Missler says that Emanuel Lacunza in 1810 popularized the pre-Trib rapture. He lists many 1st century fathers. Barnabus, Irenaeus etc. these he says taught pre-Trib; yet, when reading their writings it becomes obvious that they did not. I had included an entire chapter on their teachings in my book. You can look up and find read and examine their works on the net. They taught a Post-Trib leaning event.
Missler says Lacunza popularized the Rapture in 1810. He actually died in 1801. Still possible, I assume. Read the article at the end of this section refuting the need for Lacunza’s involvement in the pre-Trib Rapture. There is an attempt to overcome his historic place in this debate, as he was an evil Jesuit Priest. I’m sure you will find the article of interest *1
Missler makes as a proof that in his view the Post-tribulation position is incorrect, because of the fact that they overlook the imminent return, which we have looked into in depth; yet he then teaches on the Seven churches of Revelation, as being seven successive Church ages, covering now over 2000 years. This understanding is popular, but it totally contradicts his teaching and belief concerning imminence. Seven church ages covering 2000 years can’t possibly allow for an imminent return for the church who from studying scripture held to that view, until at least these ages are completed.
But why does he teach this? One reason might be — the promise to be kept from the hour of testing is only to one of the 7 churches, and if one believes the each church occupies a different period of years as he does – then the sixth age, occurring before a final apostate age of Laodicea, would represent the final church age and it then is the only one receive this promise of escape and thus the only one to be raptured. If all seven churches are seen as representing the Church throughout history, then there positions on doctrine can be more easily questioned. It could not easily be claimed that the gifts of the spirit had ceased, and not easily claimed that this promise as they see it to escape Tribulation is a promise to each of the Churches. Their view of ages makes the entire Philadelphia age supposedly to be those residing here at the time of Rapture.
He then attempts to make the seven lampstands of Revelation 1:20 representing the seven churches equivalent to the seven lamps of fire in Revelation 4:5. But these are not described as the church as Missler would have us believe but as the seven spirits of God. If these lamps were the Church as those in Revelation 1:20 would it not be easy enough for the Holy Spirit to see that John properly stated them to be such?
Missler sees Daniel 9:24 as the key to understanding the 70 wk prophesy.
He sees the messages to the seven churches in Rev. Chapters 2&3 as the most important one to the Church “you and me” of all that is contained in the Revelation. This understanding is stated In his opening statement to his u-Tube message session 17 on the Revelation. In session 16 he reviewed his chart on the seven churches reaffirming his position on the seven church age teaching, but grouping the churches into three groups. Here he presented that one group, which he lumped in the center of the three were warned of Tribulation and of great Tribulation. This admission alone lends itself to the overall confusion in a pre-Trib understanding of the church as seen in the seven churches. Why will any of the church be warned of their seeing great Tribulation’s impact under a pre-Trib scenario, except possibly Laodicea? And nothing is stated to her concerning Great Tribulation.
In his teaching on chapter 11 of Revelation he sees this as a parenthesis included with chapters 10-14, and he reads about the sounding by the seventh angel but does not yet teach that it is the seventh trumpet. He holds the sounding of the seventh trumpet until the opening of the seven bowls. So his view on this description of the seventh trumpet’s effects in chapter 10-11 is basically an unknown if one wants to make Revelation a sequential rendering of prophetic events.
In his review for his seventeenth lesson he reemphasizes his belief that one of the two witnesses is Elijah. He had stated in sixteen that John was considered by some to be the other witness. I believe this to be likely. He bases his own reasoning for Elijah and Moses being these two witnesses based upon the miracles that they had performed when on earth. Interestingly this presents these two men as being the vehicles and perhaps sole possessors of these miraculous powers, a very limiting and I believe inaccurate view of God’s gifting to men, but one that supports other teachings concerning miracles within the Dispensationalist’s own theology, where the gifts to the church have ceased, with the first of the seven church ages.