manuel Lacunza, writing under the assumed Jewish name of Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, that in 1827 he published a translation of it.
Irving was charged with Heresy during his ‘ministry’, and languished in the obsessive doctrine of millenarianism.
Really, Margaret Macdonald was a kind of ‘flavouring’ to the real substance of the teachings of ‘Ribera’ and later, ‘Lacunza’.

A note on Ribera
In 1591 AD, the Jesuit Ribera invented a 'futurist' view. He claimed that Revelation would not be fulfilled until the end of the Christian era. He also taught a rebuilt Babylon, a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, and an end-time antichrist etc.
Ribera is the father of the prophetic views taught by many major denominations today.
(And not Margaret Macdonald)

A note on Lacunza
The church is indebted to Dave MacPherson for;
’The rapture plot’ [Simpsonville SC Millennium III publishers]
and his twenty three years of researching source documents to uncover the true origin of 'dispensational eschatology'.
The historic record of the origin of 'dispensational Eschatology' is unassailable.
Read it for yourselves, and it will cost you in time brethren.

A brief [and appropriate] word from Dave Macpherson; (Which may also serve to clear him from certain 'labels' and associations with others.

(quote)
A few of my acquaintances, especially John Bray, have claimed that a  Catholic priest named Manuel de Lacunza (using the pen name "Ben-Ezra")  originated the pretribulation rapture belief and introduced it in his  notable work "The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty" (1812). Well, now is the right time to tell you that I am forced to kindly disagree with the Lacunza claim. Here's why:

Bray, in his 1982 booklet "The Origin of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Teaching," admitted that he'd been influenced by an early 20th century pastor, Rev. Duncan McDougall of the Free Church of Scotland, who wrote the booklet "The Rapture of the Saints." McDougall, copied by Bray, was inspired by "much before" speculation in a Lacunza quote (Vol. I, p. 99) which declared that "much before" Christ's "arrival at the earth" He "will give his orders" involving a shout, the archangel's voice, and the trumpet of God (I Thess. 4:16).

But both McDougall and Bray were evidently unaware that a few paragraphs after the "much before" quote (and in the same context), Lacunza reveals that other writers of his time commonly believe that "a few minutes will suffice, five or six" between the catching up and the touchdown at Jerusalem. Although Lacunza doesn't explain his "much before," a day, or even an hour would be "much before" when compared with only five or six minutes.

Lacunza speculates (Vol. II, p. 250) that the "wrath" and "commotion" of the "day of the Lord's coming" (that is, the Second Advent) will last at least "forty-five natural days." Bray somehow sees these days as part of "the tribulation period" and claims that in Lacunza's view the raptured saints are up in the air with Christ throughout the same 45-day period.

Even though Lacunza places a rapture before this period, he repeatedly notes that this period is "after the entire ruin of Antichrist," "after the coming of Christ in glory and majesty," "in the age to come," etc.!

After the meeting in the air, Lacunza even has the raptured saints back on earth
during the 45 days! In Vol. II (pp. 262-3) he declares that they will immediately become Christ's messengers; he quotes Isa. 18:2: "Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled" [in other words, to "the relics of all nations which shall survive" Antichrist's reign.]

Does Lacunza teach a rapture occurring 45 days before the coming to earth, as Bray claims? Let's look at Vol. I.

On p. 83 Lacunza refers to the book of Revelation and writes that "the nineteenth chapter speaks of the coming of the Lord in glory and majesty, which Christians with one consent, do wait for." Pages 99-100: after quoting I Thess 4:13-18, Lacunza quotes Matt. 24:30 and then comments: "If you compare this text with that of St. Paul, you shall find no other difference than this, that those who are to arise on the coming of the Lord, the apostle nameth those who are dead in Christ, who sleep in Jesus; and the Lord nameth them his elect."

Lacunza (p.113) again quotes I Thess. 4 and Matt. 24 in this manner:  "...He shall descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we who are alive, &c. and it appears to me, that you will find St.  Paul and the Gospel speaking one and the same thing: He shall send his angels and they shall gather his elect from the four winds; who can be no other than those very ones who are in Christ, who sleep in Jesus."

For years I sent ‘Lacunza quotes’ like the ones above to Bray and urged him to abandon that Catholic priest. Finally, in a letter dated Oct. 17, 1990 (still in my files), Bray wrote: "I don't even know what all Lacunza was talking about."
 
(He's the same Bray who's been promoting 18th century pastor Morgan Edwards as a pretribber. But I've been telling Bray that Edwards believed that "Antichrist" was the Catholic papacy which had already been on earth for 
1200 years before Edwards wrote his book! I've also told Bray that Edwards viewed the Ottoman Empire as Rev. 13's second beast; a beast that was already four centuries old in Edwards' day! It would have been impossible for Edwards to expect an event which logically should have happened centuries earlier!)

Interestingly, even Tim LaHaye's 1992 book "No Fear of the Storm" 
(Alias "Rapture under Attack," alias "The Rapture"), p. 169, admits that "Lacunza never taught a pre-Trib Rapture!"

If Lacunza's 1812 book contains pretrib, as McDougall and Bray have claimed, why was such doctrine unknown before 1830? It wasn't that John Darby and Edward Irving were unaware of Lacunza's work, for both discussed it in their pre-1830 writings. And it wasn't that Darby and Irving were opposed to novel ideas, for both began to embrace pretrib after it emerged in 1830.

One final thought: why did the world have to wait until McDougall's time to hear something about Lacunza that it had never heard before?
                                                                                 

Darby is noted in the theological world as the father of "dispensationalism" later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's; ‘Scofield Reference Bible'.
                                                                      (end quote)


A note on Margaret Macdonald
To keep well in with the post title; ‘Margaret Macdonald who?’; here she is.
I’m presuming that you’ve done your studies on the influences of partial rapturism in the early nineteenth century.
(It does help to know the facts… whichever views we take.)

For several decades some pretrib leaders have deceitfully isolated Margaret Macdonald's ‘post-trib resembling statement; "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist" to try to establish that she was post-trib. I have in mind leaders like R. A. Huebner, Charles Ryrie, Thomas Ice, and Frank Marotta.
Like terrorists who destructively orchestrate mass confusion so that they can personally benefit, they had to have known that partial rapturism [Margaret's view] sees a pretrib rapture of PART of the church while also seeing the REST of the church enduring a future tribulation.

Professor Ryrie wonders how Margaret can declare that "the trial of the Church is from Antichrist" (lines 85-86) and speak of "the fiery trial which is to try us" (line 65) if the Church will "be caught up" before Antichrist arrives (lines 39-40). Apparently he's unaware of the terminology used by Partial Rapturists.

First of all, "Church" can denote the sum total of true believers on earth at any given moment. (Actually, in a larger sense, it refers to all such believers who are to live during the Church age. Conceivably most of the Church is now with the Lord; they are the dead in Christ who will also participate in the catching up.) Margaret has a message for all of the Church of her time (note "all" in line 14): some will be Spirit-filled and raptured, while others will be left on earth. She thus divides the Church; those left behind are properly called "Church." She even divides the ones left behind, for "many" (lines 62, 71) will fall away and there will be "stony-ground hearers" (line 71).

Margaret uses "us" and "we" in her second division (after the catching up) in an identifying, compassionate way [and not in a self-involving way]. Again she states that "all should be filled" (line 93), but she knows that some, including possibly her friends, will be "turning from Jesus" (line 94), "not entering in" (line 95), "passing the cross" (line 97), "looking from the cross" (line 100), and so on. Although she is sympathetic towards those who won't be raptured (and doesn't really know who will be raptured), she herself wants to be in the Rapture and prays for it (lines 113-115); she doesn't expect to be left behind.

Although Margaret employs "us" and "we" and "our" in a self-involving way in parts of her revelation, she stands back and uses detached expressions more frequently when referring to Christians: all, men, his people, those who have the light of God, those that are alive in him, spiritual temple, his body, the church, candlestick, temple, bride, she, the people of God, man, those who were filled with the Spirit, the one taken, the very elect, the real members of the body of Jesus, those...counted worthy to stand before the Son of man, the body, the servants of God, and so on. (Even in her second division she uses detached terms more frequently than "us" and "we.”)

What about "Church"? Can Partial Rapturists use this term when describing those left behind after a Rapture?

 

When Margaret uses "Church" in her second division, she means part of the Church; [the part left behind]. Do later Partial Rapturists connect "Church" with those left behind? Does later Partial Rapturism see the "Church" on earth when the Matthew 24 coming arrives?

In an article entitled "Seven Prophetic Parables and Seven Churches" which appeared in the June, 1888 issue of The Prophetic News and Israel's Watchman, G. H. Pember wrote on p. 175: "Philadelphia, then, is taken away, but Laodicea is spued out of Christ's mouth and left behind....The Lord is not in the midst of this fallen church; He has moved outside. Yet He lingers, and knocks at the door, if, perchance, any man----not the whole Church----should hear His voice."

Robert Govett, whom John Walvoord mentions in his latest book, included similar reasoning in his book; 'Christ the Head; the Church His Body' (1890). On pp. 194-195 he said: "'Then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man, coming in the clouds of heaven.' 'Then ye also shall be manifested together with Him in glory.' This appearing of Christ ends the Church, considered as a body under trial on the earth." (The Church, then, is still on earth after the first-stage coming, according to Partial Rapturists. And Margaret properly used "Church" when she described true believers left behind.)

Even Walvoord unwittingly adds fuel to the fire in The Rapture Question (Revised). On p. 97 he says that Partial Rapturism teaches that only the faithful of the Church will be in the Rapture, while the rest will be raptured later on. The rest of what? Although he doesn't say it, the answer can only be the rest of the Church! If the ones left behind are the only part of the Church on earth after the Rapture, they can be described properly as the Church [the term Margaret and other Partial Rapturists have used.]

On the same page Walvoord also refers to Partial Rapturists as Pre-Tribs (Pre-Tribs who see part of the Church raptured in a first-stage coming instead of all of the Church). If today's Partial Rapturism can be labelled Pre-Trib, as Walvoord labels it, even though the earliest Partial Rapturists taught a much smaller gap than Partial Rapturists teach today, it isn't difficult to believe that Walvoord's brand of Pre-Trib also had the same small gap in its earliest days, which is exactly what we've discovered.

Margaret and the Irvingites influenced Darby and the Brethren far more than the latter influenced the former. As we've seen, the former came up with the framework of Pre-Trib much sooner than the latter did. It isn't surprising then to find out that the earliest Brethren (and even Darby) were influenced during their initial development by Partial Rapturism!

Although he doesn't go into much detail, Harold Rowdon's The Origins of the Brethren does reveal several early Brethren who, at the first, were under the spell of the Partial Rapturistic Irvingites; Rowdon includes (see primarily his third chapter) H. B. Bulteel, a Mr. Douglas, Captain Percy Hall (who taught a secret Rapture in 1831 at Plymouth), A. N. Groves, Lord Congleton (John Parnell), G. V. Wigram, a Mr. Clarke, J. B. Stoney [and Darby himself!]

Darby's Letters reveal the impression Partial Rapturism made on himself and other early Brethren. In a letter dated August 19, 1833 (Vol. 1, pp. 22-24), he mentioned that a Rev. Hardman had been promoting such a view; Hardman believed that Philadelphia would be raptured away and that Laodicea would be left behind. Darby summarizes Hardman's view of Laodicea by writing: "And then the church left in its Laodicean state...." (Note that Darby refers to those left behind as the "church" [the term Margaret and others used]. Referring again to Partial Rapturism, Darby says: "It is an important consideration in the present state of things. It commends itself morally to one's mind." Near the end of the letter Darby writes: "He will surely draw substantially His saints together before the end come, though there may be some left in...."

In lines 82-83 Margaret misquoted part of Luke 21:36, a verse that is often used by today's Partial Rapturists. Note that she didn't use it in the usual Partial Rapturistic manner, although the Irvingites often did in The Morning Watch; "Fidus," for example, did so on p. 280 in the December, 1831 issue. In later decades many others were touched by this viewpoint. A. B.Simpson was one. In his "Queries" column (The Christian Alliance, December 7, 1894), Simpson quoted this verse and then added:

"It would seem perfectly clear, from these words, that those who watch and pray shall prevail to escape the Tribulation, and shall be caught up to stand before the Son of man. We cannot help believing that there will be a portion of God's true people in a state of readiness for His coming, and there will be other Christians, like the 'foolish virgins,' found unprepared, and excluded from the first and highest place in connection with His Millennial Kingdom." (Note the word "portion.")

Today's Pre-Trib Rapture view actually sprang from a crude form of Partial Rapturism; Margaret Macdonald was only a part; promoted by the Irvingites and then by the Plymouth Brethren [during their early days]. A person can truthfully say that gold has been discovered in a certain place even if the first gold is mixed with some silver; it's still called a gold strike. All Darby did later on was mill out the "silver"[and Pre-Trib teachers have been coming up with "pure gold" since then.] (Those who reject this explanation would do well to remember that even Walvoord's latest book classifies Partial Rapturists as Pre-Tribs. Indeed, both schools of thought flow from the same headwaters.)

Just one or two questions.

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

And?  Who is he? I don’t doubt that many have said such things ever since the cross. Are you saying that he is responsible for the pre-trib theory (?)

“As of late, dozens of examples have been found, and the literary surface has hardly been scratched.
With the revealing of all these pre-MacDonald writings, you would think that this argument has been debunked.”

‘As of late’ which dozens of articles? 
With the revealing of all these whats? Where?
You won’t get much debunking done in this way.


“Now I have the Photostat copies of a book published in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1788 but written in 1742-1744 in England, which taught the pretribulation rapture before Lacunza." Lately, a number of other sources have been located that teach the pretribulation rapture--some written as early as the second century.”

Yes please.

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

Lack of research  (?)

“If MacDonald was the founder of the pretribulation rapture, as most anti-rapture proponents say, then someone needs to explain why rapturists have failed to give her credit.”

She wasn’t, and I think I have explained.

“From reading the writings of anti-rapture authors, one would think we pre-tribbers would be reverencing MacDonald as Catholics do Mary. But clearly we don't. Pre-tribbers don’t go around reciting, "Hail Margaret full of grace, blessed art thou among visionaries, pray for us sinners at the time of the rapture."

I’m not anti-rapture at all. The timing of the rapture is an on-going debate between the saints of Christ, and to be done with humility and respect for one-another. Truth will defend itself. 
(& Why would anybody think that a ‘pre-tribber’ would go around like Catholics or reverence anyone but the Lord?)

“After having examined the claims of those critical of the rapture, I have found holes large enough to drive a dump truck through in their so-called evidence:”

Evidence of what  (?)

“The question here is how Darby came to hear of MacDonald's vision. Proponents like Dave MacPherson and John L. Bray have never been able to prove that Darby had ever heard of MacDonald or her vision.”

In actual fact, if you read John Darby’s letters, you’ll find that his connection to Macdonald was through Irving. His primary interest was in Lacunza’s writing. His dispensational influences are a matter of historical record.
Darby, however, wasn't satisfied with the rather simplistic Lacunza-Irving 45 day tribulation, so he devised a more complex scheme.
Darby thought that the last week of Daniels 70 weeks (Dan 9:24-27) was still unfulfilled, so he theorized that the 70th week might actually be a future seven-year tribulation that would take place at the end of the Christian era. To make his idea fit world history, he also invented a 2000 year gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th weeks.
This is documented fact. Not exclusive to any view.

“In my life here on earth, I've made a number of observations that I regard as undeniable truths. One of these is the fact that the truth will suffer attacks with no one defending it, while a lie will be allowed to proliferate with no one challenging it.”

The truth will defend itself, but there will always be many who uphold it, and they too will be defended.
It is 'The Father of Lies' who has always come against truth, but he was defeated at the cross.

“Finally, it appears that those who hold to a pretribulation rapture are beginning to counter the ridiculous charges. A number of books have been published that cite several pre-MacDonald sources describing a raptured Church.”

The issue isn’t about whether or not people believed in different views, as any thinking person will assume that the fundamental ones have been debated between Christians since year dot.
The point is; how certain theories became established as doctrine.

“When someone is presented with overwhelming proof that he or she is wrong and refuses to accept that truth, then we certainly may conclude that he or she is in spiritual darkness.”

Overwhelming proof please.

"Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." Paul affirmed in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

Yes indeed, Amen. ‘Comfort’ one another with these words.

Phew! That was a long one, and now I’m going to break my fast.


Bless you all, truth seekers!!!

[Ferg]

Message deleted (sorry wrong button)

[Bug]

LoL Ferg! You wrote an encyclopedia! Give me time to read and reread this. 
And I will definitely get back with you!     With questions!
I love history and looking at the pros and cons.

P.S. Thanks for not taking this personally.   

[Bug]

Ok, Ferg, I’ll post thoughts/comments here, and questions, but because of time and coals in the fire, I can only focus on a bit here and there, thus why, before you post anything else, give me time to go through this thoroughly.

I’ve already said in several post that I research and look at pros and cons, and consider them prayerfully. I have done so for several years.
Every now and then, something of major importance will pop up and I pursue information on it with full force.  Past ‘adventures’ in this included research on the death penalty and Islam – those are just 2. 
I am only a student who has learned much, one who is willing to learn and do the ‘math’ so to speak, to look at the pros and cons.
You, my friend, have a knack to encourage others to do research. You also have a ‘teaching’ quality about you. Are you a teacher/professor?
As for being swayed by every teaching and/or person coming along; not here! Each time it seemed as if I were going down a wrong track, He has nudged me back on track!
I easily discern character and am often asked 'How did you know?' Something coming from the training in the counseling field I am familiar with. Also why I love research!

It is fortunate for the purposes of this post, that I am a historian.   [of some distinction Grin]

Historian? Awesome!  What kind of history? There are many kinds of history to explore; many experts in different areas.   
In one statement in your post, you say you have ‘studied the history of the [visible] church’, yet you don’t know about Ephraem. This leads me to believe you don’t know early church history. Relax! I don’t either! I’m not a historian; only a student and I do love research!   
So together, we will all learn many things I think.

In regards to Margaret Macdonald, first of all, I am not aware of her being the “inventor” of any rapture. Rather she is ‘credited’ with propounding early ‘partial rapturism’, though the term itself is not her own.
If you read her writings, you will be aware of her influences and subsequent doctrines. [Well documented, and obtainable from the British History Museum Archives.]
Something for a later post perhaps (?)
 
She is mentioned in Elllis Skolfield’s commentary, An End time Myth: “Norton (Robert) was so charmed by the idea (secret rapture) that he preached her ‘vision’ all over England.” Other sources of info also mention her as an important factor, so is it any wonder some would come to refer to her in such a way? 

I'm stopping here, but will be posting more as I look at the next section in detail.

[witty1]

Bug, I wanted you to know that I didn't see your post as an attack against Ferg. You've managed to sum things up quite nicely when you write:

"You, my friend (meaning, Ferg), have a knack to encourage others to do research. You also have a ‘teaching’ quality about you. Are you a teacher / professor?"

I totally agree, which is one reason I'd requested Ferg's participation in this particular discussion. Another reason is that he's already shared his findings on the matter.

I happen to agree with those findings, and knew Ferg's response would be presented in a clear, concise manner.

[Bug]

 
I love research! 
This one, however, will be slower going than other studies I've done, but I will  get it accomplished.
At present, I have a house sale to see about, the care of an elderly parent, a class I will be auditing next month, and after that other classes I need to be in, as well as other family matters to take care of.
 
I know Ferg has posted elsewhere about Margaret and what he has learned on Ellis Skolfield's site. I've read them too!

Which view you or anyone else holds to concerning the rapture is not that relevant in my opinion.
What matters is each of us knows without a shadow of a doubt where our Home is. It's certainly not here. Reconciliation with Him, and then Relationship with Him. That's what matters.
If we're raptured out of here before the tribulation - Glory be!   
If we face those times, then we shall not be alone, for He is with us!
I'm not worried about the future either way! 

 

[witty1]

May God bless you, Bug.

[Johnny C]

I tend to think it is vital that everyone is on the same page when Jesus comes.  One who believes in and is anticipating a pre-trib rapture with each anxious breath he takes by that time may well mistake a saint for one who is responsible for bringing woes upon the earth at the beginning of sorrows.  One who believes in a mid-trib rapture may be looking to rid the planet of such people thinking he is hastening the Lord's coming by so doing.  By that time the earth will be experiencing a time of trouble such as she has never known.  Millions of people will be acting irrationally.  A multitude of saints will, no doubt, be put to death, most likely beheaded, especially if the country is invaded by muslims.  Think about it.  If there are only 144,000 saints left alive at the last trump, there's going to be a whole lot of bloodshed.  Up to the horses bridles as I recall.

So yes, Bug, I think it matters very much which view we hold as there is only one Truth.  Conflicting views on such matters will create confusion and chaos when the swords begin to hit the bone.

[witty1]

I agree with you, Johnny.

All sides claim to use Scripture to support their stance. But there can only be one truth - His.

So... how do we get from Point A to Point B?

[Bug]

Accepting or denying the teaching of the rapture (pre or otherwise) does not affect one's salvation. It is a doctrine that can be believed or not without any affect upon a person's position in Christ. 
The rapture doctrine isn't an essential teaching of the Bible; people are free to believe as they wish about it. 
But, the condemnation of those who do believe in it, or one of the three views (pre, post, mid) goes well beyond the admonitions of Rom. 14:5 which says, ‘One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.’

[witty1]

If some of us agree that one plus one equals two, how come others are completely convinced it equals three, others are completely convinced it equals six, and still others are completely convinced it equals nine?

We are all reading His word... aren't we?

So, we should all be on the same page... shouldn't we?

[Ferg]

Greetings Brethren.

I have to say, that we will not be judged by our understanding of when the rapture occurs, only by what we do with the truth we have already recieved.

The Christian walk is a walk of love.

When we saw our desperate condition, and the emptiness within our souls, did we cry out for understanding of a rapture? Did we weep at our lack of eschatalogical knowledge? No.

We wept at the disgrace of ourselves, and at the shame that had become our lives. We were wounded, guilty people brethren, and when we heard the voice of our shepherd, we cried out to Him; the only answer to our healing.

The ravages of sin are what grieve the Lord, and destroy the beauty of His creation.

The work of retoration in our lives is a great miracle, and it produces Godly character in our lives. If we are honnest, we will admit that our greatest personal adversary is 'ourselves'. When we search out the scriptures, it is not to gain knowledge for it's own sake, but there for us to change! [and continually change]. If we recieve the word of God into our lives, it changes us, and God is glorified. Anything we want others to recieve, we have to have recieved ourselves. (for you can't give what you haven't got.)

So what is it that we really want others to recieve?

Well, salvation of course!!!

Our real worship to the Lord, is seen in how willing we are to change. That is a primary purpose of truth; to replace anything that is not truth.

We should count everything as; 'dung' compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing our Lord.
Knowing Him, is essentially knowing His character, and changing our own, so that we become more like Him. Can any of us say that there is a greater priority, or that we have attained in this?

And if we cannot, why do we neglect our essential worship to pursue what we percieve to be deeper truths or...yet more truth?

No brethren, our duty is to God. Knowing Him. Do we single mindedly seek to attain this greatest of all truths?

When an unbeliever sees the certainty of our love for the Saviour, it will be because we have truly recieved it, and they will want to believe more than anything. If they want to believe, it is inevitable that they will surrender to the lover of their souls by His spirit.

The kingdom of God is forcefully advancing, and the forceful lay hold of it!
This is us!!!
We believe that God has given us every spiritual blessing in Christ, and we make sure that we press on to take hold of that for which Christ took a hold of us.
Faith in God's promises, and believing Him enough to take his gifts, brings about a genuine expression of gratitude and love, as doubt makes Him a liar. It is no wonder that without faith it is impossible to please God!

But we will not lay hold of anything without full and daily surrender to our Saviour. He must lay hold of us first. He knows our hearts, yes...but He wants to change them.

Our saddned Saviour will say to many; "Depart, for I do not know you."

This, is the key. Know Him. Desire Him above all else. If I have wisdom but not love, am I not as a clanging cymbal?
We know Jesus, because we have recieved His surpassing and un-conditional love. Our response must be; to want to know Him more! to love Him back with the love He has shown us.
These things, by the holy spirit within, are the true assurance my salvation...
Not my own understanding, for what do I have that I did not recieve? And if I did recieve it why do I boast as though I did not?

We must boast only ever in the Lord, brethren.
Certainly, If I have any wisdom, it comes from the Lord, for my wisdom is foolishness to God. And, if I have wisdom, and profess to have the mind of Christ, what will be the fruit thereof?

The fruit must be love, and to love the Saviour as He has loved me, and to love my brothers and sisters as myself. [My first ministry is to God, for all else is otherwise pointless.]

As we are transformed by the renewing of our minds, we can approve the will of God, and we discover that we desire only His will anyway. Surrender to that will, becomes a joy, and the freedom therein, is wonderful. Discovering His primary will for us, is simply a a recognition that we need to change...to become like Him. [Less of us getting in the way of Him becoming more.]

Indeed we should be on the same page, brethren, and hopefully in the same book. [I know that we are]

How do I know I'm saved?

"Therefore since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character hope.
And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out His love into our hearts by His holy Spirit, whom He has given us." (Rom 5:1-5)

N.B
It is from the essential premise of 'knowing our Lord', and putting that desire at the top of our priority list, that we can go on to find liberty in studying other aspects of our faith.

[but never at the expense of our humility, as after all humility is a simple recognition of who we are before God.]

In these last days, when people are going to hell in ther droves, is there really time to teach them dispensational doctrine? After all, isn't character refining more important to God? It is a luxury we indulge, and we'd do well to know it. I believe that it is God's will for us to have these debates, but to keep our perspective, and to see ourselves with sober judgment. Let God do the revealing, and He will reveal to whom He will reveal, and not all at the same time, but according to His good purpose.

After all these are the deeper truths, for the word of the Lord is living and active, and able to change us. Without this dynamic, the letter kills.

I do not worry about what I do not understand, I am accountable for what I know.
God is not impressed by how much I know, but He wants me to know Him...I know that.

We shouldn't worry about defending the truth, as God is quite able to preserve truth from generation to generation, besides, are we really faithful in the basics?

God will reveal the truth as and when we can handle it..!

Come on, get real...we are His children. Mere babes, and He is almighty God!...(Read Corinthians chapter 3 before you reply to that comment... )

In the meantime, I love you guys! God bless your walk with Him. Desire Him...delight yourselves in Him, and He will delight in you. He will reveal all things to us as we have need.

Want more? Get more! Praise the Lord, God of all mercy and power!
He has chosen the foolish to confound the 'wise', [and not many of us who were called were wise...]