Pre-Tribulation Not the Historical Belief

By Michael Trofern

Those who are pushing the Pre-tribulation Rapture want us to believe that it was the predominate historical belief, which is nonsense. First off, Protestantism did not officially arrive until the very late 1400s; may as well say the early 1500s.

And they did not have a set end-time belief system. As time went on, many different end-time beliefs sprang up, so it is no surprise that someone is able to show that one or two ministers believed in the Pre-tribulation theory, but it was NOT the dominate theory.

As a researcher, I came across a book that presents evidence that the Pre-trib theory was NOT the dominate theory. It was first published in 1847, and published again in 1850, and 1862. It actually presents evidence to suggest that it was one of the books that first introduced the pre-trib theory and helped it to spread. Here is the important quotes from it showing the above:

******************************************

Analysis of the Revelation of St. John: On A Plan Entirely New, by Rev. Henry Edwards, Vicar of St. Germain’s, Norfolk; London, A. W. Didby & Co.

. . . And the course of independent inquiry thus pursued having led me to conclusions greatly at variance with the opinions generally entertained in regard to the visions of St. John…. Their contrariety to popular ideas would indeed sometimes cause me to question the expediency of their publication — would sometimes make me hesitate to set myself against the stream of public opinion….

I have called them “discoveries;” because it will be found, that in my “Analysis,” the reader is presented with an entirely new combination of prophetical facts — an entirely new computation of prophetical numbers — and an entirely new view of many of the visions of St. John, singly and separately contemplated…. be found to furnish a more simple, clear, and convincing view, of the scope and design of the Apocalyptic visions, than any commentary that has yet been published — those even of the Rev. E.B. Elliott and Dr. Cumming not excepted.

To those eminent and excellent men I render all honor, while yet constrained to express my entire dissent from their expositions of Inspired Prophecy . . . (page 5-6)

Again — an interpretation of this Book, to be successful, must be new. The explanations hitherto offered, having all failed to produce conviction, as to the meaning of these remarkable prophecies, by giving them a fixed and determinate signification — recourse must evidently be had to other modes of exposition than those which have been in use until now. (page 9)…

To make it apparent that Rome is the “Great Babylon,” and the Papacy “the Beast” of the Apocalypse, recourse has been had to the year-day principle of interpretation; by means of which the prophetic period of forty and two months, comprising 1260 days, has been made to extend over 1260 years.(page 13) …

The assigned period of action — 2400 days — will surely be deemed quite long enough … (page 14)

Blakeney, Norfolk, June 11, 1847 (page 15)

******************************************************

The period he likes is not quite, but almost 7 years. He also states that his view is totally different from the dominate view which is that the 1260 days refers to years, not actual days, so that is clearly NOT the pre-trib theory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s