Search This Blog

Wednesday, 22 February 2017


I have been working on this project for some months in an attempt to present all the arguments against Intra-Seal together in one place. The final transcript has been uploaded onto Amazon as it is too long for a blog post. My existing Intra-Seal posts are virtual excerpts from the publication and they will remain on the blog. At this point in time, my arguments are as exhaustive as I can manage, though perhaps there will be more to say on this subject in the future. I have priced the publication at the minimal cost available on Amazon: $0.99.

Some new insights into Intra-Seal are included which bring further clarity to the inherent problems associated with this deceptive teaching. Those of Prasch’s supporters who say that this question is not important need to think again. Prasch would preclude the Gentiles from hearing the everlasting gospel (Revelation 14:6) during the 70th week of Daniel, and he would abandon them to a lost eternity! In a different sense to pretribulationism, the lethal outcome of Intra-Seal is that souls may be lost due to another faulty eschatological teaching that has its roots in Darbyism.

The Intra-Seal Rapture Deception Exposed   
As devised and taught by Jacob Prasch

Below is the description I have uploaded to Amazon:

The purpose of the publication is to expose Jacob Prasch’s systematic denial of the gospel and the ministry of the Holy Spirit during the 70th week of Daniel. 

The Intra-Seal theory is relatively new in the world of rapture theories. Jacob Prasch seems to have brought it into the public domain at around the time he wrote his book “Shadows of the Beast” in 2011.

The timing of the rapture is a highly contentious subject amongst premillennialists, some even go so far as to suggest that if you do not believe their particular view, then you are not a genuine Christian. My aim is not to alienate those who believe a different view to myself, though no doubt this publication will offend some people. The truth is often offensive when it conflicts with our presuppositions. The Apostle Paul asked the Galatian Church: “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16).

The main flaw of pretribulationism is the timing of the rapture. All other pre-trib scriptural errors flow from this basic misconception. In contrast to pretribulationism, the problems surrounding Intra-Seal are not associated with the timing of the rapture at all, rather Intra-Seal is an attack upon the gospel itself, and as such I view it is a highly dangerous deception.

I have attempted to unravel the various false assertions of the Intra-Seal theory and compare them with the scriptures as follows: 

  • Eschatology: The apostasy and the Man of Lawlessness in Bible prophecy.
  • The identity of the restrainer of 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 defies an unequivocal position.
  • Evidence that the restrainer is the Archangel Michael.
  • When precisely is the restrainer taken out of the way?
  • The murky history of the pre-tribulation rapture theory.
  • A summary of the Intra-Seal deception.
  • Two interim periods… The invalid parallel between the 70th week of Daniel and the period between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Pentecost.
  • The reversal of Pentecost as Prasch relates it to the 70th week of Daniel.
  • Is the metaphor of “the night” relevant to the period between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Pentecost?
  • The invalid comparison between the tribulation saints and the church in Smyrna.
  • The seven spirits of God - the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit.
  • Birth Pains as defined in the gospel of John are a defective eschatological motif. (John 16:16-24).
  • Does “The Shattering Of The Power Of The Holy People” refer to Israel or the church?
  • Does the Age of Grace come to an end during the 70th week of Daniel?
  • The recapitulation of the seven plagues and their timing.
  • The timing of the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11:1-14.
  • More Intra-Seal errors: Michael and the term katechó (restrainer).
  • Further issues: Prasch’s maniacal handling of the 70th week of Daniel.
  • Why does it matter? Intra-Seal is much more than a timing issue.
  • God is not the author of confusion. (1 Corinthians 14:33).
  • Conclusion: Can we reasonably write off the gospel and the ministry of the Holy Spirit during the 70th week of Daniel?                   

Thursday, 16 February 2017


      John Darby defender Dr. Paul Wilkinson dropped some names when beginning his rebuttal of the electrifying "Left Behind or Led Astray?" DVD produced by Joe Schimmel's Good Fight Ministries. And Wilkinson concluded, even before offering any evidence, that the DVD is full of "myths" and "lies"!
     So I'll start my response to him with the following conclusions, even before offering any evidence, that have come my way:
     My first book "The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin" (1973) received undeserved kudos from "The Witness" (the oldest and largest Darbyist Brethren magazine in England) in April 1974: "What [MacPherson] succeeds in establishing is that the [pretrib] view outlined was first stated by a certain Margaret Macdonald...early in 1830."
     Later on world-class Australian scholar Dr. F. Nigel Lee (with nine earned doctorates) stated: "Dave MacPherson, in his various books, has made a major contribution toward vindicating Historic Christian Eschatology. The 1830 innovations of the disturbed Margaret Macdonald documented by MacPherson - in part or in whole - immediately spread to Edward Irving and his followers, then to J. N. Darby and Plymouth Brethrenism, and were later popularized by the dispensationalistic Scofield Reference Bible, by Classic Pentecostalism, and by latter-day pretribulationists like J. F. Walvoord and Hal Lindsey."
     And I haven't even thought of calling anyone a liar yet!
     While feeling unqualified to respond to some of Wilkinson's points, I will give the following facts:
     When Hal Lindsey's books see "the one taken and the other left" before the "man of sin" is revealed, we all know he's expressing the "kernel" of the pretrib view.
     But when Darby defenders read Margaret Macdonald's 1830 pretrib rapture account (where on lines 58-63 we see what I've long said is her main point: "the one taken and the other left" before "THE WICKED" is "revealed"), they sound like Wilkinson who, in his rebuttal, dares to declare that "her utterance bears no resemblance whatsoever to a pre-trib Rapture."
     Guess how he gets away with this. He stops quoting her at line 45 of her 117-line account and resumes quoting at line 60 and thus can omit quoting the rapture part ("the one taken") of her "kernel."
     Thomas Ice, Wilkinson's American counterpart, does the same nervy thing. When quoting her account in his 1990 BibSac article about her, he stopped quoting her at line 58 (just before "the one taken" etc.) and resumed at line 72 - and thus censored ALL of her "kernel"! For insights into Ice, Wilkinson should Google "Pretrib Rapture Pride," "Walvoord Melts Ice," "Thomas Ice (Bloopers)," and (by a British Ph.D) "Be careful in polemics - Peripatetic Learning."
     Wilkinson even calls Margaret a posttrib and somehow doesn't know that phrases like "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist" (lines 85-86) express her partial rapture view, that all partial rapturists (like Pember and Govett) talk the same way, and that even Walvoord's books describe partial rapturists as "pretribulationists"! (I also urge him to Google "X-Raying Margaret," "Margaret Macdonald's Rapture Chart," and "Pretrib Rapture's Missing Lines." And no one should confuse Margaret with Mary Campbell who was involved with telepathy and automatic writing.)
     When many including Darby visited Margaret in mid-1830, all (except Darby) concluded she was teaching a partial rapture form of pretrib. John Cardale visited the prayer meetings held in the Macdonald home and described them in his Dec. 1830 article in Irving's journal "The Morning Watch" (hereafter: TMW). Cardale listed 17 details about the speakers and what they taught.
     Amazingly, Darby's 1853 book described his visit to those meetings and listed practically word-for-word all of Cardale's details except one. Although Darby mentioned Margaret's "texts on overcoming" (the "tribulation" part of her "kernel"), he omitted the first half of her pretrib partial rapture "kernel" - what she taught about "the coming of the Lord" (rapture) as the church's "deliverance" before the "judgments coming on the earth" (which all, except Darby, understood as a pretrib separation!).
     Irving reflected her novel view in TMW in June 1831 when he saw a pretrib rapture in Rev. 12:5's "man child" who's caught up, and described the scene as the "two-fold company - the one gathered before , and the other after the travailing woman is cast out into the wilderness...."
     Is Wilkinson aware that TMW (Sep. 1830) was the first publication to publicly air pretrib? It saw "Philadelphia" raptured before "the great tribulation" and "Laodicea" left on earth. Meanwhile Darby was still defending posttrib in Dec. 1830 in the "Christian Herald."
     Darby idolizer Wilkinson was not happy when he heard Joe Schimmel saying that "the evidence is quite clear that Darby and his followers were late-comers to pre-tribulationism and that Darby was quite familiar with pre-trib teaching among the Irvingites before he accepted and then proliferated the doctrine...." Dr. Mark Patterson also states on the DVD that Darby learned the pre-trib rapture from Irving.
     Here's Wilkinson's knee jerk reaction to Schimmel and Patterson: "The evidence is not only unclear, it is non-existent!"
     And here's my knee jerk reaction to Wilkinson: My Google piece "Edward Irving is Unnerving" - which mentions Patterson and Walker - proves that the evidence for Irving is existent!
     Right now let's look briefly at the earliest "rapture" development of the Irvingites and the Darbyist Brethren during the contested period stretching from 1827 to 1839:
     1827: A few, including John Bray, have claimed that Darby believed in pretrib this early. But Darby's first two papers (1827 and 1828) discussed only the "heavenly church" and the "church's unity" - and Darby then looked for only the posttrib "restitution" and "refreshing" in Acts 3. (I invite all to Google "Is John Bray a PINO?")
     1829: Darby's first paper on prophecy. He expected only the Rev. 19 coming. And he showed Irvingite influence. He mentioned "Mr. Irving" five times, "Ben-Ezra" (Lacunza) once, and "Morning Watch" twice. Darby said he was an avid reader of Irving's works and journal and heard Irving preach. (My "Rapture Plot" discusses Darby on 145 pages.)
     1830: Margaret had her pretrib revelation in the spring. TMW (Sep.) reflected her pretrib partial rapturism (church/church dichotomy) and saw worthy "Philadelphia" raptured before "the great tribulation" and less worthy "Laodicea" left behind. Darby was still defending posttrib historicism in Dec. in the "Christian Herald" and waiting for only Matt. 25's "judging of the nations." (Darby discusses TMW four times in his 1830 paper and five times in an 1831 letter. Let me add that from 1830 to 1833 TMW repeatedly taught pretrib and any-moment imminence while Darby was still defending the posttrib view, as my "Plot" portrays.)
     1832: Darby still doesn't believe in a future Antichrist but only in "present antichristian principles."
     1834: We find Darby and the Jews waiting for the same day (Heb. 10:37).
     1837: Darby saw the church "going in with Him to the marriage [Rev. 19], to wit, with Jerusalem and the Jews"!
     1839: Darby's first clear pretrib teaching. His pretrib basis then (and many more years) was Rev. 12:5's "man child" caught up before a 3.5-year tribulation - but Irving had been the first one to use this Rev. symbol for the same purpose in TMW in 1831!       
     True, one can find a few minor errors in the "Left Behind or Led Astray?" DVD being discussed because no one is perfect including me. But I believe that as the world gets even more scary and dangerous, more and more pretribbers will overlook any blemishes in the same DVD and will congratulate Joe Schimmel and his group for their foresight and love for God's everlasting truth.

Wednesday, 8 February 2017

The Male-Dominated Pretrib Rapture  by Dave MacPherson

      By now most everyone knows that the famous pretribulation rapture can be traced back to1830 and to a young woman in Scotland named Margaret Macdonald. But how many are aware that this end time belief has been dominated by males during the 187 years of its existence?
     My book "The Rapture Plot" (available online) lists several reasons why the male-dominated theological world of 1830 gave her no public credit for her novel prophetic invention:

     She was a female.

     She was young.

     She was uneducated.

     And she had been a Christian only a year.

     A few months after her history making revelation, a journal published by Rev. Edward Irving known as "The Morning Watch" (which had sent writers to interview Margaret in mid-1830) repeated the essence of her new view in its Sep. 1830 issue but gave her no credit - the first instance I've found of plagiarism in pretribulationism's history which has long been riddled with dishonesty!

     Credit for Margaret was still lacking two years later when the same journal talked about recent advancements in theology. It didn't mention her but undoubtedly had her in mind when it stated:

     "The Spirit of God has caused several young women, in different parts of Great Britain, to condense into a few broken sentences more and deeper theology than ever Vaughan, Chalmers, or Irving uttered in their longest sermons; and therefore more than all the rest of the Evangelical pulpits ever put forth in the whole course of their existence."

     In 1833, after he had joined Irving's church in London and then had become disillusioned with the new pretrib rapture that Irving had accepted, British lawyer Robert Baxter left that assembly and wrote a book exposing the same rapture notion, referring to it as "the delusion" that had "first appeared in Scotland" - but again Margaret's name was missing.

     Margaret's pretrib revelation was included in a book in 1840 by Robert Norton M.D. who, by the way, had married her in 1835 and who later became a leading historian in the Irvingite church founded by Irving. Although he didn't reveal Margaret as the pretrib rapture originator in 1840 (since it wasn't customary then to identify the authors of personal revelations while they were living), after Margaret died in 1841 he finally named her as the theory's originator in an 1861 book of his.

     Meanwhile John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren knew that the Irvingites had been teaching the new pretrib doctrine while he had still been clinging to the historical posttribulation view. He also knew that the secretive and non-missionary-minded Irvingites had never wanted to share the new escapist doctrine with outsiders in a big way.

     In an 1834 letter while talking about the new pretrib view that Irving's journal had been teaching, Darby told fellow Brethren that "the thoughts are new," adding that during any teaching of it "it would not be well to have it so clear." In fact he gloated about this in an 1843 letter while telling about hearers who had been accepting the new fly-away belief "without knowing whence it came or how it sprung up all of a sudden"!

     Not one to let a good thing go to waste, Darby decided that he could capitalize on it if the Irvingites weren't going to. So between 1862 and 1877 opportunist Darby spread the "borrowed" pretrib escapism while planting new Brethren assemblies in countries around the world including the US.

     The highlight of my "Rapture Plot" book was my accidental discovery of a well engineered plot in the late 1800s to wrongfully credit John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren as the pretrib rapture originator. This was accomplished after his death by one of his followers who secretly and maliciously made many quiet revisions in early Irvingite and Brethren documents and skillfully covered everything up - a plot that has long been unknown by church historians everywhere!

     We now fast forward to Kansas and a simple gravestone in Mt. Calvary Cemetery in Atchison which is etched with "Leontine Cerre Scofield (1848  1936)." Leontine should have been one of the most famous women of all time. But she's still unknown because her husband never referred to her publicly after he became famous.

     He was obsessed with making money, legally and illegally. He stole thousands of dollars from friends and deserted Leontine and his children for several years. His desertion forced her to work for the family's support.

     He claimed he was converted to Christ in 1879. But a year later he was in a St. Louis jail for six months on a forgery conviction. He had stolen his mother-in-law's last $1300 in a real estate scam. On Dec. 8, 1883 Leontine divorced him for deserting her and their two daughters - and he remarried three months later!

     As late as 1899, when he preached D. L. Moody's funeral sermon, he was still issuing IOU's to keep  from paying back the thousands of dollars he'd stolen!

     In 1909 he pulled off the biggest coup of his money-obsessed career. He became the biggest trafficker of the pretrib rapture which he featured in the margins of a book. The published work that made him wealthy is still a big seller today and is known as the Scofield Reference Bible which states on the title page "Edited by Rev. C. I. Scofield, D.D." (but it doesn't reveal that he added the D.D. himself instead of letting some institution confer it!).

     Although many in recent days have been abandoning the same 187-year-old fly-away fantasy after finding out the facts about its dishonesty-riddled history (as outlined in web articles like "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty," "Pretrib Rapture Stealth" and "Pretrib Hypocrisy), males still seem to be dominating as writers, publishers, and promoters of it, and there seems to be no end of pretrib rapture books, videos, movies and internet articles.

     If women had had the same opportunities as men after 1830 (when a young lassie came up with the now-famous pretrib interpretation), their basically discerning and honest nature would have exploded this male-dominated theological hoax long before now!