Quote:
Originally Posted by testallthings
Br. Ohio, I would like to know why do you think Darby assaulted Newton and later Muller.
|
I have written much about the Brethren on these forums over the last decade. I'm not sure where you received your history, but if it came from WL, then it is suspect. After much study, in fact, I have purged myself from every bit of history I ever heard from Lee. Every historical lesson he ever gave to us was totally self-serving.
I read the story of the Brethren first division by numerous authors -- Neatby, Coad, Ironsides, Groves, Embley, and others including Darby, Wigram, and Kelly. I studied the reasonings, the arguments, the complaints, the charges, etc. made by Darby against initially Newton, and later against Muller. Back in 2003-06 I read everything I could find on the Brethren in an attempt to understand what was happening to us in the Recovery. By then it became apparent that the Blendeds were going to quarantine the GLA.
I know this may come as a surprise to you, but Darby's treatment of Newton and Muller was a baseless attack on the integrity of these men of God. Both Newton and Muller acted honorably, uprightly, honestly, godly, and scripturally, but the sheer weight of Darby's character, especially in public venues, caused more noble men to back down from the endless wrangling of strife. This, by the way, was exactly what A. N. Groves had predicted in his prophetic letter to Darby in 1836.
Here's what removed any final shadows of doubt from my mind concerning Darby's motives. There were a number of gifted scholars in Plymouth, far and away the largest Brethren assembly, who lived through the hell Darby subjected on that fair church in the mid to late 1840's. Initially they stood by Newton, rejecting all of Darby's endless doctrinal charges from eschatology to sectarianism to clericalism to whatever. Eventually as the recently widowed Newton began to succumb to Darby's accusations, the subject of the sufferings of the Christ under the federal headship of Adam caused questionings in their minds. In the absence of Newton, they eventually swung to Darby's side.
Then in 1866 some of these brothers, i.e. Thomas Newberry, W.H. Dorman, Joseph Stancomb, Capt. Percy Hall, et. al. began to compare Darby's teachings on the subject with Newton's some 20 years earlier. To their dismay, they discovered that
Darby held the exact same beliefs about the sufferings and person of Jesus as Newton did, and for which Newton was excommunicated and his reputation was forever smeared among Brethren circles. The brothers documented their work, and attempted to fellowship with the ruling London Park Ave. assembly, but they refused to hear any of it. It never was about mere teachings in the first place! Once the brothers learned this, they departed the movement for good.
To be clear, let me add a footnote about what teachings were at the heart of the Brethren split. In a nutshell, Newton taught that Jesus suffered as a normal man under God's arrangement, i.e. He spent 9 months in a womb, He got sick, He had to work, He got tired, etc. Darby would mock Newton saying that, "Newton's savior need a Savior." Being a former Brethren, WL knew this dispute well, therefore he would conclude that "
all the sufferings of Christ were with a view to the cross."
Study Darby, and you can understand Lee.