I did look it up. It supports amillennialism, as I suspected, not pre trib rapture. look up your own sources before posting.
The one who needs a source is you. You said that pretrib rapture was a view before the 1800s. Where is your quote to prove that?
You got the cart before the horse. THEY make the claims.Extra biblical claims. My "source" is the bible. I look at their mess as a courtesy,and am not forbidden by a doctrine from any reaserch.( they are as is shown by their lack of investiagation)
Postrib ABSOLUTELY MUST adjust the "2 in the field" verses to agree with the "wicked taken"
My reference to the opposite taught in the 1700 has zero reflection on my BASIS for belief,as I do not elevate man over the word. IOW it matters not to me that herasy was abundant in the early church.Some did not even adhere to the virgin birth.
Under the "no such doctrine before 1830's" template they, by their own precedent,need an infallable "church belief system" for some doctrine to override the scripture.(so bizarre beyond words)..I can not wrap my mind around the addiction to ancient saints
So,I am not moved by ANY such methods of man. The WORD OF GOD debunks them hands down and a babe in christ with a bible can easily defend the pretrib rapture.
BTW,the catholics burned entire groups of believers and their writings as herasy...LEAVING CATHOLIC ERRONEOUS DOCTRINE in full force !!! Fast forward to today where there are those WITH DOCUMENTS IN HAND ready to use and base their entire beliefs on!!!!