Chapter Four

Pretribulation Rapture: The History

When you research the history of Pretribulation Rapture, you will find that it is part of an entirely new belief system termed Dispensationalism. Although I will be dealing with Dispensationalism, the doctrine, in detail in the following chapters, I believe that it is also important to provide a brief sketch of the history of PTR . However, we should a couple of basic roots of the pretribulation rapture doctrine.

First, there is the issue of the separation of Israel and the Church. Dispensationalism has one basic premise that turns it away from the teaching of the early Church, and the Bible for that matter. It is best described by a dispensationalist. Read what Dr. Charles Ryrie writes:

''A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct . . . a man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions.''(1)

In order to develop a time period when God will deal with the nation of Israel, dispensationalists teach that the Church will be raptured from the earth a split second before the Tribulation Period begins. This rapture timing is defined by the word pretribulation, obviously an appropriate term to describe their event. Dispensationalists declare that at that point God is finished with the Gentile Church. They believe that the pretribulation rapture is then followed by an intense seven year tribulation as God deals with the Jewish people in an attempt to get them to turn to Him. At the conclusion of the Tribulation Period, Jesus comes for the third time, then another rapture takes place, and the Millennium begins.

The idea of a pretribulation rapture is possible, because dispensationalists keep the church and Israel separate in eschatology. Thus, they design an event that snatches the Church out of the world so that God can deal only with Israel. The many Scriptures written to the Church that deny a pretribulation rapture are interpreted by dispensationalists to be meant for Israel. With this faulty method of interpretation, the dispensationalist can cast off onto the Jewish people all the Scriptures that he or she does not want to accept. The fact is, this is a relatively new approach to interpreting eschatological scriptures. If people are going to believe in the pretribulation rapture, then they should do so because they know the facts.

It is also a fact that the Early Church did not believe in a separation between the Church and Israel that qualified eschatological scriptures one way or another at the will of the interpreter. When Jews are saved, they become just as much a part of the Church as a Gentile. Of course, the Jews who reject Christ are outside of the Church, but so are the Gentiles who reject Him. To the extreme that dispensationalists take, the separation of the Church and Israel theory has produced the pretribulation rapture doctrine.

Where did this doctrine come from? Who are the people promoting it? In spite of recent attempts to attribute the pretribulation rapture doctrine to the early church by several leading proponents, the doctrine had no mention in any valid historical document before the 19th century. If anyone held the belief before then, it is certain that it was most certainly not received by any detectable percentage of Christianity. The doctrine of the pretribulation rapture of the Church is a new doctrine that surfaced early in the 19th century and gained popularity in America at the beginning of the 20th century.

The origin for the pretribulation rapture is well documented. The doctrine was publicly revealed first by a London preacher named Edward Irving. After receiving information by a woman named Margaret McDonald, who claimed to receive a revelation from God, Irving began to publish teachings about the pretribulation rapture in his journal, The Morning Watch, about 1830.

About the same time period, an Anglican minister by the name of J. N. Darby came up with the idea of Dispensationalism while studying the Book of Revelation during a time of recovery after falling from his horse. Even though many have wrongly credited John Darby of the Brethren with originating the pretribulation rapture doctrine, he was still defending the historic posttribulation rapture view in the December, 1830 issue of "The Christian Herald." As late as 1837 Darby saw the church "going in with Him to the marriage, to wit, with Jerusalem and the Jews. And we now know that he didn't clearly teach the pretribulation rapture doctrine before 1839. It was not until 1839 that Darby finally began to clearly teach a pretribulation rapture. Later on in the nineteenth century Darby incorporated the idea of the any-moment secret into a last-days scheme which has come to be known as Dispensationalism.

A little over a half a century later, C. I. Scofield took a fancy to the doctrine and thought up the plan for a reference Bible that would help to explain the complicated structure of Dispensationalism to the masses. He constructed his reference Bible to include Darby's dispensational error, which included the doctrine of pretribulation rapture. The Scofield Reference Bible introduced Dispensationalism into the American church shortly after the turn of the 20th century. It was first met with great resistance, and caused much confusion and conflict among professing Christians. Throughout time, it has gradually become accepted and defended by many as true, Biblical doctrine.

The most visible people who promote Dispensationalism today are mainly from the Baptist denominations. Although the Assemblies of God and other Pentecostal organizations, including most Charismatic groups, also promote Dispensationalism, the best-known individuals that promote it are Baptists.

The modern instigator of what has become known as newspaper exegesis is a man by the name of Hal Lindsey. Hal Lindsey's book, The Late, Great Planet Earth has sold millions of copies and opened up a whole new field of "ministry." The "ministry" is called Prophecy Teaching and it is the most exciting and entertaining enterprise that Christianity has ever seen.

The pretribulation rapture and subsequent seven-year tribulation are the twin center pieces of this sensational flood of material. Today, books, tapes and videos that flow out of this dispensationalist industry are eagerly purchased by the faithful hordes that are hungry for more scintillating information. Currently the most popular stars in this very relatively new "ministry" are Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, two writers who teamed up to produce several best sellers. Their books reached the New York Times best seller list and the two authors have appeared on top rated talk shows including Larry King Live.

The pretribulation rapture has become, as one writer for MSNBC said when describing LaHaye and Jenkins' fictional books about the rapture, a "cottage industry." Millions are being made by people who have sensationalized a false doctrine and caused a great number of people needing frequent "fixes" of rapture information to become addicted to it. It is as if an industry of confusion has been created, and these men present an endless stream of exciting answers that come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. But the confusion never seems to end. Thus, there must be rapture kits and other aids to help people understand this confusing doctrine for which there are no definitive Bible scriptures.

For the purpose of understanding how the pretribulation rapture came to be the popular doctrine that it is today, I will present a brief account of the trail from the most probable origin of the pretribulation rapture as it connects to Darby, and then from Darby to Scofield. Then we will follow the trail from Scofield to Lindsey, and onward to the current propagators today. The first mention of the pretribulation rapture that had any significant impact on Christianity came from an English minister, Edward Irving. However, before we consider the Irving's source for the doctrine, we should first consider a popular concept of the PTR origin that attributes it to Manual Lacunza.

Manuel Lacunza

Manuel Lacunza was a Spanish Jesuit Priest. Lacunza was banished from Chile in 1767 with other Jesuits. Shortly after, he fancied himself to be a converted Jew and changed his name to Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra. In about 1791, Lacunza finished writing a book entitled "The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty" under the name of Ben-Ezra. In his book, Lacunza hinted that Jesus would return two times for the Church. His first return would be to get His Church out of the world so that God the Father could pour out His wrath. This may be the portion from which came the idea of a pretribulation rapture.

The book never became very popular. In fact, it would probably have slipped into oblivion as so many unpopular books have done throughout the years. However, Lacunza's book somehow made its way to England, where Edward Irving�whom we will discuss later in this chapter�found it in the library of the Archbishop of Canterbury in London. Irving translated Lucunza's book into English and became enamored by some of the doctrine in it. However, it is most likely that Irving did not get the pretribulation rapture from Lacunza's book.

However, I believe that Irving gleaned some information form Lacunza that helped him to form his doctrine. There were theories in Lacunza's book that were not traditional. Irving took a bit from here and there to feed his active imagination. Lucunza helped to provide some fodder for his thoughts.

Edward Irving

Edward Irving was a powerful charismatic preacher who preached in the Caledonian Chapel in London. The rather small chapel was filled with crowds that included the elite of society. His greatest weakness was, as one man wrote, "he was a ship without a keel, swung around in each new breeze until at last he was blown over." (16) Sandeen describes the impetuous disposition of Irving in the following quote:

Irving loved the mysterious -- "loved to see an idea looming through the mist." And once captured by such an idea, once seized by its mystery, he would become its slave, never asking what contradictions of complications might follow."(17)

I refer the reader to an article by George T. Stoke's in Littell's Living Age for valuable insight into the nature of Edward Irving.

Let us take Edward Irving first. The men of this generation have very little idea of the vast influence exercised by the weird, majestic eloquence, the seer-like utterances, the colossal person of the famous Scotch preacher. Ministers of state, noblemen, theologians, literary men, all ranks and conditions of society, were led captive by him. His teaching, which was closely modelled (sic) upon the style of the old Hebrew prophets, dealt very largely with the subject of unfulfilled prophecy and the speedy manifestation of the second advent of Christ. Irving infected his hearers with his views and expectations. Meetings for the study of prophecy became the fashion. (18)

Irving was enamored by prophetic studies, and began meeting with James Hatley Frere every week to discuss prophecy. It was not long afterward that Irving was the most charismatic spokesman for millenarianism. Irving reportedly read Lacunza's book and became fascinated by the doctrine of any-moment secret rapture. He translated it into English, and Lucunza's book once destined for extinction was again published in London in 1827.

Not long after reading Lacunza's book, Irving began to preach the secret rapture of the saints, claiming that he heard a voice from heaven commanding him to do so. This may be the reason that some people attribute the origin of PTR to Lacunza. Some of his meetings during 1828 in Scotland brought crowds of approximately10,000 people. Irving's church in London was famous for his prophetic declarations and for attracting famous, influential people of society. The building seated one thousand people, and was filled to capacity each week. The many prophetic declarations that Jesus was coming soon that produced great excitement. A person might see from this a parallel to the exciting Charismatic and Pentecostal churches today who revel in prophesies and sensationalism and draw huge crowds.

Also during that time, Irving started conducting Bible conferences and studies throughout Scotland on any-moment secret rapture. It was during this time that J. N. Darby and Irving began to have contact with each other. Although Darby's doctrine of Dispensationalism includes the idea of a pretribulation secret rapture, but it didn't begin with such. I am prone to believe that he may have gotten the idea from the Irving's version of the rapture.

Irving was conducting a series of meetings during this time in the castle of Lady Powerscourt for the study of Bible prophecy, especially any-moment secret rapture. Several of Irving's followers attended, as well as ministers from others religious organizations. J.N. Darby and the other Brethren leaders were also invited and attended these meetings. It was at these series of meetings that Darby was undoubtedly introduced to Irving's teaching of the Rapture and interpretation of prophecy. In 1833, he heard the doctrine of a secret rapture at Powerscourt for the first time in public. Although I have not yet discovered if Darby had ever read Lacunza's book or in any way agreed with it, there certainly is documentation that he knew and studied with Irving and the Irvingites.

The following excerpts from Stokes' article is very revealing.

These events were not without a great influence on Darby. He was for some time curateate of Calary, the next parish to Powerscourt, where he imbibed the Irvingite theories about prophecy, which coincided with his natural turn of mind. He became intensely ascetic. The overstrained expectation of Christ's speedy personal advent worked in 1830 the same practical results as they did in the second century with the Montanists, and again about the year 1000 A.D., when men thought the end of the world was surely at hand. What, they naturally said, was the use of earthly labor, or comfort, or enjoyment, when this world is so soon to pass away as a dream, and the world of eternal realities so soon to be revealed?

From Irving, then, Darby derived his prophetical system, which became one of the most prominent features of his system, and one of the rocks, too, on which that system was rent asunder. (19)

Now we turn to the question of Irving's source for the doctrine. Although he at may times had claimed it was a divine revelation, was the revelation to him or to someone else? Dave McPherson, in his book, The Rapture Plot, declares that Irving received his information from a young woman named Margaret McDonald.

However, he may also have been influenced by a woman named Mary Campbell, who was a friend of Margaret McDonald. Mary Campbell sought the gift of the Holy Spirit and she spoke in tongues about March of 1830. Later, she "received the gift of automatic writing, which is writing while in a trance. The letters were often unintelligible. But just as unknown tongues were interpreted, one could also interpret automatic writing. Campbell and her husband, a Scottish clergyman, visited Irving in his home. It is reported that they were Irving's guests for a considerable time. During that visit, Mary Campbell spoke frequent messages to Irving that were allegedly from the Holy Spirit. Although Campbell spoke the prophecies in the church meetings, she spoke them in the meetings in Irving's home.

Margaret McDonald

Now we come to Mary Campbell's friend, Margaret McDonald. What hadn't been widely known until recent time was that the Irvingites had been influenced by a young Scottish woman who had privately told Irving, John Darby, and some other clergymen in early 1830 that the Lord had revealed to her that part of the Christian church would be raptured before the revealing of the Antichrist during the tribulation while the rest of the "church" would endure that period. However, the first public teaching of the pretribulation rapture was in a September, 1830 article in The Morning Watch, a British journal published by Irving. After Irving received Margaret McDonald's handwritten account of her revelation, The Morning Watch began echoing her novel view. The article clearly stated that part of the Christian church (described as the "Philadelphia" of Revelation 3) will be raptured to meet Christ in the air before the "great tribulation," adding that "Laodicea" (described as the "church" that will face the Antichrist) will be left behind to go through it.

In this piece from Holman's Bible Dictionary, the idea of a secret rapture is assigned to Margaret McDonald. The article wrongly states that McDonald was in Darby's congregation and that he received the doctrine directly from her.

The Role of J.N. Darby

" The idea of a two-stage return of the Lord, unheard of before 1830, became the platform for the movement called 'dispensationalism.' Ms. McDonald's pastor, J. N. Darby (1800-1882), picked up on her idea and began to make use of it in his sermons. Darby was responsible for developing the two-stage coming of Christ into a fully developed eschatology, or theology. He had been an Anglican clergyman until 1827 when he left the church to join the Plymouth Brethren." (15)

Although there are questions as to whether McDonald's vision contained references to a pretribulation rapture, it was certain that she was in the same circle as Darby. I have not discovered anything in my research that indicates that McDonald was ever in Darby's congregation. Also, I have read McDonald's vision and do not see a pretribulation rapture explicitly spelled out. However, if dispensationalists can find such a doctrine in the Bible, I suppose I could do the same with McDonald's vision, since it contains several references that might be construed to be a pretribulation rapture. Although there may be another vision, I am not aware of it. Here is the McDonald vision in totality that is being circulated as the one Irving is supposed to have gotten his theory of a secret rapture from.

"It was first the awful state of the land that was pressed upon me. I saw the blindness and infatuation of the people to be very great. I felt the cry of Liberty just to be the hiss of the serpent, to drown them in perdition. It was just 'no God.' I repeated the words, Now there is distress of nations, with perplexity, the seas and the waves roaring, men's hearts failing them for fear. Now look out for the sign of the Son of Man. Here I was made to stop and cry out, O it is not known what the sign of the Son of Man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is.

(Since almost every Christian believed in posttribulation rapture at this point, it appears that McDonald is about to present something different here. �Author)

I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light. I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man, even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory. I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people.

(In this section, it appears that McDonald is submitting the idea of a secret rapture, one that only the saints will see. This contradicts the scriptural coming of Christ where every eye shall see Him. �Author)

Many passages were revealed, in a light in which I had not before seen them. I repeated, 'Now is the kingdom of Heaven like unto ten virgins, who went forth to meet the Bridegroom, five wise and five foolish; they that were foolish took their lamps, but took no oil with them; but they that were wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.'
'But be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is; and be not drunk with wine wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit.' This was the oil the wise virgins took in their vessels - this is the light to be kept burning - the light of God - that we may discern that which cometh not with observation to the natural eye. Only those who have the light of God within them will see the sign of his appearance.

(Again, McDonald presents the idea that only the redeemed will se Him appear. The Scriptures flatly contradict her statement.�Author)

No need to follow them who say, see here, or see there, for his day shall be as the lightning to those in whom the living Christ is. 'Tis Christ in us that will lift us up - he is the light - 'tis only those that are alive in him that will be caught up to meet him in the air. I saw that we must be in the Spirit, that we might see spiritual things. John was in the Spirit, when he saw a throne set in Heaven. But I saw that the glory of the ministration of the Spirit had not been known. I repeated frequently, but the spiritual temple must and shall be reared, and the fullness of Christ be poured into his body, and then shall we be caught up to meet him. Oh none will be counted worthy of this calling but his body, which is the church, and which must be a candlestick all of gold. I often said, Oh the glorious inbreaking of God which is now about to burst on this earth; Oh the glorious temple which is now about to be reared, the bride adorned for her husband; and Oh what a holy, holy bride she must he, to be prepared for such a glorious bridegroom. I said, Now shall the people of God have to do with realities - now shall the glorious mystery of God in our nature be known - now shall it be known what it is for man to be glorified. I felt that the revelation of Jesus Christ had yet to be opened up - it is not knowledge about God that it contains, but it is an entering into God - I saw that there was a glorious breaking in of God to be. I felt as Elijah, surrounded with chariots of fire. I saw as it were, the spiritual temple reared, and the Head Stone brought forth with shoutings of grace, grace, unto it. It was a glorious light above the brightness of the sun that shone round about me. I felt that those who were filled with the Spirit could see spiritual things, and feel walking in the midst of them, while those who had not the Spirit could see nothing - so that two shall be in one bed, the one taken and the other left, because the one has the light of God within while the other cannot see the Kingdom of Heaven. I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived. - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold. I frequently said that night, and often since, now shall the awful sight of a false Christ be seen on this earth, and nothing but the living Christ in us can detect this awful attempt of the enemy to deceive - for it is with all deceivableness of unrighteousness he will work - he will have a counterpart for every part of God's truth, and an imitation for every work of the Spirit. The Spirit must and will be poured out on the church, that she may be purified and filled with God - and just in proportion as the Spirit of God works, so will he - when our Lord anoints men with power, so will he. This is particularly the nature of the trial, through which those are to pass who will be counted worthy to stand before the Son of man. There will he outward trial too, but 'tis principally temptation. It is brought on by the outpouring of the Spirit, and will just increase in proportion as the Spirit is poured out. The trial of the Church is from Antichrist. It is by being filled with the Spirit that we shall be kept. I frequently said, Oh be filled with the Spirit - have the light of God in you, that you may detect Satan - be full of eyes within -be clay in the hands of the potter -submit to be filled, filled with God. This will build the temple. It is not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord. This will fit us to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb. I saw it to be the will of God that all should be filled. But what hindered the real life of God from being received by his people, was their turning from Jesus, who is the way to the Father. They were not entering in by the door. For he is faithful who hath said, by me if any man enters in he shall find pasture. They were bypassing the cross, through which every drop of the Spirit of God flows to us. All power that comes not through the blood of Christ is not of God. When I say, they are looking from the cross, I feel that there is much in it - they turn from the blood of the Lamb, by which we overcome, and in which our robes are washed and made white. There are low views of God's holiness, and a ceasing to condemn sin in the flesh, and a looking from him who humbled himself, and made himself of no reputation. Oh! it is needed, much needed at present, a leading back to the cross. I saw that night, and often since, that there will be an outpouring of the Spirit on the body, such as has not been, a baptism of fire, that all the dross may be put away. Oh there must and will be such an indwelling of the living God as has not been - the servants of God sealed in their foreheads - great conformity to Jesus - his holy holy image seen in his people - just the bride made comely by his comeliness put upon her. This is what we are at present made to pray much for, that speedily we may all be made ready to meet our Lord in the air - and it will be. Jesus wants his bride. His desire is toward us. He that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. Amen and Amen Even so come Lord Jesus.''

Even though one may conclude that Margaret McDonald did not expressly state a pretribulation rapture in her revelation, it is for certain that she presents the idea of a secret rapture. It is also clear what Irving understood her to mean. She evidently thought that it was very important since she sent hand-written copies to various clergymen and Christian leaders. Not long after receiving her hand-written copy, Irving published her revelation in The Morning Watch. (It was also published in 1840 in Robert Norton's Memoirs of James and George Macdonald. It was again published in 1861 by Norton in The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets; In the Catholic Apostolic Church.) After publishing McDonald's revelation, Irving began to publicly teach the idea of an invisible secret appearing of Christ to gather His saints, then another appearing when He brings judgment on the earth.

John Nelson Darby: The Father of Dispensationalism

John Nelson Darby was from a prosperous Irish family, and was educated briefly as a lawyer. Darby graduated from Trinity College Dublin in 1819 at the age of eighteen. In 1825, he received ordination as deacon in the Church of England. Not long after, he accepted a parish in the county of Wicklow. He was a recognized as leader and early teacher in the beginning of the Brethren movement and throughout his ministry.

Although Irving was the one that first began teaching and preaching about the rapture, it was Darby who developed the Pretribulation Rapture by integrating it into his prophetic teaching of Dispensationalism. While Irving was leaned more towards historicism, Darby taught a futurist interpretation of eschatology. However, it is certain from material that was written during that time period that Irving's doctrine affected Darby to a great degree.

Darby developed his dispensational theory into a solid outline, but to this day it is not easily grasped and taught by others. Fueled by the atmosphere of millenarianism, Darby began teaching his theory on the Book of Revelation all over Great Britain.

Now let us examine the contribution of J.N. Darby and how he came to form the doctrine of Dispensationalism, the doctrine that eventually led to the idea of Pretribulation Rapture. Darby is called by many the "father of modern dispensational theology." As John F. Walvoord, former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, has said, "Much of the Truth promulgated by fundamental Christians today had its rebirth in the movement known as the 'Plymouth Brethren."(2)

This piece comes from Holman's Bible Dictionary:

Darby set forth the idea that God has set up seven time periods, called dispensations, for His work among human beings. The seventh, or last dispensation will be the millennial reign of Christ (Rev. 20). In each dispensation, people are tested in reference to the obedience of God's will according to a specific revelation of that will. Darby visited the United States on several occasions and won many advocates to his theology. However, C. I. Scofield popularized the dispensational system in his study Bible of 1909. He set forth seven dispensations in God's dealing with human beings.

1. Innocence (Gen. 1:28)- the period of time in the Garden of Eden.

2. Conscience (Gen. 3:23)- the awakening of human conscience and the expulsion from the garden.

3. Human Government (Gen. 8:20)- the new covenant made with Noah, bringing about human government.

4. Promise (Gen. 12:1)- the new covenant made with Abraham.

5. Law (Ex. 19:8)- the period of acceptance of the Jewish law.

6. Grace (John 1:17)- begins with the death and resurrection of Jesus.

7. Kingdom (Eph. 1:10)- constitutes the final rule of Christ.

Program of Eschatology

Beyond the seven dispensations, the Darby movement had a definite program of eschatology in five steps.

1. A two-stage coming of Christ: rapture and parousia.

2. Seven years of tribulation on earth for those not raptured: The last three-and-a-half years will be the time of the Antichrist. One hundred forty-four thousand Jews will accept Christ and become evangelists.

3. Christ's return with the church, the conclusion of the Battle of Armageddon, and the rule of Christ and the church for a thousand years.

4. Belief in an unconditional covenant with Israel: Thus, God is working through Israel and the Church. In the millennium, the nation of Israel will be restored.

5. The literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

Some of the more popular advocates of dispensationalism have been C. H. MacKintosh, W. E. Blackstone, H. A. Ironside, and A. C. Gaebelein. More recently, Hal Lindsey has made the system a best seller in his book The Late Great Planet Earth. The Book of Revelation has become a key book in the dispensational approach. Dispensationalists see the rapture taking place in Revelation 4:1, the rest of the book (chs. 4-18) dealing with the seven years of tribulation. Thus, the book has very little significance for Christians who will not be on earth during that time. (3)

The Brethren movement began in Dublin about 1825, during the rise of millenarianism. A small group of men became dissatisfied with what they considered apostate conditions in the established churches. They began to meet for prayer and fellowship, and others soon joined the fellowship, causing associated groups to spring up everywhere. Though the movement had its beginning at Dublin, it was Plymouth, England that became the center of their vast literature outreach. Henceforth, the name Plymouth Brethren became the name of the movement. Early leaders of the Brethren movement had many differences and divisions among themselves in the early days and ever after.

Darby is presented by men such as Larry Crutchfield as being a gentle, kind, individual who was incredibly spiritual and devoted to the Scriptures.

�Darby was kind and humble in nature, and his compassion and generosity towards the poor was without bounds." (4)

However, this does not appear to be exactly true. In fact, many of Crutchfield's comments about the nature of Darby do not align with the historical facts. Crutchfield quotes from Earnest Sandeen, yet seems to ignore what Sandeen writes about Darby's nature. It is not my intent to demonize either Darby or Scofield, but to let the facts speak for themselves. Sandeen writes this:

"Perhaps he should be described as a petty tyrant, for he was most tyrannical about petty things. Unlike Wesley, he often demonstrated as much zeal in destroying the work of his own building, as he did in its first construction." (5)

Although I have no doubt that Darby was at times kind, maybe even the majority of the time, I believe that there were many times in which he was not so kind. Someone once said, "The measure of your Christianity is not how well you get along when you agree, but how well you get along when you disagree." Those who disagreed with Darby, especially those who disagreed with his developing doctrine of Dispensationalism, were treated with extreme harshness, even to the point of viciousness. Darby ruled the Plymouth Brethren with the resolute will of an overlord. (6)

Crutchfield writes,

"Kindly in disposition and humble in spirit though Darby was, his absolute devotion to the Word of God and demand for unflinching fidelity to its truth, as he understood it (emphasis mine), made him ready prey for controversy. His limitless patience with the honest ignorance of the poor and unlearned was legendary. But so was his wrath against those among the well educated who played fast and loose with the truth of the gospel of Christ." (7)

Again, this is not exactly accurate concerning Darby's disposition, unless one believes that men such as George M�ller "played fast and loose with the truth of the gospel of Christ." At one point, Darby's temper flared to the extent that he excommunicated the famous George M�ller and the whole Brethren congregation in Bristol. He apparently called M�ller a liar and alienated him over a difference of opinion. (8)

What caused Darby's outburst of anger toward M�ller? Maybe it was M�ller's statements such as the following:

"My brother, I am a constant reader of my Bible, and I soon found that what I was taught to believe (by Darby's Doctrine) did not always agree with what my Bible said. I came to see that I must either part company with John Darby, or my precious Bible, and I chose to cling to my Bible and part from Mr. Darby." (9)

In the words of Henry Craik and James C. Carson, two men who observed the whole affair, Darby was trying to force Dispensationalism on the Plymouth Brethren by lashing out in venomous anger at anyone who disagreed with him.

"Oh, what a terrible thing is party spirit! Am I not justified in discarding and avoiding it? The truth is, Brethrenism as such, is broken to pieces. By pretending to be wiser, holier, more spiritual, more enlightened, than all other Christians; by rash and unprofitable intrusions into things not revealed; by making mysticism and eccentricity the test of spiritual life and depth; ... by grossly offensive familiarity of speaking of such sacred matters as the presence and teaching of the Holy Ghost; and by a sectarianism all the more inexcusable, that it was in the avoidance of sectarianism that Brethrenism originated; by these and similar errors, the great Scriptural principles of church communion have been marred and disfigured." (10)

The Bristol leaders shared neither his [Darby's] militant anti-clericalism, nor his dramatic expectations concerning the Second Advent. On the contrary, they were glad to recognize the gifts of God shown by men with whom they agreed concerning church order and position. On the second matter, despite their expectations as to the Second Advent, the intense apocalyptic note was almost entirely absent from their teaching. They certainly held the probability of the near return of Christ, but they most definitely did not make that expectation a foundation of their teaching. (11)

Darby often clashed with fellow Plymouth Brethren, once with his friend Benjamin Wills Newton, whom he accused of trying to control the fledgling movement. Consider this account by Sandeen:

"Although there was a good deal of truth in these charges, the vindictive and violent manner in which they were brought and the persistence with which they were pursued (Newton being hounded by them until his death in 1899) create an impression that Darby was unable to tolerate rivals to his leadership. The blowup at Plymouth appears to have been inevitable once Darby discovered that he could not dominate Newton or convert him to his own theology." (12)

Sandeen also writes:

"--the ensuing turmoil almost destroyed the struggling young sect and left a legacy of bitterness which remained to blight the experience of Plymouth Brethren for generations." (13)

The afore mentioned article by George T. Stokes in the journal entitled Littell's Living Age presents one of the most telling expos�'s of Darby's nature. Stokes' article describes the history of the Plymouth Brethren movement and gives a capsule of Darby's history. Stokes reports that during the conflict with Newton, Darby wanted every member of the Brethren to join with him in consigning Newton to Satan. M�ller, being of more compassionate and even disposition refused to join in the fight. Instead, M�ller allowed Newton to partake in Communion for which Darby promptly separated from him. The Brethren Movement never healed from that division. The reason may have been because Darby refused to tolerate any disagreement from anyone. The following is an excerpt from Stokes' article.

As for Darby, he pursued the even tenor of his way till the end came; developing, however, strangely enough ever higher and higher claims for his own party. Those who agreed with him were the Church of God upon earth. Those who disagreed with him on any point of doctrine or of discipline, he excommunicated at once, and regarded as outside the covenanted mercies of God. During the latter years of his life he lived at the Priory, Islington, which, during the decade between 1870 and 1880, was regarded by his followers as a kind of local Vatican, whence issued decrees on all topics, demanding instant and unmurmuring obedience. Why, even the very change of a meeting from one locality to another without permission was regarded as an act of carnal self-pleasing and rebellion, and punished as such. And the end of a movement for spiritual independence and in defence ,(sic) of the rights of the individual Christian conscience was a very disappointing one, for it only terminated in the establishment of a crushing and intrusive spiritual tyranny, embracing all the pretensions, but carrying with it none of the antiquity and historic glory which cast a halo round papal supremacy. (14)

Written only three years after Darby's death, George Stokes' article is key to understanding Darby and the origin of his eschatological belief system. In my opinion, Darby's intense dislike for the traditional church, ministers, creeds, doctrine, and organization was a bit hypocritical. He eventually produced the same type of religious organization that he claimed to despise, only with himself as the head.

Only by reading the volume of material about that era can one fully understand the extent of Darby's hatred for the organized church in any form but his own. This hatred may have been the reason he rewarded the "good" Christians in his doctrine by allowing them to skip the persecution and tribulation of the seven-year period. Of course he consigned to hell all those people who were rebellious enough to reject his doctrine, such as George M�ller. These individuals had to suffer unspeakable horror during the seven years, accept the ultimate deception, and eventually be cast into hellfire. There was no room in Darby's doctrine for second chances if one missed the pretribulation rapture. The idea of second opportunities to repent and serve God came long with the non-ascetic promoters of the doctrine.

I must say here that if there is such a thing as a spirit being transferred with a doctrine, Darby's ill-temper and iron-fisted attitude toward those who disagreed with him certainly passed on with his doctrine. There are few issues which are as likely to cause tempers to flare as quickly the timing of the Rapture. Pretribbers often resort to actions normally reserved for wicked people or those who commit vile heresies upon the Body of Christ. There has been a lot of pain inflicted on people who disagree with Pretribulation Rapture position and it is still going on today. I am not bothered by bombastic writing, but assassinating reputations and ministries with charges of slander and committing malicious activities against them is quite another thing all together. Those who have the greater guilt in these matters may be denominational leaders or perhaps the purveyors of pretribulation rapture wares.

It is not my intent here to cast Darby aside as a man of no significant value to God. Instead, I want to point out that there is always a down side to being dedicated to one's theology to the point of asceticism. The danger exists in the fact that there is a strong and compelling tendency to become inebriated by one's own spirituality. Thus inebriated, one loses the sense of danger and subsequent warning signals that would otherwise prevent him or her from straying into extremism and even false doctrine.

However, the greater danger is revealed when one begins to sober. Spiritual drunkenness is a difficult state to maintain. Eventually reality breaks through and challenges the basis of the spiritual intoxication. Darby reacted typically to these intrusions by crushing the people, at least in his mind, that dared to quench his spiritual "high."

The PTR doctrine produces a tremendous spiritual buzz that its adherents are addicted to. In order to sustain the high, they must continually be fed sound bites of pretribulation rapture sensationalism. Predictably, most pretribbers will become quite rowdy when the facts and scriptural truth is pointed out to them. In fact, a few notable pretribbers even rival Darby in their efforts to hasten their opponents to eternal condemnation. It is a sad and tragic repetition of history�the passing on and perpetuation of the Darby paradigm in spirit and doctrine.

Darbyite Dispensationalism Invades America

At the same time that millenarianism was invading America with an apocalyptic fervor, William Miller and Alexander Campbell were at the forefront of millenarianism, with the Millerites the largest and most influential group. However, he set a date for the Second Advent that caused many millenarians to turn against him. America was ripe for a new view with more balance and dependability.

Darby visited the United States approximately seven times to teach and preach his doctrine of Dispensationalism. He found the condition of the American church deplorable to his taste, and held many small meetings to discuss and teach Dispensationalism with church leaders. Darby insisted that those who believed his views abandon their church and join the Plymouth Brethren. Most of Darby's converts came from Baptist and Presbyterian churches, prompting this critique of the Plymouth Brethren in the Princeton Review:

"The aim of the Brethren is to 'gather churches out of churches:' to disintegrate all existing bodies by opening a door in each, not for the exit of the faithless and false-hearted, but of the pious and the good; and, accordingly, they prowl unceasingly round all our churches, seeking to reap where they have not sown, and leaving to the denominations generally the exclusive privilege of evangelizing the masses." (20)

The criticism appears to be founded when you read these words by Earnest Sandeen quoting from The Letters of J. N. Darby.

"Throughout his ministry in the United States, Darby had been frustrated by his inability to arouse more dissatisfaction among Americans with their denominations, and during his last few years in America he lamented like Jeremiah: 'Eminent ministers preach the Lord's coming, the ruin of the Church, liberty of ministry, and avowedly from brethren book's, and stay where they are, and there is a general deadening of conscience.' "

Dr. James Brooks and the Niagara Bible Conferences

About 1864-65, J.N. Darby visited the 16th and Walnut Avenue Presbyterian Church in St. Louis, Missouri, on two occasions. This church became the principal center of Dispensationalism in America. The pastor, Dr. James H. Brooks, became one of Darby's most prominent supporter, and has been called "the father of Dispensationalism in America."

Dr. Brooks conducted many Bible studies with the young men in his church, C. I. Scofield being his most famous student. Yet it was his involvement in the Niagara Bible Conference that would prove important to the diffusion of Dispensationalism in America. C. I. Scofield later served as head of the conference, and there birthed the idea of a study Bible that would help spread Darbyite Dispensationalism.

The Niagara Bible Conference began as the Believer's Meeting for Bible Study, but soon turned into the main spring from whence Darbyite Dispensationalism would flow. The Niagara Bible Conference under his controlling influence became the center of millenarianism under the controlling influence of its founder, James Brookes. Scofield served as the head of the Niagara Bible Conference as well. Non-millenarians were permitted to attend the conferences, but from 1878 onward they were not permitted to speak. Most of the leading millenarians in America, as well as many Brethren ministers, attended the conferences. D. L. Moody was also an attendee, and was highly influenced by the Brethren style of preaching. Brookes made the Niagara Bible Conference the premier headquarters for Darbyite Dispensationalism by making sure that all the speakers favored the theory. With the exception of the Moody Bible Institute and later Lewis Chafer's Dallas Theological Seminary, the Niagara Bible Conference was the leading force in making PTR the accepted doctrine that it is today.

The atmosphere of the Niagara Bible Conference was personality-driven by millenarian apocalyptic fever from the sensational views of Darby. It served to further erode the theological underpinnings of Christian eschatology and helped to replace them with revelations and speculations. The factors of probable self-importance and exciting visibility only served to give the participants a false sense of pioneering a new work of God, or as Scofield put it, "this new beginning and new testimony." It was in this enticing limelight that Scofield made his biggest steps toward prominence. He envisioned a Bible with his name on it that included his reference notes concerning Darby's pseudo-eschatology. He would have to break a time-honored policy of all the popular Bible societies, whose cardinal rule had always been, "Without Note or Comment." But breaking the rules to get ahead was nothing new to Scofield, as we will see in the next section. Brazenly, he went about corrupting the Bible, shading the meaning of the Scriptures, even defying some of them, and ignoring the curse upon those who commit such accursed deeds.

"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; {19} and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Rev. 22:18-19 NKJV)

The result was the notorious Scofield Reference Bible, its successive revisions continually plaguing Christianity to this day.

Cyrus Ingerson Scofield

The Scofield Reference Bible is widely referred to as the Bible that validated and promoted Dispensationalism to the infamous stature that it enjoys today in the professing Church. Millions of Christians have either wittingly or unwittingly developed their eschatology from reading Scofield's reference notes. His successor, Lewis Sperry Chafer, founded the Dallas Theological Seminary, which has, in turn, trained thousands of ministers in the false doctrine of Dispensationalism and unleashed them on unsuspecting American congregations.

Who is C. I. Scofield, and how does his life compare to Joseph Smith and other men who purport to having received dubious gnosis from God? Cyrus Ingerson Scofield was a man with a keen, analytical mind and an above average intelligence. In my opinion, from all the information that I have read about him, he was a very personable, highly charismatic individual who made friends easily, especially friends in high places. This explains how he could be admitted to the Lotus Club in New York, which was restricted to "a social intercourse between journalists, artists, musicians, friends of literature, science, fine arts, etc."

He was admitted into this club by notorious criminal lawyer Samuel Untermeier, although Scofield had no credentials for enlistment. This also explains how he could be elected twice to the Kansas legislature (1871 and 1872) with the help of some powerful men. President Grant appointed him as the United States District Attorney of Kansas on June 9, 1873. He affirmed in the oath of office that he had never voluntarily born arms against the United States, although he had fought in the Confederate Army. He resigned six months later on December 20, 1873, amid charges and counter-charges of political corruption. He and a friend were charged with trying to blackmail the railroads out of a significant sum of money. Thus, Scofield's political career ended there.

Scofield's biographer, Turnbull, skips over the period of 1873 to 1879, the time in which Scofield was involved in the worst of his shenanigans, with nothing more than a casual reference to Scofield's habit of alcohol consumption. However, if Joseph Canfield is correct in his information, Scofield appeared to be nothing more than a highly-skilled con man who had allegedly defrauded a number of his friends and fellow Christians, not to mention his mother-in-law, whom he supposedly swindled out of her life savings of $1300.00, quite a sum in those days. One of his financial scams was so serious that he was convicted of forgery and sentenced to 6 months in the St. Louis, Missouri, jail. In addition, he abandoned his wife and family, He never supported his children or maintained close contact with them.

During this period, he also had open relationships with other women while still married to his first wife. Scofield was in love, or rather in lust, with two other women, and dated both of them at the same time. When his wife finally divorced him because of his lifestyle, he married a woman by the name of Helen Van Wark, with whom he was living with adulterously. He had a egregious life that impugned the name of Christ, according to Joseph Canfield in his book, The Incredible Scofield. (21) I consider Canfield's book to be a true biography of Scofield.

Scofield assumed all sorts of phony credentials, from that of a minister to that of a Bible scholar to that of a lawyer. He presented himself as a lawyer, though he was not admitted to the bar until long afterwards when his friends in Kansas used their influence to gain him admittance. In the same manner, he gave himself a theological doctorate degree, though he had never attended any school and had no formal training whatsoever. Amazingly, some Christians still call Scofield "Dr. Scofield" with the knowledge that he never attended a college or university. In spite of the facts, not one supporter of Scofield that I know of has admitted that he conferred a doctorate on himself.

He reportedly was converted again in September of 1879, even though he had been a professing Christian before that date. In my opinion, this second act of conversion was to "wipe out" all his past indiscretions should they ever become a public embarrassment. He pastored various churches, including a Congregational mission church in Dallas, Texas, and the Trinitarian Congregational Church in Northfield, Massachusetts, D. L. Moody's home church. He spent nearly a year in Switzerland in research, but was back in Dallas in 1905. Scofield acted as an absent pastor, continuing research on his bible with another trip to Europe. (22) He seemed to ascend up the religious success ladder in much the same manner and speed that he navigated the secular ladder of success, i.e., bypassing all the necessary steps along the way.

In 1901, Scofield was attending one of the Niagara Bible Conferences. Although these conferences began with good intentions as the Believers Meeting for Bible Study, under the guidance of men such as Dr. James Brooks, they eventually turned into a instrument of studying and disseminating J. N. Darby's dispensational theories. The complicated structure of Dispensationalism gave Scofield the idea of putting together a reference Bible that would help people understand it. In other words, not many would have grasped the doctrine of Dispensationalism without a great deal of prompting through references and notes inserted at key Scriptures. The same is true of Dispensationalism today. In an advertisement for his books, famous dispensationalist proponent Dr. Tim LayHaye writes,

"The Rapture is the first phase of the Christ's second coming. It is that moment when, as the apostle Paul said, "The Lord himself shall descend with a shout....The dead in Christ will rise first then we, who are alive and remain, will be 'caught up' (raptured) with them to meet the Lord in the air--and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (I Thessalonians 4:16-17). It is the same experience he describes in First Corinthians 15:51 as the moment Christians are "changed" from "mortal" to "immortal". This is expected by most Christians to occur before the seven years of Tribulation described in Revelation, chapters 6-19. For more reading on this subject, there are a number of books you can read to help you understand this difficult subject:" (23)

Dr. LaHaye writes glibly, as if the Scripture he is quoting clearly supports his interpretation. He appears to be so mesmerized by PTR that he does not even recognize that there is not even a hint of a pretribulation rapture in the Scripture reference he gives. However, he readily admits the difficulty of his doctrine and the need for extrabiblical books in order to understand (become indoctrinated by) it. By the way, all the books Dr. LaHaye contributed to in the Left Behind series are fictional.

Nevertheless, it was at the Niagara Bible Conference in 1901 that Scofield confided to his friends that he intended to develop a reference Bible that would bring about "this new beginning and new testimony." Scofield noted, however, that financial backing was the main drawback. The following year, one of those friends he confided in, A. C. Gaebelein, helped him get the financial aid that that he requested. Scofield and his wife went abroad in 1904 to work on the notes for the Bible. In England, he was able to research and study first hand the any-moment coming and secret rapture doctrine of J.N. Darby in the hotbed of its beginnings.

C. I. Scofield had become proficient in all the aspects of Darbyism. It was because of the influence of J. N Darby's Dispensationalism theory, including the any-moment half-coming and secret rapture, that he decided to put together a reference Bible that would bring Darbyite Dispensationalism to everyone in America by befuddling the minds of unsuspecting new converts. In my opinion, Darby would not have reached very far into the world with his beliefs had it not been for Scofield. Neither would Scofield's notes have attained the high acclaim that they eventually achieved if they had first been compiled as a commentary separate from the Bible. However, Scofield published his reference Bible first, then his reference notes in a separate volume later. It was his reference Bible that won him acclaim, not his separate works. The truth of this is in the fact that his reference Bible is still in demand today, but his separate material is not. Scofield rode to fame and fortune on the coattails of the Holy Bible, whose true author is God who breathed through holy men.

If Darby is called the father of Dispensationalism, Scofield was certainly its mother, since he truly birthed Dispensationalism and Pretribulation Rapture into the America through his reference Bible (more about the Scofield Reference Bible in the following chapter). Because of Scofield, Darby's teachings on Pretribulation Rapture have now become the foremost eschatological doctrine in the professing Church concerning the coming of the Lord. However, most pretrib adherents have never heard of Darby.

Without a doubt, Scofield went to work on his reference Bible for the sole purpose of spreading Darby's doctrine. His indoctrination with Darby's Dispensationalism through Dr. James Brooks and his involvement in the Niagara Bible Conferences over the years filled him with fascination for Darby's unique bend on the Scriptures. It is illogical to conclude that he had any other reason for putting together the Scofield reference Bible. Sandeen writes this:

"At any rate it is clear that the Scofield Reference Bible was uncompromisingly Darbyite dispensationalist in doctrine and taught the any-moment coming and the secret rapture of the church. Although he consulted post-tribulationist scholars, their views about the time of the advent were not reflected in his work.

Scofield wrote in the preface to the Reference Bible, "The editor disclaims originality." This apology was also his boast. To be original was not the mark of a good millenarian exegesis. But Scofield also meant to acknowledge that he had done very little more than put his predecessor's work into a most ingenious and assimilable form. Scofield never demonstrated great ability as a biblical scholar, apologist, or organizer, but in the calendar of Fundamentalist saints no name is better known or more revered." (24)

The Scofield Reference Bible was finally published in 1909. Many ministers of the 1920's and 1930's began preaching Darby's Dispensationalism, yet these men could not have received their information from Darby himself. In Scofield's own words, a "new testimony" had indeed come to America; but it was not a testimony of truth. Although Dispensationalism and Pretribulation Rapture have become commonly accepted as true doctrine, they were unheard of in the Church for almost 1900 years before John Nelson Darby and in America until Cyrus Ingerson Scofield published his reference Bible.

Forty years after the publication of Scofield's reference Bible, the New and Improved Edition of the reference Bible came along. One of the men who sat on the revision committee was none other than John F. Walvoord. John Walvoord is today called the "dean of the Pretribulation Rapture movement." The chronology is as follows: Darby to Scofield; Scofield to Chafer; Chafer to Dallas Theological Seminary; and John Walvrood to all of America's pretribulation rapture proponents.

Because of Scofield, J. N. Darby's idea of God's two separate purposes in history has risen to a place of common acceptance among the Bible-believing movement in America (then centered in Fundamentalism) within a century of its origin. Some have declared the Scofield Reference Bible to be the leading cause for the fall of American civilization because of its presentation of an antinomianism that rejects the moral law of God as the standard for living today. Also, some claim that the church is weak, ineffective, and failing because of the hope in the coming of Christ for His own rather than in a victorious church. I call it simply the continuation of Darby's heresy with a new twist on Calvin's Perseverance of the Saints. There are others who view Scofield as a drunkard, a liar, an adulterer, and a perjurer who took up preaching as an easy way to fortune and fame. In my opinion, this would be the easy way out.

We could simply demonize the man and be done with him and his doctrine. However, whether he was truly saved or not is not the point, because his doctrine is still as false in any case. I view Scofield simply as a man who had his own motives for what he did, and I personally do not believe that these motives were inspired by God. In my opinion, he was motivated to a great degree by the need to be somebody, and saw an opportunity to bring something new into the Church, thereby making a name for himself. He seemed to crave attention and honor, as is evidenced by the act of his conferring a doctorate on himself when he had no formal theological training.

If you read Scofield's notes carefully, the references that he uses are very weak and even blatantly false, at times. A disrespect or lack of understanding of correct biblical hermeneutics surfaces throughout the Scofield Reference Bible. A reliable assumption is that he probably did not get Dispensationalism and its tainted fruit, Pretribulation Rapture, from the Holy Spirit while studying the Word of God. There is no doubt in my mind that he received it from men. Consequently, Pretribulation Rapture it is now thought by the majority of fundamentalist to be Biblical truth clearly supported by the Scripture, although it was non-existent in the Church for almost 1900 years. What a contrast to the words of Paul, who said,

"But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. {12} For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal. 1:11-12 NKJV)

Lewis Sperry Chafer

On the heels of Scofield came Lewis Sperry Chafer, who was also an unaccredited, self-appointed theologian. Chafer is quoted as having said:

"The very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind to be concerned only with what the Bible was actually teaching." (25)

Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) was a student and ardent admirer of Scofield to the end. In 1924, Chafer founded the Dallas Theological Seminary, Dispensationalism's first claim to theological validity. Although Chafer expressed disdain and scorn for established, time-honored theology, he went about to establish a theological school in stark contrast to his statements. He produced the eight volume Systematic Theology, which included Darbyite Dispensationalism, through the reference notes of C. I Scofield. Bernard Ramm makes a fascinating comparison of Chafer's credentials to Karl Barth, one of the men Chafer scorned. The following is a compilation of this comparison:

" Chafer spent three years at Oberlin College and then left to teach in a school for boys that D. L. Moody had founded. That was the sum total of Chafer's formal education.

" Barth studied in the universities of Bern, Marberg, Berlin, and T�bingen. He studied under such men as Adolph von Harnack, Reinhold Seeberg, Julis Kaftan, Herman Gunkel, Theodor H�ring, Wilhelm Herrmann, Johannes Weiss, and Adolph J�licher. In philosophy, he studied under the famous neo-Kantians Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp. In addition, Barth eventually was honored with eleven doctorates from substantial universities and collected a number of prizes and awards.

"Having no formal theological education, Chafer also had no linguistic training. It is apparent from his Systematic Theology that he is always working with secondary sources, whether in the biblical languages or theological literature.

"Having gone through the typical Swiss gymnasium (a sort of high school in Germany and Switzerland to prepare students for university), Barth was taught Latin, Greek, and French. When he came to the Scripture, he worked with both the Hebrew and Greek Testaments, and when he cites the church fathers he sites the original Greek or Latin. In addition, he could speak the modern languages of Swiss German, German, English, French, and Italian, and complained of his poor ability in Dutch.

"Reading Chafer's theology, it is apparent that he is not at home at all in philosophy. He makes rare references to philosophers, and in most cases Chafer is citing some other sources and not the philosopher directly.

"Barth learned philosophy from Cohen and Natorp. His writings show that he is totally competent in philosophy, having written technical interpretations of such philosophers as Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Jaspers, and Sarte. Wherever he does get into philosophical territory, he handles the matters with competence. Naturally he knew well the philosophy of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas.

"Chafer's coverage of historical theology is minimal. Although he sites Augustine, Calvin, Edwards and others, he does so almost uniformly from a secondary source. Judging from his published theology, he had rarely read the original works of the great theologians.

"Barth's coverage of historical theology is monumental. Furthermore, he always cites them in their original language. It is generally conceded that if Barth has chosen to specialize in historical theology he would have written the most definitive book in the history of theology. As the Church Dogmatics now stands, its many sections of historical theology make the reading of the text valuable alone for that reason. If one has no use for Barth's theology, there is still great worth in reading it for the historical theology.

"Chafer's citation of Scripture's is modest. There are not more than 800 references in the index.

"Barth's citation of Scripture is the greatest in the history of theology--15,000. Furthermore, there are 2,000 long and short exegetical sections in the Church Dogmatics, showing Barth's intense occupation with the text of the Scripture. And in addition to that are all the concept concordances of Scriptural texts scattered throughout the Church Dogmatics. Even master's these and doctrinal dissertations on Barth never give the proper impression of Barth's vast knowledge of Holy Scripture, his incessant citing of it, and the numerous exegetical inserts." (26)

I believe it is fair to present Ramm's comparison because of this ludicrous statement of Chafer's, which I will post again here:

"The very fact that I did not study a prescribed course in theology made it possible for me to approach the subject with an unprejudiced mind to be concerned only with what the Bible actually teaches."

He then proceeds to use the works of people trained in theology to compile his work, Systematic Theology. His statement is disingenuous, since it is apparent that he had enough respect for men trained in theology to use their works. It is apparent that Chafer's true intent was a preemptive effort to disqualify those who were more than qualified to expose the fallacies of his doctrine before they had the opportunity to get the ear of the public. His only defense was that ignorance equals spirituality, and therefore, hermeneutical perfection.

Can you imagine someone who wanted to be a medical doctor declaring that the hundreds of years of medical research that he had had access to were worthless to him, because it would cloud his understanding of medicine and medical procedure? Would such a man be successful if he were to go about establishing a medical profession based on his own research of the subject from the very beginning? Chafer set about to establish a new theological system which had been severed from the roots of the original theology that was left to us by the early Church. I cannot understand why he would want to do such a thing, unless he recognized that his shortcomings might disqualify him as a valid theologian. The result is a systematic theology that works about as well as a space shuttle built by a shade tree mechanic by using parts from a junk yard and working with inferior tools and knowledge.

Dispensationalism today is the monumental effort of a group of pseudo-spiritual men armed with colossal egos and an ignorance-is-spiritual perfection defense to make a name for themselves. In doing so, they have created a doctrinal cancer that has eaten away the undergirdings of the Christian faith and principles. They enjoyed their brief claim to fame while they lived, but at the expense of the deception of millions today. It did not seem to bother them that they had built their personal kingdoms at the expense of truth and Divine continuity. Their predecessors today are plundering the masses in much the same way, with no regard for the eternal welfare of those they are deceiving. For this purpose, it is imperative that men with courage stand up and declare the truth about Dispensationalism and its fantasy doctrine, Pretribulation Rapture.

1. (Dispensationalism Today [Moody 1965]. pp.44-48).

2. John F. Walvoord, review of An Historical Sketch of the Brethren Movement, by H. A.Ironside, in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1942, p. 378.

3. James L. Blevins, Dispensations, Holman Bible Dictionary

4. John Nelson Darby: fender of the Faith, (article) by Larry V. Crutchfield

5. Earnest Sandeen, The Roots of Fudamentalism: 1800-1920, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) page 31, para. 1

6. The History of the Brethren, Napoleon Noel, W. F. Knapp

7. John Nelson Darby: Fender of the Faith, (article) by Larry V. Crutchfield

8. William Reid, Plymouth Brethrenism Unveiled and Refuted, William Oliphant and Company

9. Robert Cameron, Scriptural Truth about the Lord's Return, pp. 146-7

10. Ibid: Henry Craik

11. James C. L (Crawford Ledlie) Carson, The Heresies of the Plymouth Brethren , London: Houlston, 1870.

12. Earnest Sandeen, The Roots of Fudamentalism: 1800-1920, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) pp 62-3

13. Ibid

14. George T. Stokes, "John Nelson Darby," Contemporary Review, Littell's Living Age, (Nov.7,1885)vol. 2159 p. 354.

15. James L. Blevins, Dispensations, Holman Bible Dictionary

16. Earnest Sandeen, The Roots of Fudamentalism: 1800-1920, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) page 15

17. Ibid, page 16

18. George T. Stokes, "John Nelson Darby," Contemporary Review, Littell's Living Age, (Nov.7,1885)vol. 2159 p. 348.

19. George T. Stokes, "John Nelson Darby," Contemporary Review, Littell's Living Age, (Nov.7,1885)vol. 2159 p. 349.

20. Earnest Sandeen, The Roots of Fudamentalism: 1800-1920, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) pp 73-4; Quoting Thomas Croskery, "The Plymouth Brethren," Princeton Review 1 (1872 ): 48

21. Joseph M. Canfield, The Incredible Scofield, Ross House Books

22. Glenn R. Goss, Th. D. Professor of Bible Philadelphia College of Bible (article) The Scofield Bible and C. I. Scofield

23. Tim LaHaye, What is the Rapture?, article

24. Earnest Sandeen, The Roots of Fudamentalism: 1800-1920, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970) page 224

25. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol. 8 (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948, pp. 5-6

26. Benard Ramm, After Fundamentalism, San Francisco: Harper and Rowe, 1963, pp.206-209

Chapter Five