Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
But when that Antioch model of self-governing assemblies allowed B.W. Newton et. al. in Plymouth, England to become the largest of all their assemblies, Darby needed a change of plans or soon they would not need him. That's when he returned to the old Anglican-style Jerusalem model with the "king" on top. A new king - himself. That's when he decided that all his chief rivals - B.W. Newton of Plymouth and George Muller of Bristol - needed to be eliminated. A common ploy of new kings. Unfortunately both Newton and Muller were totally blindsided by Darby, since they had no idea that they were "rivals to the throne" - what a sad story that was.
Fleshly ecclesiastic power - nothing new under the sun, as Solomon would say. And a fulfillment of Acts 20.30 as Aposle Paul had warned us.
|
The folly of man, not learning from history and doomed to repeat it.
Do you think The Lord's Recovery is somehow immune to fleshly ecclesiastic power? Think again.
The Lord's Recovery did not learn from history concerning the Brethren movement of the 19th century which has since splintered through division after division.
Reinsert John Nelson Darby with Witness Lee
Reinsert B.W. Newton of Plymouth with John Ingalls of Anaheim
Reinsert George Muller of Bristol with William Mallon of Miami
Same is true in the Recovery as it was with the Brethren, Ingalls and Mallon needed to be eliminated. "Out with the old and in with the new."
As with Newton and Muller, Ingalls, Mallon and many others were blindsided.
They had no idea they wanted to take over the recovery. Only ones with fleshly ambition would come up with such a concept.
Same as Ohio said in his post, "what a sad story that was".