ECT Fearless MacPherson On Contributions of Edward Irving To Dispensationalism

[northwye]

Fearless MacPherson On Contributions of Edward Irving To Dispensationalism

This is Dave MacPhearson, another guy from Kansas, along with Dean Gotcher.

MacPherson says "My book "The Rapture Plot" (available online) includes many quotes from Irvingites proving that they taught a pretrib rapture as well as pretribulationally-correct imminence. Here are just a few examples from several issues of "The Morning Watch":

"Philadelphia" is described as worthy Christians who will be raptured before "the great tribulation" (TMW, Sep. 1830, p. 510)
"...the great tribulation from which those dead in Christ, and those who shall then be alive and looking for him, shall be exempted, by being caught up to meet the Lord in the air...." (TMW, June 1831, p. 284)

Walvoord's, LaHaye's, and Ice's "any-momentness" is clearly seen in this Irvingite journal which stated: "...we miss the true object of faith and hope in the coming of the Lord, not only when we overleap it altogether, but when we interpose any screen whatever; when we look for any event of persecution or tribulation, for any combination of kings, any gathering of people, any manifestation of Antichrist." (TMW, Dec. 1831, p. 253)

One writer spoke of "the translation for the living...of which we may daily expect the accomplishment...." He added: "During this most horrible time of the reign of the last Antichrist, the risen and translated saints shall be with Christ...." (TMW, Mar. 1832, pp. 12-14)
John Tudor, TMW editor, said that "some of these elect ones shall...be left in the great tribulation...after the translation of the saints...." He added that there is "nothing further to expect before the actual coming...." (TMW, Sep. 1832, pp. 11-12)

"the literal time of 1260 days...does not commence till the moment of the translation of the saints...." (TMW, Sep. 1832, p. 48)

It should be pointed out that during pretrib dispensationalism's earliest development, there were those who quickly changed from the prevailing posttrib historicism to pretrib futurism, some who changed later on, and some who never changed. Naturally Darby-guardsmen such as Huebner and Ice have selectively focused on historicist Irvingites and purposely covered up pretrib futurists among the same British group to make it appear to their trusting readers that the Irvingites were totally pretrib-deficient!"

"Even William Kelly, Darby's editor, knew that for 60 years evangelicalism had credited Irvingism, and not Darbyism, with pretribism. Which is why Kelly (while noting "the early prophesyings and tongues in Scotland" but adding that "we may pass these over") focused on Irvingite writings, and not Margaret's, in a lengthy series (1889-1890) in his own journal. Readers of "The Rapture Plot" know that Kelly, in Ice-like fashion, made so many dishonest changes while analyzing Irvingism in a supposedly fair and balanced way that evangelicalism, unable to examine hard-to-locate Irvingite writings, eventually accepted Kelly's revisionism, the goal of which was to project Darby as the pretrib rapture originator as well as the "father of dispensationalism" - and we know how well Kelly was successful!"

For dispensationalists to accept that Irving began talking and writing about the pre-trrib rapture as an important postulate of dispensationalsm before Darby would be to accept that Irving was influenced by the Jesuit Manuel Lacunza, from his 1827, The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty, and that dispensationalism had its early origin from the ideas of a Jesuit.

Irving was so impressed by Jesuit Lacunza's book, that he learned Spanish just to translate it into English.

The issue is whether dispensationalists engage in honest scholarship?

 

[Danoh]

Welcome back, northwye.

As for you above post - if you want "honest scholarship," then you'll have to quit parroting the parroting of people who parrot MacPherson's endless lies, and do your own homework.

Irving had already been fluent in Spanish long before he came into contact with a copy of Lacunza's book.

But we're talkin fearless MacPherson - in his consistently proven willingness to distort the recorded history.

The man is simply dishonest.

Lacunza's 1700's rapture scenario writing is much like Pseudo-Ephraims (which dates back to 300 to 600 AD).

Lacunza had been that rare Jesuit Priest who had been well read in "the fathers" and their like.

If anything, his writing had been similar in attempt to that of RCC Monk: Martin Luther.

His writing had been an attempt to wake the RCC up to (in his view) the fact that it had strayed far from the Scripture.

His view had been that God would one day deal once more with Israel.

That the RCC was NOT a replacement of that Nation's DESTINED role on this Earth.

He viewed the RCC more as having been temporarily grafted into Israel's destined role.

And neither Pseudo-Ephraim centuries earlier, nor Lacunza centuries later, had been Pre-Trib, and both confuse the wrong people as to who is a part of it.

Both are more like Rosenthal's 1990's Pre-wrath writing, in their rapture biews, in some respects.

While Irving was Post-Trib - as was that other person much slandered by MacPherson - that young girl, Margaret McDonald.

What all that boils down to is men attempting to sort out just one more piece of the mysterious or enigma that all the various aspects of all these issues can often present.

Each generation building on and further refining the understandings of, the prior one.

As is also the case to this very minute within Reformed Theology.

MacPherson's are nothing more than one lie after another.

As for the source of the actual truth of a doctrine?

What matters is not always the source, but the truth they are nevertheless asserting.

Be that from me, or from you, or from the nuttiest, or most enlightened, or from one saved, or from lost...

The bottom line is - "Nevertheless, what a with the Scripture?" Gal. 4:30

Just because the RCC asserts there is a Trinity, does not make that a lie, nor "some recent invention."

What matters is "does what is being asserted align with the Scripture?"

This principle is exactly why (and in stark contrast to the consistent practice of some who claim they stand for the truth) I never hesitate to concede a point made by someone I often do not agree much with on many other things.

It is a principle found in Scripture - how that even people in darkness every so often get a thing right...

Case in point...

John 11:47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. 11:48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 11:50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 11:51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 11:52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 11:53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.

Case in point...

Acts 5:33 When they heard that, they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them. 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; 5:35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. 5:36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. 5:37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. 5:38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 5:39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. 5:40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 5:41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.

Case...in...point...

Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 1:14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 1:15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Over many years now, that principle right there has allowed me to see much more than even many who supposedly hold a view similar to my own have often proven yet able to.

MacPherson is not even in the room, let alone on the same planet. On these issues, the man is a proven liar, from cover to cover.

I suggest you put away his lies and read the men he is fearlessly ever misrepresenting.

I know, I know - "the dialectic."

Nevertheless, Rom. 5:6-8.

 

[Danoh]

It has often been said that "the devil is in the details."

In other words, given that often, there is more to a thing than first meets one's eye, it behooves one to dig a bit further before allowing oneself one's conclusion.

And in the practice of the likes of a Dave McPherson, the devil of a nuisance is in his leaving out of his supposed research those more minute, nitty gritty, tiny little details of a thing, the absence of which makes his supposedly sound findings, appear "sound."

I still recall the first time I read his book "The Rapture Plot" - from cover to cover, the entire book is one full of holes assertion after another.

The following link, a review of MacPherson's many distortions and agenda, is worth a read..

"Did Dave MacPherson Invent the False History of the Pre-Trib Rapture?"

http://www.raptureready.com/faq-did-dave-macpherson-invent-the-false-history-of-the-pr-trib-rapture/

Rom. 5:6-8.