Schofield the champion of all things Darby.
That is a sweeping generalization which cannot be proved.
Most famous for a "reference Bible" in which he constantly laments the 'mistranslation' of the very text he puports to help one understand.
Why couldn't he have made an RV reference Bible?
He made the first "study reference Bible" in history--quite an accomplishment! People recognized that his notes were not inspired but "helps." And they did help the common person of that time, and throughout the following decades have helped many others. The changes made in the Old Scofield were always put in center column never in the text itself, as possible meanings--the same that almost every other study Bible does today.
An example: "conversation" means "behavior." Do you find that offensive?
Becsuse, simply agreeing with the text wouldn't have fed his humanistic pride, and elevated his professoral ego. It wouldn't have brought him the worship that he so desired.
Agreeing without out-dated Shakespearean English doesn't make him a humanist. That is a fallacy. He updated Old English words and clarified their meanings. Why are you offended?
Look at the hodgepodge of his famous students and their movements:
Rice, Roberson, Roloff, Hyles, Norris.
You are way off base here. This is a non sequitor. It has nothing to do with those who chose to use his Bible. Which Bible do you use? What other groups use that Bible, and how do you know? I have a J.W. coming to my door this week. She promised to bring her KJV this time. Maybe it is the same one you use! Shall I relate you to the J.W.'s for using the same Bible??
Look at the mixed multitude.
Look at the doctrine.
Look at the false professions
Look at the worship of human intellect.
Unless you are claiming to be God, making a claim of omniscient, you have no idea who used/uses a Scofield Bible and why. Their doctrinal stances may be as far and wide as all the people on this board and perhaps broader. The reason for using a Scofield Bible is for "reference," not for agreement. It is a "reference Bible." Understand that.
You have no idea how right you are, in bringing up those men. In my view, they were the forerunners of the Man of Sin, working to bring the Separatists back into the RCC fold, by the time he appears.
Again, a totally false allegation.
Who contributed to the book, The Fundamentals, besides Scofield:
They were men like:
James Orr,
James M. Gray,
A. C. Gaebelein
Benjamin Warfield,
R.A. Torrey,
Sir Robert Anderson,
J.C. Ryle,
G. Campbell Morgan,
Charles Feinberg,
A.C. Dixon,
and many others.
The were united, not necessarily in eschatology, but in the fundamentals of the faith, for the purpose of fighting against the modernism of the day that was starting to creep into the churches in that era.
A denial of the inspiration of the Bible.
A denial of a literal hell.
A denial of a literal second coming.
A denial of a bodily resurrection.
A denial of the virgin birth.
A denial of the deity of Christ.
A denial of salvation by grace through faith.
They fought against those who would deny the fundamentals of our faith. They were united in this. How could anyone say that this would be the fore-runner of the man of sin, is beyond me. In fact it is slanderous to say so.
At that time there was only two groups: believers and unbelievers. Every believer was a fundamental. There was no "inbetween" position.
Later on there developed "new evangelicalism," "new neutralism," "neo orthodoxy," and after that some other movements that we currently have.
The Fundamentalists progressed maintaining to adhere to a stand not only proclaiming a belief in the Fundamentals of the faith (which we all do), but in obedience to the faith (which they perceived was lacking in many). They began to separate from those who cooperated with the unbelievers that they had been fighting against.
That is how I believe "the fundamentalist" movement began.
Others may have a different take than me, or may be able to fill you in on the details. That is very brief.
