In order to falsely claim this, Huebner ignored her MAIN POINT in lines 58-63: "one taken and the other left" BEFORE the revealing of Antichrist. He also suppressed the truth that she saw a pretrib coming of only PART of the church (partial rapturism) and that leading partial rapturists like Govett and Pember, after seeing a rapture of PART of the church, refer to the other PART left on earth as simply the "church"! (Google "X-Raying Margaret," "Margaret Macdonald's Main Point," and "Margaret Macdonald's Rapture Chart" and see my pioneer work "The Rapture Plot" for a full analysis of her account.)
Actually, when Norton aired his abridgement of her account later on he kept intact her main point and also the essence of the omitted lines with different wording.
The only change comes when a few misguided pretribs deviously change factual info about Margaret on Wikipedia - which should be called Wicked-pedia since anyone with any ulterior motive can insert lie after lie therein!
HERE'S THE BIG POINT BEING MADE HERE: If Margaret did initially teach posttrib in the lines later omitted, then the removal of those partial rapturistic lines (such as "The trial of the Church is from Antichrist") would have her teaching a pretrib rapture of ALL of the church!
Since many pretrib leaders still falsely assert that Darby couldn't have been influenced by the Irvingites since they held to only "partial rapture" while Darby and his followers held to only "pretrib," here is a portion of my 1983 book "The Great Rapture Hoax":
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 Bulteel, Douglas, Hall, Groves, Lord Congleton, Wigram, Clarke, Stoney, and Darby himself!
In a letter dated August 19, 1833 ("Letters," Vol. 1, pp. 22-24) Darby revealed the partial rapturism within his own circle. He discussed a Rev. Hardman who believed that "Philadelphia" would be raptured and "Laodicea" would be left behind. Darby summarized Hardman's view: "And then the church left in its Laodicean state...." (Note that Darby called those left behind the "church" - the term Margaret and other Irvingites used.) Darby added that partial rapturism "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 wrote: "He will surely draw substantially His saints together before the end come, though there may be some left in...."
Since Darby was an avid reader of the Irvingite journal "The Morning Watch," he was well aware that as early as the September 1830 issue the Irvingites were clearly expressing a partial rapture form of the pretrib catching up; it declared that "Philadelphia" would be raptured up to meet the Lord in the air BEFORE the great tribulation and that "Laodicea" would be left behind.
By drawing attention away from early partial rapturism in Margaret and the Irvingites, Huebner was hoping no one would discover that the same partial rapturism in Darby's earliest development was what he had furtively "lifted" from the Irvingites!
Incidentally, Darby didn't clearly eliminate all of the partial rapturism from his own system until the 1870s!
By seeing something sinister in the later missing lines in Margaret's history-making revelation account and talking ignorantly about them on "Wicked-pedia," today's pretrib critics are actually drawing attention to the innovative Irvingites and their female inspiration as well as to Darby's long hidden plagiarism of them!
If modern day pre-trib theologians could only see that their precious theology would never have seen the light of day were it not for the Irvingite girl Margaret Macdonald!
ReplyDeleteEven if they deny this; it is nevertheless very clear that they KNOW something happened circa 1830.
The Church for the previous 1800 years or so was blissfully ignorant of this new doctrine, unless, that is, you choose to believe the revisionists! Aside from this, at the risk of sounding like a parrot, pre-tribulationism is unbiblical and therefore satanic-"Hath God said" Genesis 3.1? Having been previously deceived by pre-trib doctrine; I can now say that God hath not said. Let it not be forgotten that pre-trib theologians will admit that "not one verse teaches it"! I am reminded that "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death" Deuteronomy 17.6: why then, is this Biblical yardstick ignored? Not even ONE verse, yet look at the mass deception!
Pre-tribulationists tell us that the act of being "caught up" is coming, and they are being 100% truthful on this-only problem is that they are telling us it will happen seven years or more BEFORE the Second Coming; a first resurrection BEFORE the first resurrection!
I don't like using the word rapture as it has taken on an entirely new meaning that is not scriptural.
God bless.
Speaking of partial rapture, I can imagine going back in time to the prayer meetings that Margaret and her brothers held in their Port Glasgow home that were attended at least once by John Darby himself. She has designed a crude "rapture" chart showing earth and heaven. Holding her pointer, she is now saying something like "After the rapture happens, some of the church will be here [pointing to "heaven"] because they aren't all here" [pointing to earth]! And if we could go back and listen to the earliest pretrib speculators we might be tempted to say, with our eyes rolling, "It's true, they AREN'T all here!" lol
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I've appreciated learning about Colin's arrival at eschatological truth and his views on the Johnny-come-lately (or, Margaret-come-lately) any-moment escapism that so many deluded souls are still taken up with (excuse the two prepositions up with which you may not want to put!). Colin, if you haven't written a book on Bible prophecy, you might consider doing one for the pretrib parrots who are fast running out of Scriptural "crackers" to chew on!
Irv, the false pre-trib rapture is bad enough, but when conjoined with the partial rapture, I struggle to find words to denounce the whole sorry malady. The partial rapture theory isn't so widely held by many today, but no doubt there are a few here and there that still hold to it. As if some of the elect sheep are more worthy than others! the Bible knows nothing of such nonsense, but, no doubt this is what happens when you give foothold to the devil? Are we not ALL "unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do" Luke 17.10? Do we deserve anything? It is ALL of grace, nevertheless as responsible Bible believers, let us walk according to the Commandments, and write according to what is written?
ReplyDeleteIt is very sad to believe that such good men as Anthony Norris Groves and others were "under the spell" as the above article says, though the detail is said to be sparse. It is clear to me at any rate, that we must ever test everything by what is written in God's word, and not come under the influence of a willful 'leader'? Many say that eschatology is a very difficult subject to understand, but, as we well know "God is not the author of confusion"; when man injects his theories into Scripture, then ANYTHING built thereon can only create more confusion!! When we believe simple historic Covenant Theology based on ONE Second Coming, to me at least, a great many difficulties vanish like a vapour in the night! A Dispensationalist would put 50 segments into an orange if he could!
If pre-trib theologians would only drop their whole sorry scheme altogether (fat chance!) and teach ONE Second Advent! One church (the elect) throughout the ages, from Adam to the great white throne, then how much simpler it would all be!
I don't think "pre-trib parrots" would read anything of mine!
God bless.
Amen a thousand times, Colin! I can easily envision an excellent book on Bible prophecy coming forth from your creative pen! Considering the long-range nuclear missiles now threatening all freedom-loving people, how can we who love the Lord do less than serve Him to the max while it is still day?
ReplyDelete