This is because J. N. Darby is the father of pre-tribulation doctrine, whether you heard of him or not it is always the arguments he introduced into the church that are used.
Basically he fiddled around with one or two words in 2. 2. Thessalonians. He made the word apostastes to mean departure or removal whereas the true meaning is rebellion and the church has always interpreted it as rebellion and Antichrist the man of rebellion or the man of sin, the son of perdition.
Total fabrication that I corrected you about, less than one month ago (March 30).
Darby did NOT have that as his argument or his belief (he did NOT interpret that word to mean this, as you suggest he did):
Post #100 - https://christianchat.com/threads/the-key-to-the-pre-trib-rapture.198174/post-4522199
...where you had said...
Evmur said:
[...] is also
a Darby teaching.
It is exactly why he manipulated the word apostasis to mean departure rather than rebellion.
... I had responded in
Post #100 (different thread from this current one)...
[quoting Post #100]
The thing is, he didn't.
You speak as though you know him... but a simple "Search" would prove that he indeed did NOT teach "
apostasia [/
apostasis]" means "departure" (rather than "rebellion" [from some faith issue])... and the reader can readily ascertain this / his view by looking at his Commentary of this passage, where he is explaining that word
in the same way that you all are understanding it (
not its most basic definition, as "departure," as you are suggesting he did):
[
quoting from one small portion of Darby's commentary, but it is sprinkled THROUGHOUT, in just such a way]
"[...] the already known fact is asserted, that
the apostacy must previously take place, and then the man of sin be revealed. Solemn truth! Everything takes its place. The forms and the name of Christianity have long been maintained; true Christians have been disowned;
but now there should be a public renunciation of the faith an apostacy. True Christians should have their true place in heaven. But, besides this, there should be a person who would fully realise in sin the character of man without God. He is the man of sin. He does his own will it is but Adam fully developed; and incited by the enemy, he opposes himself to God (it is open enmity against God), and he exalts himself above all that bears the name of God; he assumes the place of God in His temple. So that there is apostacy, that is, the open renunciation of Christianity in general, and an individual who concentrates in his own person (as to the principles of iniquity) the opposition that is made against God.
[and quoting further down]
"
Now when the assembly (the assembly, that is, as composed of the true members of Christ) is gone, and consequently the Holy Ghost as the Comforter is no longer dwelling here below, then the apostacy takes place, [See Note #6] the time to remove the hindrance is come, the evil is unbridled, and at length (without saying how much time it will take) the evil assumes a definite shape in him who is its head. The beast comes up from the abyss. Satan not God gives him his authority; and in the second beast all the energy of Satan is present. The man of sin is there.
[...]
" Note #6
"The principle of this may be widely at work individually, as in
1 John 2, it had begun, but the open public manifestation was to come. Jude gives the creeping in to produce corruption John, the going out which characterises the Antichrist.
"Note #7
"We may remark that the apostacy develops itself under the three forms in which man has been in relationship with God; Nature it is the man of sin unrestrained, who exalts himself; Judaism he sits as God in the temple of God; Christianity it is to this that the term apostacy is directly applied in the passage before us."
--
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/darby/2_thessalonians/2.htm
[end quoting from Darby's commentary on 2Th2... but again, he mentions this, this way, throughout the piece! I'm not seeing HIM define the word as "DEPARTURE [/RAPTURE]" ANYWHERE in this commentary of that chpt... if he does, plz point it out to me... and yes, my eyesight
is BAD
lol
]
____________
So, no, Darby did
not speak of the text in the manner that you suggest he did (at least that I can tell!)... his viewpoint was closer to *
all you-all's* explanation of the word "
apostasia [/
apostasis]," rather than the explanation a few of us have been presenting ("THE Departure," as in, a "spatial / geographical departure" [verse 1, previously mentioned in the CONTEXT qualifies! (esp with regard to that "
otherwise unnecessary" usage of the DEFINITE ARTICLE ['THE'])] and which is a totally LEGIT "definition" of said word).
Let's not wander too far afield of things, here, simply to try to drive your [
faulty] points home, and convince the readers of things that are not actually factual in nature. = )
[
end quoting Post #100, from LINK at top of this post]
____________
Plz keep a copy of this, or at least a notation of his commentary, in your notes (or on your computer, anything...) so as to
not keep repeating this fabrication regarding Darby about the "
apostasia" word... because he did NOT use it in such a way.
I suggest the same to you too
@Runningman , since you "AGREED" with his inaccurate Post #1717
