You are quoting here from an enemy of Scofield. That is not historical proof. It is simply false charges. Give me historical proof from Scofield's life--a biography (even by an opponent), some other kind of historical fact. Simply quoting the opinion of an enemy about a historical figure is not proof at all. In fact, your source does not even link Scofield to the above-mentioned Malachi Taylor. Did Scofield go to hear him, or discuss theology with him? If so, when and where?
Suppose I said about Abraham Lincoln, "He was a jerk, and influenced by pro slavery people from Atlanta." Until I gave historical statements from Lincoln himself, everyone would rightly think I was a rabble rouser, not a historian.
To those who think that Scofield followed Darby, here is Darby's scheme contrasted with Scofield (parentheses). Quotes are from Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 78.
"Paradisaical state to the flood." (Innocency, Eden)
"Noah." (Conscience, to the Flood)
"Abraham." (Human Government, to Abraham)
"Israel," "A. Under the law. B. Under the priesthood. C. Under the Kings." (Promise, to the Mosaic Law)
"Gentiles." (Law, "Sinai to Calvary" in Scofield's words)
"The Spirit." (Grace)
"The Millennium." ("The Fullness of Times," in Scofield's words.
As anyone with half a brain (everyone on the BB :D) can see, Scofield's scheme is radically different from Darby's. In fact, they only truly intersect at the Millennium, since Darby has "Spirit" instead of "Grace" or "Church."
So, I challenge you would be historians, how in the world did Scofield get anything from Darby?? Can you show the slightest shred of proof that Scofield got his version from Darby? :Coffee
More from Ryrie: "If Scofield parroted anybody's scheme, it was Watts's, not Darby's. Although we cannot minimize the wide influence of Darby, the glib statement that dispensationalism originated with Darby, whose system was taken over and popularized by Scofield, is not historically accurate" (ibid, p. 79).
When it comes down to it, God's word is the final authority for all we believe. We're all influenced somewhat by other authors and bible scholars. It has been the hope of all God's elect down through history that they would be alive at the coming of Jesus Christ.
No saint has any longer than their own life to wait for their blessed savior and Lord Jesus Christ. It just seems to me that the full Preterist views takes all the joy out of the blessed hope of Christ's
literal and visible coming. Any generation since NT times that read the scriptures with a literal interpretation believed that Christ would come again.
Though it doesn't prove it, only God's word came many of the church fathers (closest to apostles) believed the church would face Anti-Christ and the Great Tribulation before Christ came.
You are absolutely right, Brother.
Although I take the "Partial Preterist" view, it really doesn't make any real difference what view any of us hold.
Although this topic is interesting to debate, my wife (who is a Pre-Mil Dispensationalist) likes to tell me, "It's not like any of us are going to change God's plan".
I will admit that nothing in Revelation states that events ch 4 onward are presented in strict chronological order, though nothing says they are not, either.
Occam's Razor points toward the simplest time sequence, so that's how I view it.
Therefore, I see lots of God's wrath prior to Antichrist's appearance, like war, famine, disease and death from the 4 horsemen, and so on.
Futurism has become the main anti reformation teaching and as such has become the main ally and promoter of the RCC.
Guilt by association?
The above seems obviously to imply that futurists - all of us - are "the main ally and promoter of the RCC", a view which I and probably almost all holding the futurist view would utterly reject.
Historical premil can be found in some of the ECF themselves, and premil of some form would have been the prominent view until Augustine time, when the A Mil view became established and widespread...
Luckily, I kicked the habit — and the entire substructure that supported Hal and others of his ilk — while reading the second book and realized Hal was just making this stuff up.
Darby got his futurist teaching from Edward Irving who said in his morning watch magazine that he first preached on dispensationalism on Christmas Day in 1825 and next the same day the following year,
The Irvinites taught the rapture would be in 1833.
Irving's teaching was before Margaret McDonald made her so called prophecy.
How am I wrong? Don't just rebuke me, tell me how I'm wrong. If a person is a futurist they believe in future events as prophesied. If they are a preterist, they do not. So why am I wrong? What is your definition of futurist?
I cannot say what the majority of reformed are.
Catholics in AD999 believed that AD 1000 would be the end of the millenium and bo doubt with teaching of the church, the made all their property over to the church thinking it would bring them salvation.
When the year 1000 passed
they went to get their property back but found that the priests and monks had made it legal so they lost out and the church became rich.
It seems the reformers at the beginning had three views the first, si,ilar to the Catholics,
The second to AD 1096 1000 years after the Revelation was written, and Luther thought it ended with the coming of the Turks, about AD 1100 if I remember correctly.
Whether they held that view all the time is a moot point.