I've never read anything by any of those you mentioned above.
Hello Ahwatukee,
One need not have to read the persons who propagated this teaching to be in its midst. Your teachings are highly influenced by their teachings whether you want to believe it or not. All of our teachings are, none of us are mavericks.
Also, for the record very few get all their teachings directly from the Scriptures alone on their own personal study. Many allude to this and attempt to paint themselves as such, but it is a misnomer. I thing, humanly, we wish to propagate our own spirituality and appear to have direct revelation from God when the fact remains what we arrive at has been taught for centuries (for the most part). Of course there are those who appear that come up with totally bizarre teachings that are remarkably heretical.
Note Ephesians 4:11ff, you and I are directly influenced by those we listen to and it affects what we believe. At timess we do arrive at different beliefs along the road as we mature, so our teachings may change over time, I know mine have. I too was of the 'Scofield camp' not having read his works directly, but those who taught me had been lead along by others who passed these things down. They too were probably unaware of how they really arrived at these conclusions thinking they did so by personal study without outside influence.
Take this for instance brother. Today, many are teaching the errors of
Charles G. Finney, Robert Sandeman, Zane Hodges, Lewis Sperry Chafer, varied teachings from
DTS &c. For example, not to derail this thread, and only to serve as to qualify my statement these false teachings center around;
1) Decisional Regeneration; 2) Free Grace Theology (a system of theology); 3) The false dichotomy of believer/disciple; 4) Believism, which became Easy-believeism vs. the true Gospel (derogatorily labelled 'Lordship Salvation'). Also, D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones lamented and decried what he coined 'believism' in the church, all a by-product of the aforementioned false teachers. This has now become easy-believeism which is coupled with antinomianism. It has done much damage to the body of Christ.
Briefly, two Books arrived on the scene that taught both sides of this, one being
'The Gospel According to Jesus' by John MacArthur and
'The Grace Awakening' by Chuck Swindoll. The major reason that John MacArthur's work was belligerently attacked showed the deep issue of the church departing from sound doctrine. His book merely crystallized what the church had believed concerning the true Gospel, and people became up in arms when confronted with a non-truncated pure Gospel. Swindoll's book helped to crystallize the common notion that a person can live however they wish, as long as they made a decision to follow Christ, they are still going to heaven. Whether this was the intention of the book, I do not know, yet this is how many take the teachings therein. one last thing on this, and I believe this is where the misunderstanding begins;
too many conflate evidence of conversion with a works gospel, and too many today mock the notion of self-examination.
But, if you symbolize, spiritualize or misapply these events, then everything will be in error from then on.
That's a broad-brushed generalization and rarely are these ever true. I believe the book of Revelation to be highly symbolic. Attempting to make symbolic references into purely literal interpretations is a huge problem. Surely you see events in prophecy as being symbolic, correct? Or, are each and every picture drawn in Scripture all to be taken in a pure and only literal manner?
By the way, the Lord will be returning, that is a guarantee!