<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER">“<b>TWO
ARE BETTER THAN ONE” MINISTRIES</b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><b>Jim
& Marie Watt</b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><b>Tel:
253-517-9195 - Email: <a href="mailto:jmbetter@gmail.com">jmbetter@gmail.com</a></b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><b>Web:
<a href="http://www.2rbetter.org/">www.2rbetter.org</a></b></p><p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER">February 22, 2012</p><p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><br></p>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.08in; }</style>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><b>2012-02-22
- TRIBULATION - INTRODUCTION PART A - H. A. Baker</b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><b>A
New Doctrine</b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
The teaching that the Church in whole, or in part, will be caught up
to heaven before the reign of the man of sin, the anti-Christ, did
not appear in church history until the early part of the nineteenth
century. Neither any of the early church fathers nor later church
writers taught this doctrine. Neither did the early church creeds nor
the church creeds of modern time before the nineteenth century teach
this doctrine. On the contrary, whenever these writers, or creeds,
referred to the last days of the Church, in every such instance they
said that the Church would continue on earth to the end of the reign
of the anti-Christ.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
I intended to quote from some of the church fathers and from some of
the church creeds; but I believe that is unnecessary, since no one
will deny the above statement of facts, and since anyone who cares to
do so may make personal investigation as to their truthfulness.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Of course beliefs of church fathers or beliefs as stated in creeds do
not prove a doctrine true. The Bible is the proof-standard. However,
these evidences from church history do show that this doctrine in
question is a <b>new doctrine. </b>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER">
<b>How We Got the New Doctrine</b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
After my study of the scriptures had led me to believe this an
erroneous doctrine I learned about its origin. You may be as
surprised as I was to learn how this teaching got into the Church and
became so popular. It appears that it came about as follows:</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
In March, 1830, a woman in Richard Baxter's church in London,
England, when under supernatural power, prophesied that the Lord
Jesus might come any time and that true believers in Him might any
day be caught up by translation to heaven. This church and this woman
were connected with the Irvingite movement that soon went astray on
many false doctrines. The Irvingite movement at that time placed much
emphasis on supernatural manifestations such as speaking with other
tongues, prophesying under supernatural power, etc.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
At the same time John Darby and a little group of men gathered at
Plymouth, England, were engaged in independent Bible study. This was
the beginning of the sect later called “The Plymouth Brethren.”
Although Richard Baxter himself did not accept as true the prophecy
of the Irvingite woman in his church, it seems that many others did.
And although Darby and his group of Plymouth Brethren were not a part
of the Irvingite movement they nevertheless, accepted this prophecy
as coming from the Lord, and they incorporated it into their
teaching.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Since Darby was one of the most influential preachers in England at
that time, and since this easy way of escape-tribulation-doctrine was
pleasing, and since it is a natural weakness of Christians to be
readily attracted by any doctrine that promises to be a “new”
revelation, this supposedly new revelation about the rapture of the
Church quickly spread throughout the evangelical churches of England.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
George Muller of the famous Muller orphanage and Tregelles, reputed
to be the best Bible scholar of that century, and Spurgeon, and many
others by public addresses and in writing, opposed this new teaching,
declaring it to be unscriptural and false. However, all this
opposition was in vain, as already shown.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Having accepted this “spirit”-inspired new teaching Darby and his
group proceeded by “new” interpretations and inferences to make
the scriptures support the new “theory.” Darby's line of
“interpretations” and “inferences” have come down to us today
through the Plymouth Brethren sect with little variation from the
teachings of Darby. In our day Charles Scofield, one of the Darby
line and closely associated with the “Brethren,” has perhaps done
more than any other one man to propagate the escape-tribulation,
any-moment, secret-rapture teaching. Another man who helped much in
making this teaching widely known was W. E. Blackstone. He summarized
the Darby-Scofield teaching on this subject in a book called, “Jesus
Is Coming,” and with the help of some men of wealth sent free
copies to preachers and missionaries all over the world. That is how
I first came in contact with any definite discussion about the return
of the Lord. This was doubtless true in the case of thousands of
others who had been as ignorant as I about the whole question. I read
recently that Blackstone, after further study, reversed his former
view and saw the error of his previous belief. However, he did much
in his time in promoting the Darby-Scofield view.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Like Blackstone, and Oswald Smith, and Henry Frost, American
secretary of the China Inland Mission, and like many, many others,
who after more careful study, have reversed their beliefs, you may
have to reverse yours, for you will see that the popular belief is
“the tradition of the fathers,” but not of the church fathers. At
any rate, the above is a brief outline of the history of this “new”
Darby doctrine. Further information on this point, supported by more
evidence of its accuracy, is given in my book <b>Tribulation to
Glory.</b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER">
<b>What Darby Taught</b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
So far as I know, all familiar with the facts agree that Darby taught
as stated in this chapter. He taught that Jesus might return any
moment to raise the dead in Christ and to translate, without death,
the believers in Christ, who will be alive at the time. This coming,
Darby claimed, would be invisible, noiseless, secret. After the
disappearance of the believers from the earth the man of sin, the
anti-Christ, would openly appear to reign over the whole world. At
the end of this usurper's reign the Lord Jesus would <b>openly</b>
return to earth to raise the rest of the dead believers, judge the
world, and set up His visible kingdom on earth. According to Darby,
this first coming of Christ would be “for” His saints and the
coming after the reign of the man of sin would be “with” His
saints for whom He had previously come.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Although Darby and his followers of the Darby-Scofield line have
written volumes sufficient to fill many a library shelf dealing with
the ramification of the any-moment-rapture theory, the main points
are discussed in one section of the book “Tribulation to Glory,”
to which we refer the reader. However, for the benefit of those who
do not have access to that book I will here more concisely repeat
what is in the other book. I will now touch on some of the main
teachings of Darby and suggest reasons why these lack sufficient
scriptural support.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Because Darby and his group could find no direct statement of the
scripture that the believers would be translated before the time of
the anti-Christ, they found it necessary to support the new doctrine
by “interpretations” and “inferences” not found by direct
statements of the Word of God. How can it be emphasized too strongly
that this much-embracing doctrine from Darby's day to ours has only
the support of “inference?”</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><b>A.
The “Worthy-to-Escape” Passages</b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Two passages of Scripture were favorite texts for Darby. One of these
reads: “Watch you therefore, and pray always, that you may be
accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass
and to stand before the Son of man. Luke 21:36. Darby said that the
things that were “to come to pass” were the persecutions under
the anti-Christ.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Darby said that, but the Bible does not. Darby “inferred” that
the reign of the man of sin was in question. Does not the Bible
“infer” that the destruction of the wicked <b>after</b> the reign
of the man of sin is referred to? Read the context. The Lord was
talking about the destruction of the heaven and the earth and what
would happen to “them,” to people on the earth at that time. Who?
The wicked. How would “they,” the wicked, be caught? Unawares.
How about us? We would not be caught unawares if we should watch and
pray, but would be safe in the day of judgment - “escape.”</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Now we see how the following Scripture fits in with my “inference”
that the <b>day of judgment</b> and not the reign of the anti-Christ
is referred to in the above passage in Luke, Read this: “What
manner of persons ought you to be in all holy conversation and
godliness, looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day of
God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the
elements shall melt with fervent heat” 2 Peter 3:11, 12. Peter
wrote primarily to Gentile churches, and hence this looking for the
day of destruction (post-tribulation) cannot be shifted over to the
Jews.</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
Christians in general are to look for the day the wicked will be
destroyed. Although I believe that my “inference” is most
scriptural that the passages in Luke and in Peter refer to the same
thing, and that in the following Bible study I can show by much
scripture that the day we hope to “escape” is the day of judgment
of the wicked, all I insist on here is that this Darby-Scofield
“inference” is unprovable in its setting and that this passage
can have <b>other</b><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>
</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">interpretations.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">A second favorite passage much
used to support Darby's theory was this: “Because you have kept the
word of my patience, I also will keep you from the hour of
temptation, upon the earth,” Rev. 3:10. The “hour of temptation,”
Darby “inferred,” was the time of the reign of the anti-Christ,
and being “kept” meant being translated to heaven by a rapture
before that reign began. So much for this new interpretation started
by Darby. So much for inference.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">Does the Bible say what this hour
of temptation is? Does it say how anyone is to be “kept,” or
where, or when? The Greek can mean </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>kept
through</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none"> or </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>kept
away from</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">. For
eighteen months I and my people in the mountains of China were kept
safe in the midst of the communists. My people at this present “hour”
probably are unharmed in the midst of wolves. I am being kept from
“that hour” by being brought home. But none of us have been
translated to heaven.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">As I will show later, there is a
plain scripture to show that the “hour” through which the
Christian hopes to be “kept” is the day of judgment of the wicked
at the end of the reign of anti-Christ.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">All that I insist on here,
however, is that there is plenty of proof that Darby's “inference”
in not “proof” nor provable by any direct statement of scripture
anywhere.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><b><span style="text-decoration:none">B.
The-One-Taken-and-the - Other - Left - Doctrine</span></b></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">Another new interpretation of
scripture, which no one seems ever to have heard before the days of
Darby, concerned the Lord's statement that at the time of His return
two would be grinding at the mill; one would be taken and the other
left. Two would be in the same bed; one would be taken and the other
left. Two would be together in the field; one would be taken and the
other left. Darby said these mentioned as being “taken” were
saved Christians or believers who would thus be “taken.” Taken
where: To heaven. How? By a silent translation, or rapture. When? Any
time today, tomorrow - any day, any moment. It would be when the Lord
came near the earth to secretly, without any external manifestation,
raise the righteous dead and catch the living believers up to meet
Him in the air. But, we ask, what proof did Darby have that these to
be “taken” as spoken of by the Lord were to be part of a general
rapture of the saints at the time Darby stated: Darby did not </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>prove</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
this. He </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>said</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
it. Does the Bible say it? No. Darby simply “inferred” this and
then somebody else inferred it and then somebody else until today it
still hangs there on “inference.”</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">Now, while Darby's “inferences”
about what was meant by the one “taken” and the other “left”
fit into his unproven theory of a secret rapture, these “inferences”
do not fit into the plain statements of the Bible. In fact, the Word
of God directly contradicts Darby in this connection.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">For instance, the Lord Jesus
definitely stated that when He comes he will </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>first</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
gather out of His kingdom that which offended. He Himself in
explaining the meaning of the parable of the wheat and tares and that
of the dragnet, said that the tares among the wheat and the bad in
the drag-net represented the </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>wicked</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
who would “first” be destroyed before the </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>good</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
were gathered in. Matt.13. There it is: Darby said the the Lord would
come and first gather the </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>wheat</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
from among the tares and leave the tares still in the world. Jesus
said that when He comes He will do the very opposite - </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>first</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
gather the tares out of the wheat and not leave the tares but bind
them into bundles and </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>burn
them</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">. Does not Jesus'
definite statement flatly contradict Darby's “inference?”</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">What proof is there that the
particular moment Jesus had in mind was the time of the resurrection
of the dead and the translation of living believers when He was
talking about “the one taken and the other left?” If He referred
to the translation of the Church, and the one “taken” was to be
one of those caught up by secret rapture, then do we not have here
still another contradiction of scripture? Paul said that it was </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>he</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
who revealed to the church the “mystery” of living believers
being caught up to meet the Lord in the air and that of the
resurrection of believers at that time.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">As every Bible student knows, the
idea of “mystery” as used in the Bible is that of making known
some truth not previously made known. Now, if Jesus was telling His
disciples about the translation of living believers when He told
about “the one taken and the other to be left,” would not Jesus,
rather than Paul, have been the revealer of this rapture-“mystery?”
And if Jesus revealed this mystery, would not such a comforting and
inspiring hope have been handed down through disciples to the days of
Paul? And if so, how could Paul have been revealing any “mystery”
at all when he would have been telling disciples what they already
would have known? Surely Darby here makes Jesus and Paul contradict
one another.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">In view of the above scriptures
and definite statements of Christ, I submit the following
“inferences” as being more consistent than those of Darby: Since
the “tares,” or the wicked men, are </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>first</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
to be taken out from the good, could not the “one taken” be the
one taken to be burned and the one not so wicked be “left?” Could
Darby or any one prove that it could not be so?? Here is further
support for this inference: Jesus was talking about the similarity
between the day of His coming and that of the destruction of the
world in the days of Noah and of the destruction in the days of Lot.</span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>
Destruction of the wicked</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
is what He was talking about, was it not?</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">Then what is inconsistent in
“inferring” that although in the days of Noah and Lot the wicked
were </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>all</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
destroyed suddenly and unexpectedly, in like manner not all, but </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>some</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
of the wicked, or unregenerated, would be suddenly destroyed when the
Lord comes with His angels to gather the tares? The two in the same
bed, the two grinding together at the mill, the two working together
in the field might every one of them be </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>unbelievers.
</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">As students of the
Bible must know without argument, the Lord will not </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>immediately</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
destroy </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>all</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
of the unbelievers when He appears. Will not the destruction of the
wicked, begun then, extend over considerable time? At any rate, the
believers of the Darby-Scofield interpretations agree that there are
unbelievers to be left for the millennium, most of whom, they say,
will not ever be converted. Thus, consistent with Darby's own theory
about the judgment of the wicked, the worst wicked of the two
unbelievers could be “taken” and the best of the two “left.”
Why not?</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<span style="text-decoration:none">Equally consistent could not, in
some cases, the “one left” be a true Christian - a grain of wheat
left when the tares were taken out? Why not? Furthermore, where is
there anything in the statement of the Lord to indicate that anyone
was to be “taken” away from the earth? They were not “taken”
from the earth in the days of Noah or in the days of Lot, were they?
These last considerations are not submitted as definite proof; but
are they not more consistent with scripture than those of Darby? In
short, the above should show that Darby's theory of the righteous
being </span><span style="text-decoration:none"><b>first</b></span><span style="text-decoration:none">
taken from among the wicked is direct contradiction of scripture and
the statements of the Lord, and in the second place, when it comes to
“inferences,” plenty of inferences based on direct scripture
statement directly oppose those of Darby, showing that he had no
sufficient ground for trying to support his theory by such
unscriptural and scripture opposing “inferences.”</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT">
<br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT"><b><span style="text-decoration:none">Note:
</span></b><span style="text-decoration:none"><span style>Dr.
James R. Graham, Presbyterian scholar and Missionary to China, has
unusual confirmation to the views expressed above by H. W. Baker -
JAW.</span></span></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"></p><p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="CENTER"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT"><font size="3"><b><br></b></font></p><p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT"><font size="3"><b>TO
SUBSCRIBE - Please Email: <a href="mailto:mailing-subscribe@2rbetter.org">mailing-subscribe@2rbetter.org</a></b></font></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT"><font size="3"><b>TO
UNSUBSCRIBE - Please Email: <a href="mailto:mailing-unsubscribe@2rbetter.org">mailing-unsubscribe@2rbetter.org</a></b></font></p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top:0.01in;margin-bottom:0in" align="LEFT"><font size="3"><b>FOR
ARCHIVE ARTICLES - Web:<a href="http://2rbetter.org/pipermail/mailing/">http://2rbetter.org/pipermail/mailing/</a></b></font></p>