Introduction - Part B - H.A. Baker

[Jim Watt]

“*TWO ARE BETTER THAN ONE” MINISTRIES*

*Jim & Marie Watt*

*Tel: 253-517-9195 - Email: jmbetter at gmail.com*

*Web: www.2rbetter.org*

February 23, 2012


 *2012-02-23 - THROUGH TRIBULATION - INTRODUCTION Part B - H. A. Baker*


 *Darby's Interpretations and “Inferences” - for our Translation prior to
anti-Christ*


 *A. The “Worthy-to-Escape” Passages*


 *B. The-One-Taken-and-the - Other - Left - Doctrine (A & B in Introduction
Part A)*


 *C. The Man-Child Theory*

When Darby first accepted the Irvingite “spirit”-inspired woman's
any-moment, secret rapture teaching he at once grabbed symbolic twelfth
chapter of Revelation and pulled it in to help support his new theory.
“Here we have it,” Darby said, “the man-child is the raptured church.”
Bible students who ought to know say that so far as students of church
history seem to know, this idea of making the man-child of Revelation refer
to the rapture of the Church started with John Darby. This new offspring
born of Darby inference, has surely been prolific - its generation is
legion.


 This whole twelfth chapter of Revelation is figurative language, as no one
will deny. Its interpretation is not given in the Bible, as is also
undeniable. Any interpretation of this chapter must, therefore, be by
“inference.” Rampant throughout the church today are innumerable false
doctrines started by teachers who make the Bible speak by “inference”
where, in fact, it preferred silence.


 No man can prove anything by the twelfth chapter of Revelation, but he can
give his imagination full liberty here to warp it to fit almost any theory.
All we take time to say here is that this is not proof text for Darby's
theory, or any other theory, and to say whatever the figurative language of
this chapter may mean, it cannot mean what Darby said, in view of the *facts
* stated in the Word of God as quoted in the following studies in this
volume.


 *D. Enoch, Elijah, Noah*

The Darby group brought in Enoch, Elijah and Noah to make them help. Enoch
and Elijah, they said, were types of the rapture of the Church before the
so-called great tribulation, while Noah and his family, saved at the time
of the flood, were types of the Jews being saved *through* the great
tribulation.


 Now what are the facts? The bible does not say that Enoch and Elijah are
types of anything. If their experiences are to prove anything or to
illustrate anything, they can be said to definitely prove that men can be
transformed and translated to heaven without having died. This shows the
possibility of the translation of living believers at the time of the
Lord's return; but, we may well ask, what is there about the experiences of
these two prophets to typify anything about the *time* of the translation
of the Church, even if there be any typical connection? Elijah had plenty
of persecution while he was alive. No unusual great tribulation or time of
persecution followed soon after the translation of Enoch or Elijah; what
great tribulation were these men caught away to “escape?”


 What about the “inference” that Noah typified the salvation of the Jews *
through* the great tribulation? The Bible definitely states that the
salvation of Noah and his family typifies *our* salvation by baptism
accompanied by right attitude of heart towards God. 1 Peter 3:18-21. This
typifies our being saved from destruction in hell, does it not, according
to the Bible? The day Noah entered the ark all of the wicked in *all
of*the world were
*destroyed*.


 If we seek similarities, is it not true that the Word of the Lord states
that at the time the Lord will return *after* the great tribulation He will
destroy the tares and gather the wheat into His garner? However, there is
no hint in the scripture that the case of Noah was intended to teach
anything about the rapture of the Church. This interpretation by
“inference” was new interpretation never taught before Darby's day, but
introduced by him to help his new doctrine.


 *The Church and the Book of Revelation*

By the “inference”-plan started by Darby and his Plymouth Brethren, the
book of Revelation was given new interpretations. In this way the messages
to the seven churches were supposed to be types of seven church -
“dispensations,” although there is nothing in the messages themselves, or
other statements of scripture, that indicate such meaning.


 From the end of the third chapter to the end of the book nothing applies
to the Church, the Darbyites said, for the Church is not specifically
mentioned after the third chapter. The fact that the Church is not
mentioned by name after the third chapter of Revelation is no more proof
that it had been taken from the earth than that it was not on earth when
some of the epistles were written, for in some of them the Church is not
mentioned.


 *Darby's New Dispensation*

However, Darby nor anyone else denies that saints and believers appear all
through the book of Revelation. If the Church would not then be on earth,
who must these saints in Revelation be? Very evidently there must be a new
“inference” to fit the new problem. Here is the new make-up which
authorities say never before appeared. The Darby-school decided there must
be a new and special and unique “dispensation” intervene between between
the time the Lord comes to take His Church by rapture to heaven and the
time of the end of the age after the reign of the anti-Christ. This
so-called dispensation they called “The Great Tribulation.”


 Although this period will be the greatest time of tribulation the world
has ever seen, there appears to be no proof from church history that the
term, “the great tribulation,” was ever applied to these concluding years
alone. Anyway, the important point is that Darby claimed that during these
years in question the Lord would again deal with Israel in a new way and
that a different gospel - called “the gospel of the kingdom” - would be
preached during these years and that the result of this would be a
different class of believers whom Darby called “the tribulation saints.”


 Here it would be easy to write a few whole chapters showing the error of
these “inferences.” But why the need? Do we not all know there can be no
other gospel?? Did not Paul say that if any one preached another gospel,
let him be accursed? Surely we all know that in Christ there is neither Jew
nor Greek. Col. 3:28. We know well enough that Christ broke down the wall
of partition between Jew and Gentile, making them one body. Eph. 2:14. We
also know that all true believers become members of the Church, the body of
Christ, do we not?


 Now, if Darby was right in calling the time of the anti-Christ “The Great
Tribulation” exclusively, then this period must be the time of the greatest
revival the world has ever known. The Word says: “I beheld, and lo, a great
multitude, which no man could number, of all nations and kindreds and
people, and tongue stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed
with white robes ... these are they which came out of [the] great
tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood
of the Lamb. Rev. 9:14. (This is the only place the article “the” occurs in
the Greek in this connection).* Note* We believe that “the great
tribulation” out of which comes the great multitude which no man can number
out of every nation, tribe and tongue, began when Adam sold out to the
devil. The entrance of sin into God's world brought great tribulation to
all mankind and especially to the saints of God who have always been
compelled to live in the midst of the enemies of God. While the earth has
always been in great tribulation, the end time, under the reign of Satan
and the anti-Christ, will be a time of such concentration of the powers of
evil that it will be worse than has ever been before, or shall be, the
scripture states. “Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that you be not soon
shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by
letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let no man deceive
you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling
away first, and that man of sin be revealed above all that is called God,
or that is worshiped.” 2 Thess. 2:1-4.


 To the casual reader this passage definitely states that the coming of
Christ and the translation of living believers would not be till after the
reign of the man of sin. As already stated, the early church fathers and
other church writers and the church creeds up till the time of Darby
accepted this passage of scripture just as it reads.


 Darby attempted to remove this barrier that blocked his new doctrine by
saying that the “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” was not the same as “the
day of Christ.” The Darby-school went still farther and stated that the
“day of Christ” is not the same as “the day of the Lord.” These men “infer”
that and dogmatically state it as a a fact; but by what scripture do they
prove it? A statement without proof is not proof. Let any reader take a
concordance and search out all the references to the “day of the Lord,” the
“day of Almighty,” the “Day of Christ,” the “Day of Jesus Christ,” etc. and
compare what the Darby-school “infer” and state with what the Bible says.


 Just look at the above passage. Is Paul not going to special pains in
writing to these Christians to tell them not to be deceived by a “spirit,”
or by a letter, or by any claiming Paul's authority, or by any other means?
Did he not try to make them know without any doubt whatever that the coming
of the Lord would not be till after the reign of the man of sin? That's the
way I read it.


 If the Lord was to come “any moment” to catch these saints up to heaven
and they were to have nothing to do with the man of sin, why bother them
about it and get them confused by using confusing language and terms that
did not mean what was apparent? Was Paul not very evidently trying to make
things very clear to these Christians? If Darby is right, Paul failed, did
he not? If this passage cannot be understood as it reads, then Paul failed
to write clearly. If Darby is right, then who would naturally read this
scripture and even “guess” what Darby saw unless told about it by someone
indoctrinated in the Darby-school? Let me here ask the reader, in all
sincerity, whether he ever thought of such an interpretation of this
passage as Darby gave until he heard it given by others or read it
somewhere.


 *What About Giving It to The Jews?*

Here is another passage of scripture that, taken as it reads, stood
squarely against the so-called pre-tribulation theory of the Darby group.
It reads: “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be
darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall
from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall
appear the sign of the Son of man: and then shall all the tribes of he
earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of
heaven with power and great glory.” Matt. 24:29, 30.


 What did Darby do with this passage that stood directly in his way? Why,
he gave it to the Jews! Since his theory claimed that was to be the rapture
of the Church *before* the reign of the man of sin and since there would be
saints when the Lord came “immediately *after*” that reign, here was
something to be “explained.” Here is the way Darby “explained” it: He said
that during the period of the reign of the man of sin, the lawless one, the
anti-Christ, the Lord would deal with the Jews in a special way and that
during this period the Jews would lead in the proclamation of the “gospel
of the kingdom.” Later modifications of this theory also brought in a
mysterious, unique group of Gentiles to witness at this time. The result,
it was claimed, would be what they called “the tribulation saints.” This
Jewish remnant and their converts were the ones to whom the Lord referred
in speaking of His coming “immediately after the tribulation of those
days,” and all this in no way concerned the Church, the Darbyites asserted.


 Having started with Darby, this new scheme of giving-it-to-the-Jews,
called by critics “the Jewish-waste-basket,” has opened the door for
“inferences” and “interpretations” and “theories” galore. The
Darby-Scofield teachers by this giveaway plan, made all of the
after-tribulation signs concerning the Lord's return apply to the Jews.
Some of the Darby line, by this Jewish waste-basket-plan, have given all of
the sermon on the mount to the Jews alone. Others have given the whole
gospel of Matthew to the Jews, while still others have sliced out diverse
sections of other parts of the New Testament and handed these all over to
the Jews exclusively.


 Since all this is about the Jews by “inference” and every man is free to
“infer” as he likes, so long as real proof is not essential in this system,
why not just as well make one clean sweep by one big all-inclusive
“inference” and “infer” that we are out of it all, for the whole New
Testament, except a small portion, was written by Jews and the New
Testament, or New Covenant, according to the Bible, was a covenant to be
made with the Jews. To who was the Holy Spirit directly promised? The Jews.
To whom was directly given the command to preach the gospel to the whole
world? The Jews. Salvation is from the Jews, Jesus said so. To the Jews
were given the covenants and the promises. Paul said so.


 This Darby-Scofield “inference” of give-it-to-the Jews comes to another
self-contradiction in the Scofield Bible in which it is claimed that Jesus
came to the Jews as the Messiah and that had they accepted Him, He would
then and there have set up His kingdom on earth and there would have been
no death on the cross; but, since the Jews rejected Jesus, He died on the
cross and as a result the Church age came in as a parenthesis in the Lord's
dealing with the Jews.


 Thus the Lord's plan about His kingdom to give-it-to-the Jews, according
to Scofield, having failed, we got in on the present plan of salvation
through the cross and have the hope of resurrection from the dead. There
would be no “second coming” of Christ at all, had the Jews acted as the
Lord expected, according to Scofield.


 Does not all this show that we can follow the Jewish waste-basket false
“theory” and give the whole Bible to the Jews, or we can reject the *whole
theory* and appropriate all the of the New Testament promises for Jewish
and Gentile believers alike?


 Thus can we not, with assurance, say that when Jesus was talking to His
disciples about the signs they would see and about His coming “immediately *
after* the tribulation of those days”, He was talking about what Jew and
Gentile believers alike would see? If not, why not? If He meant otherwise,
would He not have clearly said so?


 *Summary*

The foregoing discussion should show that the pre-tribulation-rapture
theory started in the days of Darby is founded on “inference” only and that
the inferences drawn are unsupported by definite scripture and in many
cases are contradictory to clear teaching of the Word of God. We have
considered this under the topics:

 The-worthy-to escape-doctrine.

 One-taken-and-one-left.

 The man-child theory.

 Enoch, Elijah and Noah.

 The Church and the book of Revelation.

 A new dispensation theory.

 Darby and the Thessalonian letters.

 About giving it to the Jews.


 We have now considered the main inference-supported foundation of the
imminent rapture theory, while other still more doubtful “inferences,” too
numerous to mention, are also brought forth to give support to this new
doctrine which lacks even *one* direct statement of the scripture.


 I was reluctant to write this chapter that will be so contrary to former
beliefs of so many of my friends; but I became convinced that it was
necessary to clear up much misunderstanding and to set forth in this way
some things the Bible does *not teach* concerning the theme under
consideration.


 Will the reader now, with as little prejudice as possible, turn to the
positive study of the Word of God as set forth in the following chapters
and stick at it to the end in order to give the subject a fair and complete
consideration. Amen! Then let us proceed.


 *NOTE**: *Dr. James R. Graham came to the Kostner Avenue Baptist Church of
Chicago, possible in 1957-58. He as a Presbyterian scholar, had gone to
China as a missionary, and became very proficient in the Chinese language,
probably Mandarin. His superiors commissioned him to translate the Notes of
“The Scofield Bible” into Chinese. Half-way through this assignment, he
discovered that these Notes were not based on Scripture - but on
“inferences.” As a man of integrity he approached his superiors and
resigned his commission in the light of his new-found convictions.


 “Through Tribulation”: by H.A. Baker was probably written in the early
1930's. One of the best books ever written on “The Rapture.” This book is
very rare. On a “Google-Search” under H.A. Baker, and on page 2, see [PDF]
“Under His Wings”, the autobiography of our author, made available to us by
his great grandson, Elisha James Baker, August 2008. During his College
days in the Midwest, H.A. Baker excelled as the lead on his debating team,
and won many debates with other colleges. As you read “Through
Tribulation”, you will see debating skills come forth as he exposes the
grave fallacy of the “Secret Rapture” teaching. I came across his writings
as a new convert in 1944, and possess most of his writings. JAW.



 *TO SUBSCRIBE - Please Email: mailing-subscribe at 2rbetter.org*


 *TO UNSUBSCRIBE - Please Email: mailing-unsubscribe at 2rbetter.org*


 *FOR ARCHIVE ARTICLES - Web:http://2rbetter.org/pipermail/mailing/*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://2rbetter.org/pipermail/mailing/attachments/20120223/c02c9f96/attachment.htm>