Excerpt from Prophetic Developments with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement. By F. Roy Coad 1966 (Brethren Historian) pages 23,24
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418
To return, then, to the early Brethren movement. As with so much in those early days, the stage was held by two formidable men: Newton and Darby. Newton, the brilliant and austere scholar, inflexible in his views, and incapable of compromise: adamantly opposed to the Secret Rapture view, yet as adamantly futurist. Darby, warm hearted and impulsive, always ready to take the part of the under-dog, apt to jump half informed into violent partisanship, and with that one fatal weakness of intolerance of an equal: yet with his mind not yet made up. Then there was the church at Plymouth, scene of Newtons own labours, and object of an almost paternal interest to Darby, in only too much danger from the Irvingite excitement, just then reaching a crescendo. With Irvingism was popularity identified the Secret Rapture teaching. The result needs little imagination.
Newton devoted all his great talents to opposing this menace to the infant church, but the vigour of some of his views led to strife. Darby was sorely concerned over the differences, and then, somehow, a solution seemed to appear. Newton in his reminiscences, suggests that Darby arrived at the solution while away in Ireland, and immediately wrote to him, in the obvious hope that this would heal the breach. Some have suggested that the original idea was introduced by an unnamed Anglican at Powerscourt. We have already noticed the tendency at Albury to dispensationalise Gods dealings with men, and we also know that Darby had, with his High Church background so filled with the concept of the Visible Church, reached his related conviction that the Church was ruined beyond repair: developing this into the doctrine that man had spoiled every previous form of Gods methods with mankind. The next step was taken. Darbys solution was to project considerable sections of the New Testament away from the Church, as applicable only to a future dispensation of the restored Jewish remnant, which the Secret Rapture adherents envisaged. This would remove all the difficulties, and those Scriptures in the Gospels and elsewhere which presented such difficulty to adherents of the new teaching were thus simply explained: they referred not to the Church at all, but to the future Jewish remnant.
The solution was too facile. If Darby had hoped for Newtons glad acceptance he was sorely disappointed. Newton saw its weakness at once:
At last Darby wrote from Cork, saying he had discovered a
method of reconciling the whole dispute, and would tell me when
he came. When he did, it turned out to be the Jewish
Interpretation. The Gospel of Matthew was not teaching Church
Truth but Kingdom Truth, and so on. He explained it to me and I
said Darby, if you admit that distinction you virtually give up
Christianity. Well, they kept on at that until they worked out the
result as we know it. The Secret Rapture was bad enough, but this
Was worse.25
The damage was indeed done, and for a moment dispensationalising ran riot, as Tregelles has explained in his accounts of those times. But worse resulted, for Darby, finding his teachings challenged, reacted by vigorous attacks on Newtons position, until a form of pamphlet war developed. Remorselessly the rift widened, to issue in the tragic division at Plymouth in 1845 and the still more tragic sequel. Prophetic excitement had done its worst: and although the division when it came was ostensibly on other pointsas indeed was the division between Darby and Müller which so quickly followedthe feeling of a decade of often violent controversy had done its worst. Had Newton accorded with Mr. Darby on Prophecy wrote Tregelles, we should never have heard his voice raised against him as to Ministry or Church Order; his writings would not have been scrutinized with severity, in order to glean matters of accusation.26
There is little further to add. The tremendous personality of Darby, backed by the immense learning of his disciple William Kelly, sufficed to impress his variation of futurism upon a large portion of evangelicalism: a process vastly forwarded by the adoption of his scheme in the Scofield reference Bible. Conversely, Newtons views were for a time overshadowed by the allegations of heresy made against him by the followers of Darby: the effect of which, even the association of a name such as that of George Müller with similar prophetic views did not outweigh. From time to time other variations of futurism have appeared among Brethren and it is well therefore to make one important point. Wherever prophetic teachings have begun to develop any form of unbalanced emphasis, their proponents have not found a welcome lodging place among Brethren. Even among the dispensationalist wing has this been so: happily, the Darbyite leaders were men of a soundly based theology, and in general refrained after the first wild abandon, from carrying the theory to its logical conclusions. The established dispensationalism of the early Darbyite leaders has proved to be mild and comparatively innocuous. The teaching was never universal among Brethren, and influential leaders from the first have been opposed to it: as is demonstrated by the fact that Bernards Bampton Lectures on The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament have been accepted Brethren reading, and were in fact reprinted in an abridged form by a Brethren publishing house. The chief harm of the teaching has been negative, in hindering a full appreciation of the unity of Divine Revelation, and at times in encouraging antinomian tendencies, but the teaching is essential neither to the movement nor to its ideals. It has been left to circles outside the Brethren, notably those connected with Dr. Bullinger, to develop this method of dividing Scriptures to a fuller extent.27
..........................................................................................
Darby could not get the Irvingite "Secret Rapture" to work without turning Matthew Chapter 24 into a "Jewish" passage. This was his way of justifying the "after the tribulation" found in Matt. 24:29. If you point out this verse to dispensationalists today, their response will almost always be, "It was written for the Jews." Christ was clearly talking to his disciples, but we are told by dispensationalists that somehow his response was intended for the Jews. Some dispensationalists will make the comment that his disciples were Jews.
The following verse shows that Christ regarded his disciples in a way that kept them separate from the Jews.
John 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
Benjamin Newton could not accept John Darby's solution.
Here we are today still continuing their argument.
...........................................................................................
Genesis of Dispensational Theology (on YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4RS5pDntQ
Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf
Grant Jeffreys revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418
To return, then, to the early Brethren movement. As with so much in those early days, the stage was held by two formidable men: Newton and Darby. Newton, the brilliant and austere scholar, inflexible in his views, and incapable of compromise: adamantly opposed to the Secret Rapture view, yet as adamantly futurist. Darby, warm hearted and impulsive, always ready to take the part of the under-dog, apt to jump half informed into violent partisanship, and with that one fatal weakness of intolerance of an equal: yet with his mind not yet made up. Then there was the church at Plymouth, scene of Newtons own labours, and object of an almost paternal interest to Darby, in only too much danger from the Irvingite excitement, just then reaching a crescendo. With Irvingism was popularity identified the Secret Rapture teaching. The result needs little imagination.
Newton devoted all his great talents to opposing this menace to the infant church, but the vigour of some of his views led to strife. Darby was sorely concerned over the differences, and then, somehow, a solution seemed to appear. Newton in his reminiscences, suggests that Darby arrived at the solution while away in Ireland, and immediately wrote to him, in the obvious hope that this would heal the breach. Some have suggested that the original idea was introduced by an unnamed Anglican at Powerscourt. We have already noticed the tendency at Albury to dispensationalise Gods dealings with men, and we also know that Darby had, with his High Church background so filled with the concept of the Visible Church, reached his related conviction that the Church was ruined beyond repair: developing this into the doctrine that man had spoiled every previous form of Gods methods with mankind. The next step was taken. Darbys solution was to project considerable sections of the New Testament away from the Church, as applicable only to a future dispensation of the restored Jewish remnant, which the Secret Rapture adherents envisaged. This would remove all the difficulties, and those Scriptures in the Gospels and elsewhere which presented such difficulty to adherents of the new teaching were thus simply explained: they referred not to the Church at all, but to the future Jewish remnant.
The solution was too facile. If Darby had hoped for Newtons glad acceptance he was sorely disappointed. Newton saw its weakness at once:
At last Darby wrote from Cork, saying he had discovered a
method of reconciling the whole dispute, and would tell me when
he came. When he did, it turned out to be the Jewish
Interpretation. The Gospel of Matthew was not teaching Church
Truth but Kingdom Truth, and so on. He explained it to me and I
said Darby, if you admit that distinction you virtually give up
Christianity. Well, they kept on at that until they worked out the
result as we know it. The Secret Rapture was bad enough, but this
Was worse.25
The damage was indeed done, and for a moment dispensationalising ran riot, as Tregelles has explained in his accounts of those times. But worse resulted, for Darby, finding his teachings challenged, reacted by vigorous attacks on Newtons position, until a form of pamphlet war developed. Remorselessly the rift widened, to issue in the tragic division at Plymouth in 1845 and the still more tragic sequel. Prophetic excitement had done its worst: and although the division when it came was ostensibly on other pointsas indeed was the division between Darby and Müller which so quickly followedthe feeling of a decade of often violent controversy had done its worst. Had Newton accorded with Mr. Darby on Prophecy wrote Tregelles, we should never have heard his voice raised against him as to Ministry or Church Order; his writings would not have been scrutinized with severity, in order to glean matters of accusation.26
There is little further to add. The tremendous personality of Darby, backed by the immense learning of his disciple William Kelly, sufficed to impress his variation of futurism upon a large portion of evangelicalism: a process vastly forwarded by the adoption of his scheme in the Scofield reference Bible. Conversely, Newtons views were for a time overshadowed by the allegations of heresy made against him by the followers of Darby: the effect of which, even the association of a name such as that of George Müller with similar prophetic views did not outweigh. From time to time other variations of futurism have appeared among Brethren and it is well therefore to make one important point. Wherever prophetic teachings have begun to develop any form of unbalanced emphasis, their proponents have not found a welcome lodging place among Brethren. Even among the dispensationalist wing has this been so: happily, the Darbyite leaders were men of a soundly based theology, and in general refrained after the first wild abandon, from carrying the theory to its logical conclusions. The established dispensationalism of the early Darbyite leaders has proved to be mild and comparatively innocuous. The teaching was never universal among Brethren, and influential leaders from the first have been opposed to it: as is demonstrated by the fact that Bernards Bampton Lectures on The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament have been accepted Brethren reading, and were in fact reprinted in an abridged form by a Brethren publishing house. The chief harm of the teaching has been negative, in hindering a full appreciation of the unity of Divine Revelation, and at times in encouraging antinomian tendencies, but the teaching is essential neither to the movement nor to its ideals. It has been left to circles outside the Brethren, notably those connected with Dr. Bullinger, to develop this method of dividing Scriptures to a fuller extent.27
..........................................................................................
Darby could not get the Irvingite "Secret Rapture" to work without turning Matthew Chapter 24 into a "Jewish" passage. This was his way of justifying the "after the tribulation" found in Matt. 24:29. If you point out this verse to dispensationalists today, their response will almost always be, "It was written for the Jews." Christ was clearly talking to his disciples, but we are told by dispensationalists that somehow his response was intended for the Jews. Some dispensationalists will make the comment that his disciples were Jews.
The following verse shows that Christ regarded his disciples in a way that kept them separate from the Jews.
John 13:33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
Benjamin Newton could not accept John Darby's solution.
Here we are today still continuing their argument.
...........................................................................................
Genesis of Dispensational Theology (on YouTube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee4RS5pDntQ
Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf
Grant Jeffreys revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf
Upvote
0
