Comparison of Local Church Movement, Exclusive Brethren, and Open Brethren

[bearbear]

Interestingly, the doctrine of millennial exclusion—originally taught by Lang and Panton, who were part of the Open Brethren was later adopted by Witness Lee and Watchman Nee. However, this view is now nearly absent among contemporary Open Brethren, who, according to Wikipedia, tend to align with either Calvinism or a once-saved-always-saved form of Arminianism similar to Provisionism.

Millennial exclusion is the belief that apostate or disobedient believers, though still ultimately saved, may be excluded from participating in the millennial kingdom. In contrast, both Calvinism and Provisionism would typically classify such individuals as false converts or "tares"—that is, not truly saved at all.

It seems like, we in the Local Churches became stuck with flawed doctrines of salvation, while the Open Brethren were able to avoid them.

Eternal security

Most of the Brethren pioneers such as Groves, Darby and Muller were convinced Calvinists. By the 1930s, however, a strong Arminian strain developed in many parts of the Brethren movement, especially in North America.[14] Today, it is common to find Brethren advocates for both theological systems, with the caveat that even those who embrace Arminianism in the main will still generally hold to the fifth point of Calvinism, which Brethren call the eternal security of the believer[15]—the doctrine that it is impossible for a true Christian to lose his or her salvation. Even today, it is rare to find a Brethren preacher or an official Brethren publication questioning this doctrine.