Hi docs,
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I don't really care what Darby taught. I am not well versed in Darby's writings -- and I really don't care to read them either. I know many people who believe in a "rapture" and most of them are not familiar with the name "Darby."
When I became a believer, I was a teenager. However, I went from not really believing in God to coming to faith in Him. The writings, teachings and whims of various preachers didn't really mean much to me. The only thing that I understood was that there was a great deal of doctrinal division among Christians.
The one thing that I was aware of after my conversion was that I wasn't aware of much (in terms of the faith). I simply knew that I believed in Christ and had given my everything to the Lord.
After I met the Lord and gave my life back to Him, I set myself to begin reading the Bible. Whereas it was previously difficult for me to understand, I suddenly thirsted to read every word of it.
I found the Lord at the beginning of the summer. Immediately thereafter, I took some steps that I felt that I needed to do (without anyone really telling me or encouraging me to do them).
I got rid of the TV in my room. I threw away my video games. I tore up my comic book collection (which was worth quite a bit of money). I tossed out all of my music. I had a collection of movie posters all over my wall (and a few movie stands too). I got rid of them all.
I don't know what motivated or inspired me to do this at such a crucial point after coming to Christ. However, I didn't want anything to come between me and the Lord. I wanted to spend my time in prayer, worship and reading His Word. I didn't even spend time watching Christian TV or listening to Christian music/radio.
I began with the Gospel of Luke (upon the advice of someone) and then read the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation. I then went to Genesis and finished in Malachi. I read the entire Bible in a matter of days. I then started with Matthew and read it all over again. I did this over and over again during that summer.
Why am I saying this?
One of the interesting things is that I was aware of some doctrines taught by different churches and denominations. However, I wasn't sure what exactly I believed.
By the seventh time that I completed reading the entire Bible from cover-to-cover (not counting the time that I would focus on studying particular passages), I began to formulate some opinions on many issues. Granted: Some of these were mere thoughts and opinions while others were pretty solid based upon what is entirely clear from God's Word.
At the same time, I understood that some things -- including long-held beliefs -- just aren't quite so clear too.
I should offer one clarification. I think that it is a good thing to discuss these things. The humility necessary for believers doesn't prevent discussions. Obviously, debates are a part of this (because, like I said, Paul had squabbles with Peter and Barnabas). However, the guiding principle is the love of God and love for others.
If bitterness, fighting or even blood-raising anger is a result of such discussions, then something is likely missing.
More importantly, I think that the push to declare something that is, at best, only a conclusion arrived from much study, it is beneficial to avoid declaring such a thing as a "dispensational truth." This is true of anyone who is pre-trib and anyone who is post-trib (or any other view).
Moreover, I think that it helps to provide honesty with the context of our views. Many people read secondhand or third-hand sources that influence their views on many such matters. This is a very different thing from studying a source.
One can easily claim that "Darby invented the rapture" (or, otherwise, was the first person to push belief in it) and then say that early church leaders didn't write about it. However, many of the people that I've met who assert this claim are simply repeating a claim that they've heard, read or found elsewhere.
Once, I was engaged in a discussion where someone was making this claim. I introduced a few passages that seem (and, yes, I stress the word "seem") to point out that at least some believers wrote about the Lord taking His Bride prior to the wrath of God being poured out upon the Earth. That person said that, even if accurate, represent only a few people among the early Church.
So, I asked that person how many first-hand sources or translations from the first few centuries of Christianity that they've read. It turned out that their "study" of early church writings was primarily based upon books that mentioned a handful of significant statements attributing doctrinal belief to a few early church writers. It is not really "research" into early church writings. It is relying upon someone else's research that, perhaps, was also based upon someone else's research.
One of the important things in writing papers in college is the need for a bibliography or list of works cited. This helps the reader know the depth of the research that a person has undergone. In grad school, a person could not successfully defend their thesis or dissertation if they attributed their findings to what others had written on the subject (rather than going to firsthand sources).
Imagine that someone wants to write a biography of Thomas Jefferson. However, that sources that the writer uses for the biography is what others have written and published about him. Instead of going to source material (e.g., Jefferson's own letters, accounts, diaries, etc. and what contemporaries said about him), they rely upon books written in later years after he was already dead. This would be a bad biography. In fact, it is one of the great problems that contribute to history revisionism. Such a writer is placing faith of accuracy in what others have (supposedly) researched.
Years ago, there was a "King James Only" brother who argued vehemently in favor of the KJV as the only acceptable version of the Word of God. During long discussions, I discovered that he would copy and paste long claims from books and websites. I asked for him to cite his sources. Yet, I went to the very sources that he cited. It turned out that the books, magazines and websites that he was citing were a type of circular citation. They all cited one another or the same sources which, sadly, the merits of such circular research could not be proven.
At the same time, many of these sources were used to make claims about other versions of the Bible (particularly the NIV, NKJV and NASB). Again, all of his sources were citing the same primary sources (just a couple actually) or else they cited one another despite the actual claim coming from a single previous original source. During that discussion, one claim was made about a person who was on the NIV's committee. Many of those people are still alive. So, I actually contacted that person (and other individuals) by phone and email. They actually provided clarity and helped dispel the rumors, myths and claims made.
Interestingly, someone made a claim about David Wilkerson's views on eschatology. They stated that he had shifted toward post-trib ideology later. A quick Google search seemed to provide a few cites that said as much. I was puzzled. So, around that same time in 2006, I contacted via email one of his former co-pastors, Neil Rhodes (at Times Square Church). Pastor Rhodes responded and clarified that brother David Wilkerson still ascribed to a pre-trib "blessed hope."
Of course, this is also beside the point. It wasn't the issue about which preachers believed or did not believe in a rapture. The point was the somewhat shallow level of study and research by which people were willing to solidify their stands on different issues.
As I said back then, my view was that churches should not teach a definitive stand on non-essential and quarrelsome issues. When it came to eschatology, I thought that it was better to teach the importance of being PREPARED.
We should be prepared for anything that might happen that rapidly progressing journey toward the end. This includes the possibility of a pre-trib "catching away" of the Bride before the wrath of God. It also includes the possibility that the church will remain on this earth when the wrath of God is poured out upon it. What kind of preparation? Seeking and trusting in the Lord by prayer, fasting, worship and study of the Word of God.
Even then, this simple view was rebuked harshly in public and private messages. People told me that I was in danger of heresy. I was astonished that someone would think that sincere believers -- lovers of Christ -- would be in danger if they continued to seek God (and His Word) wholeheartedly.
Like I said, this issue can and should be discussed. However, it should never become so divisive that we look down at someone with a different view. I do not believe that it is an essential doctrine of the church (in the sense that your salvation will depend upon where you stand on such a matter). Consequently, I prefer churches to be a bit more graceful and less absolute when it comes to issues like it.
Given the length of this post, I suppose that I may have made my point even less clear than it might have been in my previous post. If so, I apologize.
In essence, I suppose that I am saying that it would be wrong of anyone -- pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, pan-trib, etc. -- to adopt an "our way or the broad way" approach. The lack of humility isn't evidenced by a discussion of such a matter but by gravitating toward an attitude that such a person has arrived to an indisputable truth on the matter by which every true believer must comply if they love God.
