Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents

The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 2

 - Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    VII. Darby—“Immortality of Soul” Comes From Platonism

    For the record it will also be well to note JOHN NELSON DARBY (1800-1882), Plymouth Brother and founder of the “Darbyites,” at Plymouth. For a brief time he was an Anglican priest. The original Brethren had been founded by A. N. Groves, who rejected all church order and outward forms. But in 1845 a quarrel within the body caused a local schism at Plymouth, and in 1847 at Bristol. They split into the Exclusive and Open Brethren, and Darby became leader of the stricter Brethren, which was organized as a separate body, often called “Darbyites.” He wrote countless controversial, doctrinal, and devotional books, collected into thirty-two volumes. The Brethren teaching combines elements of Calvinism and Pietism, with stress on the millennium. In spite of their emphasis on Christian unity as a principle, they have tended from the first to split into separate groups, now numbering “VIII” divisions, through controversies over the nature of Christ, church government, et cetera. The Darbyites are “No. I.”CFF2 397.2

    1. EARLIEST STATEMENT: “NO SOURCE IN GOSPEL.”

    In the first edition of The Church’s Present Hole (1842), based upon his early Geneva lectures of 1840, Darby likewise stated that the “immortality of the soul” postulate had “no source in the Gospel.” Instead, it came from Platonism—introduced in the time of Origen, when the Second Advent truth was being eclipsed—and was replacing the resurrection. Here is the original statement:
    “But before coming to direct proofs, I would express the full conviction, that the idea of the immortality of the soul, has no source in the Gospel; that it comes, on the contrary, from the Platonists. Indeed it was just when the coming of Christ was denied in the church, or at least began to be lost sight of, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul came in to replace that of the resurrection. This was about the time of Origen. It is hardly needful to say that I do not doubt the immortality of the soul; I only assert that this view has displaced the doctrine of the resurrection of the church, as the epoch of its joy and glory.” 1515) J. N. Darby, The Church’s Present Hope (1842), p. 34
    CFF2 398.1

    2. POSITION MODIFIED IN LATER EDITION

    In a later edition, under a changed title (Hopes of the Church of God), this statement was considerably modified—though by whom, or with Darby’s consent or not, we do not know. And just why he changed from his early “conviction” we do not know. Here is the revision:
    “I would express the conviction that the idea of the immortality of the soul, 1616) Darby’s footnote: “In the expression (2 Timothy 1:10),—‘Brought life and immortality to light,’—‘immortality’ signifies the incorruptibility of the body, and not the immortality of the soul.” although recognized in Luke xii. 5 and xx. 38, is not in general a gospel topic; that it comes, on the contrary, from the Platonists; and that it was just when the coming of Christ was denied in the Church, or at least began to be lost sight of, that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul came in to replace that of the resurrection. This was about the time of Origen. It is hardly needful to say that I do not doubt the immortality of the soul; I only assert that this view has taken the place of the doctrine of the resurrection of the Church, as the epoch of its joy and glory.” 1717) Darby, The Hopes of the Church of God (new ed., rev.), pp. 47, 48.
    CFF2 398.2

    3. NO IMMORTAL SINNERS IN DIVINE PLAN

    However, in the Preface to his New Translation of the Holy Bible, Darby makes this significant statement regarding the Fall, and its aftermath:
    “But from that time forth man was fallen; he had disobeyed, and renounced his allegiance to God, dreading Him, hiding from Him if that had been possible; and then was driven out of the garden, deprived of all those blessings through which he had enjoyed God’s goodness and was able to own Him and even to enjoy His presence, for God came to walk in the garden. Self-will and lust had entered into his nature, guilt and the dread of God into his position; and then, too, he was judicially driven out from a place which was no longer suited to his condition, and, morally out of God’s own presence. What a horrible thing, if he had been able to eat of the tree of life, and fill the world with immortal sinners, having no more fear of death than of God! God allowed it not.” 1818)Darby, New Translation of the Holy Bible, Preface, p. x.
    CFF2 399.1

    4. HISTORICAL NOTE FROM “THE BIBLE ECHO.”

    According to a note in The Bible Echo, of 1874, the early Plymouth Brethren gave serious study to this question of “destruction”:
    “At a very early period of their history, it was a matter of discussion among them whether the doctrine of destruction should not be among their points of special testimony .... But soon after Mr. Darby joined them they became rapidly systematised. A rigid scheme of prophetic interpretation, and a Calvinistic form of doctrine were propounded.” 1919) The ible Echo, vol. 1, Sept. 18 1874p, 261.
    CFF2 399.2

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents