Darby and the Secret Rapture

[OBW]

I love reading this story over and over. The whole of dispensational theology starts with the visionary fits of a seriously ill Pentecostal and not from the storehouse of the Bible.

Yet so many are now almost entirely focused on the life-to-come at the expense of the life that now is. To quote a certain green wrinkled Muppet

All his life has he looked away… to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm?

Maybe a little too much. But maybe not. There is clearly more concern for what is coming that what is going on now. We all have our ticket, so this life is essentially irrelevant.

Of course, that does not explain the constant prayers to get over illness so we can stay here longer (for no apparent reason other than to pine about being elsewhere).

I know. This is a little too sarcastic. But then the Rapture hyperbole is worthy of much sarcasm. Not because there is any question that Jesus is coming again, but because of the misplaced emphasis on the future rather than on the here and now.

As for Darby's "spirituality," and the chasing after things spiritual that has followed ever since, it is part of the errant divide between the secular and divine, or spiritual. For the Christian, life should not be secular , but spiritual. All the way down to the hoeing of potatoes, activities in the marketplace, and the washing of clothes. It is not just something that happens in quiet times, or meetings of the church.

[aron]

An interesting thing about Darby, like Nee and later Lee, is that they didn't originate their teachings. They came onto a pre-existing separatist, or dissenting group, latched onto some aspect of the teachings, and bulldozed their way to the top. And with all three, when they passed and their iron grip no longer was the force binding the assembly, it split asunder, with little fiefdoms of wanna-be's popping up all over.

With Darby the ex-Anglican priest, his new home group the Peebs was full of 'Darbyisms', some of which weren't even his ideas; later I hear that the group is now being run by the Australian Hales family, the current EB bosses.

With Nee, he came onto the already pre-existant Shanghai Christian Assembly, removed senior co-workers like Leland Wang (see Lee's "Seer of the Divine Revelation", p. 19) due to his "local ground" theory, then once he was Alpha Dog he discovered "Authority and Submission" and so forth. How convenient.

And Lee was clearly a pea in Nee's pod, hijacking the movement post-Nee to the now Dong-ites, Chu-ites, and Blended-ites. All these little kingdoms with their carefully reasoned arguments, who alone have the vision.

Originally Posted by OBW

I know. This is a little too sarcastic. But then the Rapture hyperbole is worthy of much sarcasm. Not because there is any question that Jesus is coming again, but because of the misplaced emphasis on the future rather than on the here and now.

I grew up on dispensationalist fundamental teaching, then took the Nee/Lee's version for years, and never challenged any of it. So it was kind of shocking for me to see its emergence on the scene so recently. What I stress here is OBW's point that it leads tomisplaced emphasis. A lot of LC lore is not necessarily false, any more than what is held to be true at the Podunk Community Church. But there is clearly misplaced emphasis. Grace over works, "life" over righteousness, loving theology over loving one's neighbor, despising those who cannot repay you in this age, I could go on and on.

It's questionable teaching that, unquestioned, leads to orthopraxy. The fruit is too clear.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

This idea of seeing something and finding yourself in the minority is both the way forward and the way into lala land. Sometimes we as a larger group really are stuck. It takes someone willing to read what is there, have a revelation as to what it is actually saying, and raising their voice/hand and suggesting that we rethink.

And yet it is the allure of unique thinking that captures so many into cults or other marginal sects. The idea that I/we have knowledge that only a few others have and that the majority is ignorant.

It is a dangerous place to be. . .

And therefore, the one, or few, who come up with a different way may be precursors to either the forward movement of the church, or the exit of some from "the way."

Or they may just be pushed-down without any real consideration by those who have decided that it is all settled. Yet they are unable to see that their "settled" position was not the settled position of not that many years ago, therefore who is to say that we should be settled.

And it is "we" and not just "me" who should be concluding. I can read. I can suggest. I can engage. But I cannot dictate or determine alone.

I dragged this over from another thread, because it speaks to something vis-a-vis, the discussion of Darby, Nee, and Lee. The pattern I see is of someone who gets caught by an idea, whether "secret rapture" or "local ground" or whatnot; they come into a dissenting, isolated fellowship that has rejected the status quo as "dead Christianity", and then proceed to dominate this closed and vulnerable flock with their promulgation of said idea. They may not be the originators, but they become the champions: they do a kind of scorched-earth warfare with the idea and everyone who doesn't get on board is excluded. The human cost of their theology's triumph is merely a cost of doing business.

Now, they're left with the Bible, which they outwardly profess to love and obey, and the voice in their head, which tells them what the Bible is saying. None other can intrude; the thrice-recommended "safety of many counselors" in Proverbs is now long gone. Only them, their Bible, the voice in their head, and their submissive acolytes are left. The group into which they've come now has no recourse but to go into the ditch. None can restrain the madness of the prophet, the self-anointed "seer of the divine revelation."

With Lee, an example can be seen when the voice in his head told him that many scripture passages, both OT and NT, were low, natural, fallen human concepts and he believed it. His interpretive metric must prevail, and increase, and the Bible itself lost -- we prayed over ministry outlines and rejected scriptures as unprofitable. (I've gone into this in some detail in the "Psalms" thread, and elsewhere.)

With Nee, it can be seen in some of his bizarre later statements, when he was trying to run 'his' Little Flock. . . orientalisms like "get in line" and "know who's in front of you" and "handing over"; the sudden revelation of the centralizing "Jerusalem Principle"; his responses to the threats his hegemony faced by the newly-triumphant Maoists; all this exposed Nee as a fallible human like the rest of us, yet one now devoid of any help from peers. He'd already determined that he had no peers, and only one voice in the room mattered, which was his own, and now his voice was cracking, but what could he do? He'd built his nest and now he and the rest had to live in it.

With Darby, there's a misplaced emphasis on previously hidden truths: a secret coming, for example, which will precede the bright glory that will be seen from East to West. Commensurate with the obsessive promotion of these recently "recovered truths", there's the ejection of everyone that can't toe the line of doctrinal dead letters. There's a complete absence of love for any other human being, which makes his obvious devotion to his mystical hidden Christ seem quite unbalanced (i.e. unreal) indeed.

And so on; I'm unqualified to offer detailed critiques of these men or their ideas. But what little I see is plain: "The Bible alone" was merely a vehicle for "my ideas alone" which ultimately made for a deformed Christian assembly: it was no longer the Christian assembly of "we", but had become the assembly of "me". Not a normal Christian church life at all.

(Perhaps not coincidentally, Lee's Blended Lieutenants referred to such dominant ministries as spiritual "giants". But the scriptural record of the Giants isn't good, unfortunately; they ate up men, until the cries of the afflicted earth reached to heaven. Such Giants [Gk: "grigori"] dominating the intellectual and behavioral landscape of the Christian church probably isn't healthy, at all. See e.g. Gen 6:4)

[Ohio]

I came across this short youtube video titled Plymouth Brethren & John Nelson Darby Founder Of Dispensationalism & The Pre Trib Rapture Exposed. Very well done with numerous scholars cited. What I found so interesting, especially concerning Darby himself, was that I could almost perfectly substitute WL in place of Darby, with minor changes like inserting "God's Economy" for "dispensationalism."

One can readily see the similarities between these two men, their talents, their rise to prominence in the movement, their attitudes towards others, their views of the church and recovery, etc.

[Sons to Glory!]

Since this older thread has been resurrected, I thought to add something regarding dispensationalism that we've discussed on another Christian forum I'm on in some length. Amillennialists purport that dispensationalism wasn't around before it was popularized in the 1800s. This is not the case. The idea can be found in many early church writers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and to a degree Augustine. But it seems that after the RCC firmly took over much of the church, amillennialism was the basic theme for over a thousand years.

See here: Dispensationalism And The Early Church Fathers

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Since this older thread has been resurrected, I thought to add something regarding dispensationalism that we've discussed on another Christian forum I'm on in some length. Amillennialists purport that dispensationalism wasn't around before it was popularized in the 1800s. This is not the case. The idea can be found in many early church writers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and to a degree Augustine. But it seems that after the RCC firmly took over much of the church, amillennialism was the basic theme for over a thousand years.

See here: Dispensationalism And The Early Church Fathers

Good point. I found this also true of the so-called creation Gap Theory. It was discussed way back in time and actually was the prevalent thought concerning creation until the last century.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good point. I found this also true of the so-called creation Gap Theory. It was discussed way back in time and actually was the prevalent thought concerning creation until the last century.

I've seen that too. It seems to be a common thing to say to discredit certain teachings --> "This is a newer thought that the early church didn't have."

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Since this older thread has been resurrected, I thought to add something regarding dispensationalism that we've discussed on another Christian forum I'm on in some length. Amillennialists purport that dispensationalism wasn't around before it was popularized in the 1800s. This is not the case. The idea can be found in many early church writers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and to a degree Augustine. But it seems that after the RCC firmly took over much of the church, amillennialism was the basic theme for over a thousand years.

See here: Dispensationalism And The Early Church Fathers

I’m going to politely object here. While early Church writers may have had flavors of what is now known today as dispensationalism, this theological system wasn’t a formal system until Darby. Darby defined the dispensations and presented how the Bible should be viewed through this theological system.

None of the early church writers or leaders that we know of used what is known as the dispensational framework to read the Bible . They (as noted in the article) saw different ways God interacted with man and commented on it, however they never formalized an entire system of biblical interpretation.

It’s important to point this out, because the Recovery will have you believe that this framework is something that has always existed, it’s a recovered truth. However, it simply isn’t and was formalized in the last 200 years. During my time in the recovery I never knew that there was other systems of biblical interpretation. I never knew that the recovery’s view of secret rapture was a fringe belief, I never knew that the recovery’s view of Israel being separate from the church was not a widely held belief.

While salvation doesn’t hinge on what theological system you use, a lot of other beliefs do. Specifically eschatology, the only way certain end time beliefs work is if they are viewed through specific theological system lenses. When beliefs about the end times dictate a huge portion of your Christian life (being an over comer, secret rapture) it’s good practice to understand where that lens comes from. With the Lords Recovery, it’s a lens that is relatively new in the grand scheme of things.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Zezima

I’m going to politely object here. While early Church writers may have had flavors of what is now known today as dispensationalism, this theological system wasn’t a formal system until Darby. Darby defined the dispensations and presented how the Bible should be viewed through this theological system.

Instead of saying Darby was the Father of Dispensationalism, some say he was actually the father of systematized dispensationalism. That may be a more accurate moniker.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Zezima

I’m going to politely object here. While early Church writers may have had flavors of what is now known today as dispensationalism, this theological system wasn’t a formal system until Darby. Darby defined the dispensations and presented how the Bible should be viewed through this theological system.

While salvation doesn’t hinge on what theological system you use, a lot of other beliefs do. Specifically eschatology, the only way certain end time beliefs work is if they are viewed through specific theological system lenses. When beliefs about the end times dictate a huge portion of your Christian life (being an over comer, secret rapture) it’s good practice to understand where that lens comes from. With the Lords Recovery, it’s a lens that is relatively new in the grand scheme of things.

Zezima, it seems that you oppose all Biblical teachings just because JND, WN, or WL used it. The reason many embrace elements of "Dispensationalism" is because it does have some value to help our understanding of the scriptures. Of course, as Sons to Glory alludes to, all teaching paradigms or systems can be taken to extremes, and go beyond the limits of scripture. Hyper Calvinistic teachings also come to mind here. Pentecostal teachings are another by their equating all mentions of Spirit/spirit with tongues.

I believe it's far better to examine each teaching, i.e. "test all things, hold on to the good,"as the Apostle admonishes us. Otherwise we end up discarding the good with the bad just because we abhor one particular messenger or system. And let's be fair that Dispensationalism is not the only teaching system prone to errors or extremes. Better to be like the Bereans who examined all teachings with the Word of God.

Regardless of what Darby or others teach, the entire Bible, and Revelations chapters 2-3 in particular, provide numerous blessings upon those who "overcome." Jesus' own Sermon on the Mount also provides unique blessings to those who "overcome" for lack of a better word. Paul's faith stories in Hebrews 11 list numerous accounts of specific men who overcame by faith.

I do agree with you that there is no privileged class of believers called "overcomers," rather this word is always used as an action of faith and obedience to the Lord during those trials His believers are confronted with. For any sect, such as the Recovery versions, to label their adherents alone as "overcomers" is a horrible deception.

There are also numerous verses on the (secret) rapture. Do you oppose them too?