Is it not clear that the OP agenda is to lump those contemporary folks who are of the charismatic - name it claim it, faith healing, healthy-wealthy, extra Biblical inspired word from God for others, - with one who was a prolific writer, scholar, theologian, well respected by theological peers of his day, and now long dead?
If that isn't obvious to those of the BB, then it should have been. That the moderators and administrators would rather discuss other issues rather than seeing the OP for what it is, and "calling out" the author, is puzzling.
Sure, now I will be called as defender of Lewis Sperry Chafer, but frankly I don't need to defend him.
I did not defend Darby, but ask for those who had documentations that he was a heretic or spent time teaching heresy to help me find such statements. I did so because I had not read from his work(s) and wanted documentation to show clearly and plainly to others. Not a single person on the BB made any public or private communication presenting such documentation. I didn't finish reading, and frankly have given up reading from Darby, merely because I am too old and he is not an easy read. And, I have found others have already done the work and found nothing chargeable.
I do not now defend Louis Sperry Chaffer, but again ask for those who have documents that he was in any manner associated with those in which the OP listed with him, to please share such documentation. Not that YOU disagree with what he said, but that he was a charismatic and could well associate with that group listed in the OP, and that what he taught was not Scriptural. That the Scriptures be found to true and every man a liar.
Frankly, it is beyond me why some of the BB think that they can "call out" someone when they have shown absolutely no Biblical proof of error that the person was not Scriptural. The only proof is what the writer of the OP would deem as error because it doesn't conform to the view of prophecy or that grace is not free but must in some manner be earned (if it isn't one, it must be the other). Or, perhaps, there is some yet undisclosed information that the writer of the OP will share. But it should have been done at the opening remarks.
PROOF of apostasy and other error must accompany calling one out with the actual Scriptures violated. It is called documentation.
All the others on the list are well known as abiding in or have exhibited erroneous teaching. Not a single one on that list is a triple doctorate scholar, prolific writer, author of systematic theological studies, and highly regarded commonly among biblical scholars of many different backgrounds both in his day and continues to be a resource.
So, what is the agenda, IT?
You don't like "free grace" teaching, yet you would claim that grace is without merit and therefore free. Is that the error you want to attack?
You don't like dispensation teaching, yet it can be said that your own scheme is actually no better, just different. One is not lesser or more noble. There is Scriptures available to align with the noted schemes: Pre-wrath, Dispensation, Pre-Mil, Post-Mil, A-mil. Is there some error you wish to attack?
So, IT, YOU are "called out."
Did you not place within the OP an agenda of miss-characterization and misrepresentation by listing a group of well - known still living charismatics and insert one long dead that would be absolutely repulsed by such an association?
In doing so, are you not bringing disrepute to one that does not deserve that association?
Is that not deceitful, and playing the part of one who gossips?
Besides, IT, didn't you know that "name calling" is not an admired trait of the BB rules?
All I am asking for is the documentation to go along with the association, or if not the association, at least the documentation of error taken from first hand evidence.
