No One Will Be “Left Behind” …But You Will Be Separated!
June 12th 2014
Written by Kathy Beardsley
Edited by John Beardsley
Let me begin by expressing my most sincere wish to all who read this; that you will do so with the willingness to let the Holy Spirit, not your emotions or previous teachings lead you. My objective in this article is: to present my findings of eschatology (the study of end-time prophecy) as a result of reading God’s Word alone, to show that the simplicity of God’s Word is all that is needed, and that relying so heavily on one particular man’s interpretation of prophecy is in great part why there is so much controversy today. I wrote this because of a heavy burden on my heart to know the truth for myself, and because I believe I have found it I cannot sit in silence. I by no means claim to have all the answers and am more than willing to accept scriptural correction founded on God’s Word and not on presuppositional theory.
I (as does my husband) believe Jesus will return for His church, and we are joyously waiting for His appearance/coming. Jesus is the bridegroom, and as part of the bride I am very much looking forward to the gathering of saints together in the clouds at His Second Coming, and enjoying the fulfillment of the blessed hope of eternal life which can only be redeemed through Him.
Chapter 1 Whose Foundation Is It?
The Rapture/Tribulation Theory
Theory: philosophy, concept, system, scheme, idea, notion.
Belief: confidence, trust, credence, certainty, acceptance.
Warning: If you are a pretribber (or mid, or post for that matter), you are standing on the foundation of a theory built by a man’s private interpretation of God’s Word. If you sincerely desire to know the truth, please continue to read and it will all be simply and clearly explained.
Ezekiel 33:
3 “If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.”
The message to the people of Israel was basically, if the watchman sees danger coming and warns the people, their blood is not on his head if they ignore the warning. Likewise, if the watchman sees the danger coming but does not warn the people, their blood will be on his head. Both the watchman and the people are warned of the consequence should they choose to ignore the coming danger. This is a lesson we can learn from and as Christians should practice, both in heeding and doing. Many say we (any Bible believing Christian) have no right to expose error, dishonest character, and so forth because it is unloving. That is worldly psychology speaking. Every Christian should earnestly contend for the faith! This exposé is yet another blow of the trumpet to sound the warning.
In order to build and stand on a solid foundation, one must first use the proper material capable of bearing the weight it was professed to hold. What I have learned through many hours of studying Gods’ Word, and doing my homework with the help of others who have spent years researching public records, written documentation, family records, etc., is that “the rapture” (explained in more detail in chapter 5) and “the tribulation” are events and titles created to build the foundation of the pretribulation “doctrine”—a foundation that has been built upon with a misguided sense of duty ever since. John N. Darby and C. I. Scofield are the two earlier most recognized names in connection with this theory but they are not the originators. Rather they have believed and adopted this theory and successfully propagated it to their followers who in turn have passed it on for more than a century. What would you say if you found out these men grafted in ideas foreign to scriptures with the intention of building their own egos and prestige? God’s Word became the best and fastest way to spread their private interpretation, and for Scofield held a higher priority for financial gain. For example: Just prior to the release of Scofield’s Bible, and in reference to it, Scofield writes a letter to his daughter Helene, whom he barely had contact with stating,
“When I get rich I am going to have 3 homes—one in a winter apartment on Washington Heights, N.Y. City, one at Crestwood, one at Sorrento, Italy.” J. M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield and His Book pg. 278.
This quote raises the question of where Scofield’s priorities were—did he care more about spreading the gospel, or making a profit from it? Supported by public documentation (which you will read in detail later), his life appears to be filled with lies and cover-ups—much of it having to do with money.
1 Peter 1:
20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Darby’s and Scofield’s purpose of introducing their belief of dispensationalism and pretribulationism into their Bible versions was to influence conclusions that would not have been reached otherwise. Revelation 22:18, 19 is very clear about adding to and taking away from God’s Word:
“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”
Darby’s choice was accomplished by writing his own new translation of the Bible, which he published in 1890, wherein he adds to the text causing it to read with his belief imbedded into it. He also subtracts partial as well as whole verses in the effort to change the meaning in his favor. Unless the reader is paying attention he or she will skip right over it. Revelation 7:14 is a key example: “And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” (KJV) Within the text, Darby adds the word the before great tribulation. That one change may seem insignificant but it makes a world of difference for the support of the pretrib theory! I have witnessed more times than I can count the reading of this verse from several other translations in which the word the does not appear in the verse but when read aloud the is almost always inserted.
If you are wondering why this is so important consider the following: God’s Word never uses or defines tribulation as a title of a specific number of years, it is only ever defined as affliction, persecution and troubles. By inserting the before great tribulation the meaning changes from great persecution to a specific period of time (three and a half years) entitled The Great Tribulation. We cannot allow ourselves to be blinded from the true context of God’s Word. Darby not only inserted a word, he inserted a false doctrine. He reinterpreted Rev. 7:14 and surrounding verses by whitewashing over them (verses, by the way, we would gain strength from as persecution continues today), and in their place painted the picture of a doctrine that has people looking to escape coming trials instead of enduring them! 2 Timothy 3:12 “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”
Also, in keeping with the context of the surrounding verses, the great tribulation in Rev. 7:14 is not referring to one specific event at the end of time, but rather it is speaking of all who have died for their faith in the one true God since time began and up to the point that we are all together with Him. Verse nine verifies this because of the number of people—a great multitude which no man could number. These are people who have died through the ages in Christ, and not because of end-time judgment or wrath. We can and do number ourselves by means of a census and even though some countries do not count their people, there is a general estimate. If the multitude came from the pretrib’s Great Tribulation, the number would be significantly lower since by this time the population would have been reduced because of the rapture. Reduce the number again because as the pretrib theory goes, only those left behind who do not take the mark of the Antichrist will be saved and martyred for their faith. For these reasons alone it is impossible for the great multitude which no man can number to come from the pretrib’s Great Tribulation. The context of Rev. 7:9 to the end of the chapter is simply a description of the innumerable multitude crying with a loud voice unto the Lamb followed by the angels, elders, and four beasts praising God; the answer to the question of who the multitude is, and what they get to enjoy for eternity.
Mr. Dave MacPherson is one of the men who provides quite an exhaustive breakdown and history of how the pretribulation theory began. In chapter two, you will be privy to his condensed version of the details he compiled which includes corresponding dates and key documentation. John Darby has for many years been given the credit for the pretribulation theory, but as you will discover in Mr. MacPherson’s exposé, it is credit undeserved (not that a deception is anything to boast about). For the full history, see Mr. MacPherson’s book The Rapture Plot.
Aside from the pretrib theory, Darby held to more grievous errors which noted Pastor Charles H. Spurgeon thought it important enough to publish. (For readers not familiar with Pastor Spurgeon, here is a link to part of his biography www.spurgeon.org/aboutsp.htm). The interview (you will read in chapter 3) by Mr. Grant was published in Spurgeon’s June 1869 issue of The Sword and the Trowel vol. 2 concerning The Darby Brethren wherein Darby denies the atonement on the cross among other things. The interview is very enlightening and provides a better understanding of Darby’s character.
I dare say Darby’s denial of the atonement on the cross and his intentional omission of through his blood in his own version of the Bible such as in Colossians 1:14 proved him to be untrustworthy to say the least.
Darby’s new translation: Colossians 1:14
“In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.”
KJV
“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.”
Darby omits verses such as: Acts 8:37 and Matthew 23:14
Acts 8:37 “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God.”
Matthew 23:14 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.” [curious why this verse would be omitted]
Another example of Darby changing God’s Word:
Darby’s new translation: John 7:16, 17
“Jesus therefore answered and said, My doctrine is not mine, but that of him that has sent me. If any one desire to practise his will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is of God, or that I speak from myself.”
KJV
“Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”
Aside from the obvious number of added words, there is a big difference between “If any one desire to practise his will,” and “If any man will do his will.”
Charles H. Spurgeon’s opinion of the Darby Bible speaks volumes, “a faulty and pitiable translation of the sacred book.” The Sword and the Trowel 2:287, 5:196, note 144.
Spurgeon also states:
We don’t even mention the other renderings in his new Bible, just as serious and erroneous… much less notice the transposition of tenses and prepositions, or the awkward English diction throughout. Suffice it to say, that some renderings are good, and some of the notes are good; but taken as a whole, with a great display of learning, the ignorance of the results of modern criticism is almost incredible. And the fatal upsetting of vital doctrines condemns the work as more calculated to promote scepticism than true religion–the most sacred subjects being handled with irreverent familiarity. ‘Darbyism and Its New Bible,’ The Sword and the Trowel (London, W. Macintosh, 1874) p. 18.
Scofield also took the avenue of publication; not within the Bible text, but by adding his notes (portions of which were plagiarized from Darby’s Bible) within the same pages. The most damaging evidence of his mishandling God’s Word and application of it, or lack thereof, is quite clear in his personal life. Though the context of 1Timothy 5:1-15 speaks to the proper care of widows, I believe verse 8 (following) would be the general consensus of us all when it comes to the care of our families.
“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”
Well before his Bible came into print, and after his alleged conversion in 1879, (more on that in chapter four) evidence appears to show Scofield never repented, but instead went to great lengths to cover up (among other things) the fact he was a divorced man with children to whom he occasionally sent a pittance while he grew in popularity and in wealth. If Scofield’s divorce and abandonment of his family had been discovered, he would have been immediately disqualified as a spiritual authority of any kind. The divorce decree dated December 6, 1883 stated, “…the Court does find that the defendant has been guilty of wilfull abandonment of the plaintiff for more than one year prior to the commencement of this action.” To this day in fundamental churches, even if a divorced man had repented and proven himself to be a changed man, he would not be allowed a pastorate. This begs the question, why has Mr. Scofield been allowed a pass for so many years? Wouldn’t he in today’s vernacular be labeled a deadbeat dad? Even now, so many years later the evidence is brought to light yet the truth is denied, the exposers of the deception are scorned and Scofield has continued to be praised as a great and godly man regardless. He is not the only one either! In recent news a well-known “conservative pastor” (son-in-law to another well-known pastor whose reputation was documented as being just as shady) was rightfully sent to jail for his immorality, and instead of exhorting him to repent, some pastors are lifting him up on the “you can do no wrong” pedestal. There seems to be a “good ol’ boy” fringe benefit when a pastor of any denomination reaches a certain level of fame. He takes and or is given by the people and some fellow pastors, a rung on the spiritual ladder placing him above the status of accountability.
Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Being as the Bereans means to thoroughly study if these things are so (in this case, pretrib teachings), and if found to be questionable, we should look more closely at the author and or propagator. Many generations have staunchly taken up Scofield’s defense unwilling to see the proof for fear the pedestal they raised him up on would come crashing down. The well documented personal history tells a great deal about: his character, his hypocrisy, deceit, and the life long effort made to cover up his indiscretions, etc. Darby was not successful in pushing his belief of pretribulationism, so Scofield and his wealthy underwriters stepped in and incorporated it into the notes of his Bible. Following the advice of his publisher at Oxford University Press, he chose the King James Version for the best avenue in selling his Bible and receiving the highest profit from it.
Chapter 2 A Brief History of Pretrib Beginnings
PRETRIB DIEHARDS – An Article by Dave MacPherson
Since the 1970’s stunning new data has been surfacing about the pretribulation rapture’s long-covered-up beginnings in the 1800’s. In recent years several persons associated with Dallas Theological Seminary (which had long been pretribized) have reportedly gone to Britainto check on my research sources and then write books opposing my claims. In 1990 an Ohiopastor told me that Dr. _____ _____, the most qualified DTS prof, traveled there and came back and wrote nothing! The pastor added that he and some others had a good laugh. But change was coming. In 1993 Chuck Swindoll, who became DTS president after John Walvoord, stated: “I’m not sure we’re going to make dispensationalism [the chief attraction of which is a pretrib rapture] a part of our marquee as we talk about our school.” When asked if the word “dispensationalism” would disappear, he answered: “It may and perhaps it should” (“Christianity Today,” Oct. 25, 1993)! But a few diehards (with the stubbornness of Iraqi insurgents and New Orleanslooters) keep on milking their cash cow while continuing to cover up and twist the following historical facts about their latter-day, cult-like belief:
1825:British preacher Edward Irving revealed that he had been teaching some of dispensationalism’s key aspects as early as late 1825. (John Darby-exalter R. A. Huebner has never even claimed to find any original prophetic idea in Darby before late 1826!)
1827-1830:Darby was still posttrib during these years. His 1827 paper had him waiting for only the posttrib “restitution of all things.” After discussing in 1828 the “unity” of the church, he looked for only the Rev. 19 coming in 1829 and 1830.
1830:During the spring a young woman in Scotland, Margaret Macdonald, declared that she had discovered in the Bible what had never been seen by others: a rapture of “church” members described as a “pre-Antichrist” (or pretrib) event. Her words: “one taken and the other left” before “THE WICKED [Antichrist] be revealed.” She was a partial rapturist seeing only part of the “church” raptured and the rest of the “church” left on earth. When she wrote that the “trial of the Church is from Antichrist,” she meant the part of the church not included in her pretrib rapture. Leading partial rapturists including Pember and Govett have always applied the word “church” to the ones “left behind.” Robert Norton, Irvingite historian and on-scene witness of Margaret’s utterances, wrote that Margaret was the “first” to privately teach pretrib.
A September article in “The Morning Watch” (Irvingite journal) saw the “Philadelphia” church raptured before a “period of great tribulation” and the “Laodicea” church left on earth. Huebner’s “Precious Truths” claimed that Philadelphiawas seen raptured before only the “seventh vial” and not before “the great tribulation” even though the article writer added twice on following pages that this “period” was indeed “the great tribulation”! In the previous (June) issue the same writer had seen Philadelphiaon earth until the final posttrib advent. In between these two issues, TMW writers had visited Margaret who explained her new “revelation” which was soon reflected on TMW pages without giving her credit!
In December a published article by Darby was still defending the posttrib view!
1833:British lawyer Robert Baxter, an ex-Irvingite, wrote that the pretrib “delusion first appeared in Scotland” before it began to be taught in Londonthe following year.
1834:A Darby letter referred to the new pretrib rapture view, stated that “the thoughts are new,” and advocated the subtle introduction of it by writing “it would not be well to have it so clear”! Darby also called it the “new wine.” Others who knew that pretrib was then a new view included other Plymouth Brethren, Irvingites, Margaret, and later 19th century historians such as Margaret Oliphant who referred to “a new revelation” in 1830 in western Scotlandwhere Margaret Macdonald lived.
1837:Years after Darby supposedly had derived a distinction (or separation) between the “church” and “Israel,” his 1837 article saw the church “going in with Him to the marriage, to wit, with Jerusalemand the Jews”!
1839:The first year Darby was clearly pretrib. His pretrib basis then (and during the next three decades) was Rev. 12:5’s “man child” that is “caught up.” But this “new” Darby teaching was actually a plagiarism of Edward Irving who had been using this verse for the same (pretrib) purpose since 1831!
1843:In a letter written from Switzerland, Darby referred to “the dissemination of truth and blessing…thus spreading on the right hand and on the left, without knowing whence it came or how it sprung up all of a sudden….” Here he gloated that others didn’t know “whence” pretrib came or that he had advocated the subtle sneaking of the new pretrib view into existing groups (see “1834” above)!
1853:Darby’s book “The Irrationalism of Infidelity” recalled his visit to Margaret Macdonald and her brothers in mid-1830. He remembered 23 minor details but carefully omitted the most important one: Margaret’s teaching of a coming of Christ that would exempt believers from the great tribulation “judgments”—-a detail that all others who visited her and then wrote accounts could easily remember! (It’s obvious that Todd Strandberg’s mother didn’t soap his mouth enough because even though he knows better after the airing of “Open Letter to Todd Strandberg” on the internet, his falsehood-packed “Margaret MacDonald Who?” article on his “Rapture Ready” site continues to pollute minds by stating that I “have never been able to prove that Darby had ever heard of MacDonald or her vision”!)
1855:An article by eminent Brethren scholar S. P. Tregelles tied “Judaisers” to pretrib. But in an 1864 book he tied “Irving’s Church” to pretrib. Both Huebner and Walvoord claimed that Tregelles contradicted himself, and Huebner charged Tregelles with “untruth and slander.” But even William Kelly, Darby’s editor, saw no contradiction and wrote, concerning “Judaising,” that “nowhere is this so patent as in Irvingism”!
1861:Robert Norton, medical doctor and Irvingite, wrote that the “true origin” of pretrib had been “hidden and misrepresented.” (This was about the time that Kelly was working towards the goal of elevating Darby and giving the false impression that Darby should be credited with the pretrib view.) Several pages later, in the same book, Norton revealed Margaret as the true originator of pretrib.
1863:In his “Five Letters” leading Brethren scholar Tregelles wrote that some Brethren had been unscrupulously issuing tracts by the thousands in which they changed the “words and doctrines” of “the Reformers and others” to give the impression that those ancient writers had actually been teaching the novel doctrines that some Darbyist Brethren were then circulating in the 1800’s!
1864:Brethren scholar Tregelles charged fellow Brethren with changing even the words in ancient hymns: “Sometimes from a hymn being altered, writers appear to set forth a secret rapture of which they had never heard, or against which they have protested.” I should add that in an 1865 letter Darby asked his editor to preserve the newer (pretrib) hymns and “correct the others,” that is, the older (posttrib) ones!
1860’s: From the 1860’s to the 1880’s William Kelly, editor of Darby’s works, was busy putting together some volumes known as “The Collected Writings of J. N. Darby.” Opposition to Darbyism had been increasing and Kelly was determined to fight it and continue to exalt Darby. His goal was to present a Darby that was prophetically “mature” long before he actually matured. He achieved this dishonesty with misleading words in brackets inside sentences in Darby’s early works, and with footnotes that he “borrowed” from Darby’s much later works when he was obviously more developed! Darby even gave this deviousness his blessing. In an 1865 letter to Kelly he wrote: “I should think that some of the Notes would require some revising….Even the sermons contain things I should not accept….” Kelly even flaunted his shameful manipulation in a footnote to Darby’s 1830 article; the note said that “it was not worthwhile either suppressing or changing it.”
Interestingly, since the Irvingites were clear (and clearly first) when it came to public pretrib teaching, they didn’t need later “fixers” to dishonestly correct their original statements!
1872: In an article in “The Princeton Review,” Thomas Croskery of Irelandlisted beliefs of the Plymouth Brethren including these: “That the moral law is of no use at all to believers” and “that believers have nothing to do in the way of keeping themselves from sin for God must look to them if He will….” He said that “Mr. Darby” pursues his opponents” with a virulence that has no parallel in the history of religious controversy.”
1877: A medical doctor, James Carson, wrote that “the Darbyites have managed to cloak their opinions by using language in a Jesuitical sense….” He added: “Unless a person makes himself properly acquainted with the opinions” of Darbyites and argues “with the utmost precision on every point…it is impossible to manage such wily and slippery customers.”
1879: A later work by Thomas Croskery declared that “Brethrenite doctrine…clearly tends to immorality.” He then quoted Darby’s editor, William Kelly, who stated: “I am no longer, as a Christian man, having to do with the responsibility that attaches to mortal man, but am passed now into a new state, even while I am in the world.” Rev. Frederick Whitfield spoke of “the flagrant immoralities among the Plymouth Brethren” while James Grant commented: “Darbyism is the most selfish religious system with which I am acquainted.”
1880: William Reid’s work on Brethrenism revealed that “no other sect was, perhaps, ever so fruitful of divisions” and referred to “the novel doctrines propounded by some of its leaders.” He quoted Lord Congleton, a leading Brethren member, who asked: “Have you tried these Brethren—-the Darbyites?….They are false in what they say of their brethren, they are false in doctrine, and they are false in their walk.”
And Henry Craik, a colleague of George Muller, was also quoted: “The truth is, Brethrenism as such, is broken to pieces. By pretending to be wiser, holier, more spiritual, more enlightened, than all other Christians; by rash and unprofitable intrusions into things not revealed; by making mysticism and eccentricity the test of spiritual life and depth; by preferring a dreamy and imaginative theology to the solid food of the Word of God….” (Leading Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon’s 1967 book “The Origins of the Brethren,” p. 253, quoted earlier Brethren member Lord Congleton who was “disgusted with…the falseness” of Darby’s narratives. Rowdon also quoted a historian of the Brethren, W. B. Neatby, who wrote that “the time-honoured method of single combat” was as good a method as any “to elicit the truth” from Darby!)
1880’s: In 1880, a year after his Christian conversion, C. I. Scofield was in the St. Louisjail for forgery because he’d stolen his mother-in-law’s life savings in a real estate scam. In 1883 his first wife divorced him (for desertion) and he remarried three months later. Although he had no formal theological training, he began putting a non-conferred “D.D.” after his name in the 1890’s. In 1899, when he preached D. L. Moody’s funeral sermon, he still owed thousands of dollars that he had stolen from acquaintances 20 years earlier. (In 1921 he advised his daughter, who then had financial problems, to pray to an ancient Catholic saint; at the same time his Scofield Bible, p. 1346, was predicting a future reign of “apostate Christendom, headed up under the Papacy”!)
1889: Aware that for 60 years the leading historians—-whether Brethren or Irvingite—-had been crediting someone in Irving’s circle (and not Darby’s circle!) with the pretrib rapture, Darby’s editor William Kelly embarked on a sinister plan to discredit the Irvingites (and their female inspiration) and belatedly (and falsely) give credit for pretrib to Darby. He achieved this in 1889-1890 in a series of articles in his own British journal while analyzing the Irvingites in a supposedly fair and honest manner. Let’s see a few of the many examples of his clever dishonesty:
When quoting early Irvingites like Baxter and Norton, Kelly would consistently skip over their clear pretrib teaching but quote just before and after it! And he was a change artist. When Irvingites would write about their pretrib “rapture,” Kelly loved to water it down into only their belief in the “Second Coming”! If the Irvingites expressed their belief in an imminent pretrib catching up, Kelly revised it into their “constantly to be expected Lord”! When Irving’s followers hoped to escape, by rapture, the coming “tribulation,” their “tribulation” was changed by Kelly into only “corrupt or apostate evils”! My 300-page book “The Rapture Plot” has 16 pages (!) of glaring specimens of short quotes exhibiting Kelly’s shameful revisions of Irvingite doctrine!
1918: A prophetic book by E. P. Cachemaille discussed the pretrib origin, tied it to the 1830’s, then added: “There has since been much scheming to give the doctrine a reputable origin, scheming by those who did not know the original facts, not being contemporaries of Dr. Tregelles.”
1942: Noted prophecy teacher H. A. Ironside, who had a Brethren background, dared to assert, minus evidence, that what early Brethren taught re the rapture was “so contrary” to what the Irvingites had been teaching, adding that no links had existed between the two groups!
1960: After mentioning that the claim that Darby originated pretrib “is certainly open to question,” evangelical scholar Clarence Bass wrote: “More probably, however, its origin can be traced through the Irvingite movement.” But he failed to elaborate, evidently aware that he would be opening a can of you-know-what!
1973: Darby worshiper R. A. Huebner wrote that “The Irvingites (1828-1834) never held the pretribulation rapture or any ‘any-moment’ views.” He was aware that many couldn’t know how close he had repeatedly come to clear pretrib teaching by Irvingites and then had covered up everything while using the same devious tactics his inspiration William Kelly had used a century earlier while analyzing the same Irvingites!
My “Plot” book has a 31-page chapter of many quotes from the earliest Irvingites showing that they repeatedly and clearly taught pretrib as well as imminence. For example, in 1832 the Irvingite journal said that “some” will be “left in the great tribulation…after the translation of the saints.” We’ve already seen clear pretribism in the Sep., 1830 issue of the Irvingite journal. It’s bad enough that Huebner (who never attended seminary, college, or even Bible school) has mind-poisoned his tiny circle of Darby-idolizers, but disastrous that pretrib leaders like Walvoord, Ryrie, LaHaye, and Ice were apparently “too busy” to check Huebner’s sources and later on too proud to admit they’d been taken in by him!
The parallels between Huebner and his two inspirations, Darby and Kelly, are astounding. Like them, he easily applies “demon” to opponents and their beliefs. Like them, he exaggerates and even purposely muddies up Darby’s earliest pretrib development and Darby’s later reminiscences. And like them, he can deftly dance around pretrib “cobras” in Irvingism (and its female inspiration) without getting bitten! In his 1973 book, Huebner had 95 copying errors when quoting others including pretrib leaders! (For more shocks on the internet, type in “Humbug Huebner.”)
1989: Thomas Ice, one of the biggest pretrib diehards, doesn’t have favorites when he discusses the pretrib origin; he can use deviousness as well as sloppiness. When he reproduced Margaret’s short “revelation” account he somehow left out 48 words! As if his carelessness wasn’t bad enough, his reproduction also included four distinctive errors that Hal Lindsey had made in his own reproduction of it in 1983—-what Ice chose to do instead of going to the original 19th century sources! (See my internet piece “Thomas Ice – Hired Gun” if you are shockproof.)
1990: A year after his “rapture” of 48 words from Margaret’s handwritten “revelation” account, Ice was elevated all the way up to Dallas Seminary’s journal which published his article on pretrib history. In it he had some copying errors when quoting John Bray, Huebner, and Walvoord. Even worse, when he quoted the same Margaret Macdonald account, he skipped right over what he knew was her main point (a catching up of church members just before the Antichrist is revealed) even though he quoted shortly before and after it! And when quoting present-day Brethren scholar Harold Rowdon, he used an ellipsis to cover up Rowdon’s evidence in his 1967 book that Irvingite development preceded Darby’s!
1991: After many objective, no-axe-to-grind scholars had publicly endorsed my research (which emphasized Margaret, the Irvingites, and 1830), R. A. Huebner, aware of the same objective scholarship and determined to negate it, came out with a book in which he claimed to find Darby teaching pretrib in 1827—-that is, three years before Margaret etc. But halfway through his book (which had more than 250 copying errors!), he admitted that his 1827 “proof” could refer to something completely different! Nevertheless, diehard Thomas Ice, after admitting to me that he was indeed aware of Huebner’s change, continues to declare publicly that Huebner’s 1991 book “proves” that Darby was pretrib as early as 1827!
1992: When Tim LaHaye’s “No Fear of the Storm” reproduced Margaret’s short account, he “left behind” 48 words—-the same 48 words that Ice had left out in 1989! In the same book LaHaye made 84 other copying errors when discussing pretrib beginnings! Although he had a whole chapter focusing on my origin research, un-scholar LaHaye didn’t list any of my books in footnotes or bibliography which kept readers from being able to find out what I had actually written! And LaHaye based his analysis on inaccurate secondhand sources and also made many copying errors when quoting them.
For many years Tim and Beverly LaHaye’s “conservative” organizations have raked in millions of dollars while telling folks to vote for only “moral” political candidates, and while appearing to be very pro-family and anti-gay. What they haven’t revealed is that their son Lee LaHaye has long been the Chief Financial Officer of Concerned Women for Americaand that Lee is openly gay! Can we be sure that “Left Behind” Tim isn’t just as hypocritical with his pro-pretrib stance? (If you’re man or woman enough, warm up your computer a