Thread: The Theology of Darby, Scofield, and Others: Leaning to Man's Own Understanding
Admin
The Theology of Darby, Scofield, and Others: Leaning to Man's Own Understanding
Posted : 8 Dec, 2012 08:33 AM
The Theology of Darby, Scofield, and Others: Leaning to Man's Own Understanding
This is a big subject and can't be dealt with very well in a few sentences of a few paragraphs.
Proverbs 3: 5-6 says "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
In more than one way the theology called dispensationalism, or Christian Zionism, is based on man's own understanding, that is, the understanding of John Darby, Edward Irving, C.I. Scofield and others after them. The theology is influenced by the Enlightenment, and the forms of humanism in higher criticism, the historical-critical method, textual criticism, and the dialectic.
On http://www.scionofzion.com/revisers.htm Fearless Dave MacPherson makes a number of statements about the origins of Christian Zionist theology.
John Darby (1800-1882) said that the dispensation of law ended at the Cross when the dispensation of grace began. But then when the seven year dispensationalist tribulation period begins, another dispensation of law begins - so proposed Darby. This created a problem for Darby's theory. How could another dispensation of law go on when the Church was still on earth? He thought that in the dispensation of law during the tribulation, God would be dealing with the Jews. Would the church in the
tribulation return to be under the law? The solution was that Darby postulated that before the events of the tribulation began and the one man dispensationalist Anti-Christ appeared, the church would be raptured off the earth. With the church gone, God would then turn to deal with the Jews during the tribulation. This point of Darby's theory may be the origin of the claim that the Book of Revelation is only for the Jews, since only they of God's people will be on earth in the tribulation.
If the church is raptured off the earth, leaving the Jews, what happens to the few Jews who have accepted Christ? Darby and later dispensationalists do not seem to deal with Messianic Jews, or with the vast majority of Jews who have rejected Christ entirely.
Darby proposed a radical separation between the church and the Jews, and then said that
when a Jew comes to believe in Christ he becomes part of the church and is no longer part of Israel.
Of course, the Messianic Jews would tend to reject this idea, wanting to be followers of Messiah and still be part of physical Israel.
Darby's work outlined above on his theology, later called dispensationalism, betrays his method of creating the theology. First of all, Darby proposed several different dispensations, which C.I. Scofield claimed were seven, which were periods of time in the history of God's people in which God dealt with them in different ways, requiring different paths to salvation. But Darby, Scofield and other dispensationalists did not focus on the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, which is a distinction found in scripture. The seven dispensations are periods of time imposed upon the history of God's people by Darby and Scofield, and not communicated in an explicit way in scripture. Paul talks about law and grace, but this deals with only two of Scofield's seven dispensations. And what Paul says about law and grace applies to the differences between the Old and New Covenants.
Had Darby and Scofield searched the Bible for texts showing the differences between the Old and New Covenants they would have made some contribution to an understanding of the covenants. Then, they might have used this understanding of the differences between the covenants as one of the starting positions of their theology.
Instead, Darby and Scofield proposed dispensations which they imposed upon scripture. This led Darby to propose that since the dispensation of law ended at the Cross and then the dispensation of grace began, that during the tribulation a new dispensation of law would began for all physical Israel. Since this dispensation of law would be a problem for the church which was under grace, Darby himself decided, without support from scripture, that there would be a pre-tribulation rapture of the dispensationalist church off the earth before the tribulation and the new dispensation of law would begin.
And here is where Edward Irving's interest in the book by Manuel or Emmanuel Lacunza, (1731-1801) came into the creation of the new theology. Lacunza was a Jesuit priest who wrote The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty (1790). Lacunza wrote that before Christ appeared the second time there would be a general apostasy of the Catholic Church which would make it part of the Anti-christ. What is important also is that Lacunza'a book was based upon a futurist interpretation of Bible prophecy. According to http://www.theologue.org/Theory-JPEby.html Lacunza the Jesuit also claimed that Jesus will return return twice, and on his first return return He "raptures" the Church so they can escape the reign of the "future antichrist." This interpretation of a future Anti-Christ as one man was apparently meant to steer the Protestants away from saying the Pope was the present Anti-Christ.
Edward Irving, an associate of John Darby and the English Plymouth Brethren, discovered Lacunza's book and was influenced by it. He translated it into English, and it was published.
Dave MacPhearson in "X-RAYING MARGARET" on http://www.onenesspentecostal.com/post/davem5.htm says that "Margaret and the Irvingites influenced Darby and the Brethren far more than the latter influenced the former. As we've seen, the former came up with the framework of Pre-Trib much sooner than the latter did. It isn't surprising then to find out that the earliest Brethren (and even Darby) were influenced during their initial development by Partial Rapturism!"
Margaret is Margaret Macdonald who had a famous vision in which MacPhearson says she saw a pretrib rapture of part of the church while also seeing the rest of the church enduring a future tribulation.
The dispensationalists changed Margaret's vision about a pre-tribulation rapture so it included all of the church, or the dispensationalist church.
The significance of the influence of Edward Irving's translation of the book, The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty (1790), by the Catholic Emmanuel Lacunza, and the pre-trib rapture vision of Margaret Macdonald is that Darby himself decided on a pre-trib rapture, and was influenced in doing so by Lacunza and Margaret Macdonald. This is an indication that Darby was operating on his own and not basically from scripture.
In creating his theology John Darby was operating more like a philosopher creating a system of philosophy - by making starting assertions which are taken for granted as being true. In logic, math, science, or in philosophy, these starting points are called postulates. Darby did not begin from scripture but from postulation.
But here is an important statement by John Darby. John Darby said that "The Church has sought to settle itself here, but it has no place on the earth... [Though] making a most constructive parenthesis, it forms no part of the regular order of God's earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to them..."
John. N. Darby, 'The Character of Office in The Present Dispensation' Collected Writings., Eccl. I, Vol. I, p. 94.
"Them" are all physical Israel. The church, for Darby exists to "give fuller character and meaning to all physical Israel." Darby, known as the Father of dispensationalism, thought that the purpose of the Christian church, the ekklesia as a meeting, assembly or congregation of Israel reborn in Christ, the Israel of God, made into The Body of Christ like the Catholic capital C Church, was to honor all physical Israel. The dispensationalists say that God's people the Jews are earthy. They are involved in physical and literal things, like the blood sacrifice of animals, a literal bloodline from Abraham, circumcision, and a physical temple building.
Lewis S. Chafer, the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, said that:
"The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity."
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107
By "God's earthly plans" John Darby meant physical Israel.
But Chafer also says "Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne, that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven."
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1975), Vol. 4. pp. 315-323.
For dispensationalists "Israel," which can only be physical Israel (I Corinthians 10: 18, Romans 9: 8), remains the chosen people of God. Somehow, for dispensationalism, those in the "church" are also the elect and are saved though they are not, contrary to I Peter 2: 5-9 the chosen people.
"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." Revelation 13: 11-12
The false prophet, representing many false prophets in the "church" is said to cause those who live on the earth to worship the first beast whose deadly wound is healed. Who or what fits the description of an entity, a people, a nation, which received a deadly wound that was later healed?
Revelation 13: 1-3 says "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
2. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
3. And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast."
One of the heads of the first beast was wounded to death but his deadly wound was healed. The first beast can be identified as government from the three beast kingdoms of Daniel 7 listed in Revelation 13: 2. The nation of Israel received a deadly wound in 70 A.D. which was healed in 1948.
Chafer insists that dispensationalism: "... has changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity to come.."
Lewis. S. Chafer, �Dispensationalism,� Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447.
Dispensationalism ignores, cannot hear or spins away the texts on the transformation os Israel. As a result, the theology does not teach an understanding of why there is a conflict between some Old Testament texts advocating certain beliefs or practices which the New Testament rejects, especially on the ceremonial law in the Five Books of Moses.
Dispensationalism, if it is a systematic theology, loyal to its opening points, would deny that Christ came to fulfill Old Testament prophecy on the transformation of Israel. These prophecies start in II Kings 21: 13, on turning Jerusalem upside down, to Isaiah 29: 16, which refers back to II Kings 21: 13 and points to Jeremiah 18: 1-6, and this strand on the transformation goes into the New Testament, for example in Luke 13: 6-9, where Christ in this parable asks God the Father to let him give new life to Israel, and then if it bears no fruit to cut it down.
Its easy for a theology that insists that everything in the Bible is literal to ignore these four more metaphoric texts and maintain that God did not transform physical Israel and prune back its numbers in the process.
The theology, if consistent with its opening points, would also deny John 3: 1-7, on being born again.
Darby's theology has trouble with Jeremiah 31: 31 on the New Covenant. If it says the New Covenant applies equally to those who were formerly Jews in the flesh and formerly Gentiles in the flesh, then this can threaten its distinctive strong separation between physical Israel and the church.
James Barr tells us that dispensationalism was "..individually invented by J. N. Darby... [and] ...concocted in complete contradiction to all main Christian traditions.."
James Barr, Escaping from Fundamentalism (London, SCM, 1984), p. 6.
The Theology of Darby, Scofield, and Others: Leaning to Man's Own Understanding
Posted : 8 Dec, 2012 08:36 AM
Higher Criticism: Another Humanistic Influence Upon Christian Zionism
In talking to those who follow the theology of Darby and others, you often run into what has been called Higher Criticism, which is an academic way of trying to diminish faith in scripture, to treat it as though it were just another book, written entirely by men. Followers of Darby will often claim that the context of a verse determines the meaning of particular words. This can be true in some instances, but to use this as a principle to diminish faith in scripture and to divert the truth toward a man-made theology is going against faith.
Biblical criticism was started and carried on by professors and
intellectuals who valued reason and man-made assumptions over faith
and revelation. Many of them were Germans influenced by the philosophy
of non-Christians like Hegel. Their work over a few centuries has
discredited parts of the Bible. Their analysis techniques were picked
up by some theologians and used to instill doubt about Biblical
accounts of prophecy, miracles, and demon possession. Later on, even
mainstream theologians began to use "higher" biblical criticism to
determine: "which are the most reliable and trustworthy texts" of the Bible.
Higher Criticism and other kinds of humanistic Bible criticism undermine trust in the Scriptures, and faith that God also inspired these prophecy books. Its a result of starting
from the idea that we can treat the Bible as we would treat any
ancient book of literature, which is an idea believers should reject.
The assumption that these books were written only for readers of the
author's culture and time period just will not hold up in view of the
promises of the Bible about the word of God. Texts promising that the
Bible is inspired, is truthful, and has authority and other promises
that God will preserve his Word as such argue against this view.
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12: 6-7
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119: 89
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." Mathew 4: 4
"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." II Peter 1: 21
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. II Timothy 3: 16
Westcott and Hort (1881) wrote that the Bible is
to be considered as an ancient manuscript, no better and no worse than
other ancient manuscripts. This starting point denies that the Bible
is inspired by God, and that God has control over all that goes on in
this world.
John Burgon, Dean of Chichester in England said in 1881 of the position on
humanistic Bible scholarship advocated by Westcott and Hort that "I hold (and surely so do
you!), that the right Interpretation of God's Word may not be attained
without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whose aid must first be
invoked by faithful prayer."
The grammatical-historical method of Bible interpretation used by many dispensationalists is influenced
by humanistic Higher Criticism.
Charles Ryrie says that "Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It is sometimes called the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader." [Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 80-1]
That scripture must be interpreted literally is one of the two basic starting positions of dispensationalism or Christian Zionism, along with the point that all physical Israel remains now a people of God, and they are all still the chosen people, who exist alongside a lesser body, the dispenssationalist church.
This theology holds that there is one, and only one, correct interpretation of a Bible text and that interpretation can be determined from context and grammar. Since words have a different meaning for dispensationalists depending on the context, the role of the Holy Spirit in creating a consistency in meanings from specific words, phrases and ideas across diverse topics and books of the Bible is denied or diminished by the theology. In addition, literal-historical-grammatical interpretation tends to deny that the Holy Spirit consistently uses metaphors throughout the Bible to have the same meaning.
Charles C. Ryrie asserts: "To be sure, literal/historical/grammatical interpretation is not the sole possession or practice of dispensationalists, but the consistent use of it in all areas of biblical interpretation is." .[[15]]
Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 1966, Moody Bible Institute, p. 40.
Christian Zionists also promote and defend their theology by the use of the dialectic, which harks back to Plato, and later to Hegel and Marx, but also way back to the Garden where Satan used it to fix Eve's obedience to God (Genesis 3: 1-6). The dialectic depends upon a dialogue, and if one avoids a dialogue, he can prevent the user of the dialectic from moving him off of his love for the absolute truth of scripture.
The dialectic tends to make use of deceptive and sometimes dishonest forms of dialogue or arguments. It often seeks to attack an absolute position from the side rather than from head on, focusing on a side issue rather than the main issue at hand. It often misrepresents the position of the other in dialogue, and can become nasty argument. Paul warns against this kind of contentious argument in Romans 1: 29.
Just entering into a dialogue with a follower of Christian Zionism and staying in the argument a while can result in your being processed yourself to some extent by the dialectic and lured into its deceptive and dishonest means of debate.
The Theology of Darby, Scofield, and Others: Leaning to Man's Own Understanding
Posted : 8 Dec, 2012 09:59 PM
certainly the raptre fairy tale and the hyper dispensationalism of Darby and Scofield is not Biblical. Also claiming:devil: that the NT Covenant is the same as the OT Covenant is just as non Biblical and the claim of Calvin that Revelation is not part of God's Word is completely Satanic:devil:. Since Revelation is now part of all Protestant New Testaments Calvinists now claim that Revelation is completely symbolic and you can interpret the clear teachings of Revelation as symbolc fairy tales any way your little ole :devil:heart desires.
