Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
Hudson Taylor was close to many Open Brethren like George Muller of Bristol. I have noted elsewhere that many early Brethren leaders unknowingly? divided over their denominational backgrounds. The Exclusives (eg Darby, Wigram) were formerly Anglican, with a hierarchical ecclesiological structure. The Opens (eg Muller, Chapman) were formerly Baptist, with more independent and local structure.
Both Darby and Nee and Lee all started their movements based on independent or autonomous assemblies, or local churches, sometimes called the "Antioch principle." But later in life all three transitioned to centralized power, the so-called "Jerusalem principle," similar to Catholic and Anglican structures.
|
Thanks for the historical background Ohio and I'm glad I chose my words carefully and didn't lump all the Brethren in one category. George Müller seemed like a genuine man of God and he is listed as one of the primary founders of the Open Brethren based on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Brethren.
According to that article, George Müller also did not accept Darby's dispensationalism:
Quote:
|
"Although generally held by most Brethren, both historical and contemporary, there have always been some Brethren who rejected Dispensationalism. George Müller and G. H. Lang were among the prominent Brethren leaders who never accepted this doctrine, and non-Dispensationalism has always been followed by a significant minority of Open Brethren in the United Kingdom"
|
Which I think would imply that the Open Brethren did not hold to the 1000 year purgatory concept for unfaithful Christians living in sin and adopted a view of salvation closer to the traditional Baptist theology of dichotomizing true and false believers. Note that I'm not equating dispensationalism with millennial exclusion but it does seem to be a requirement for it.