Looking for a Particular Ministry Publication

[bearbear]

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:

"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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by bearbear

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:

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.

Dispensationalism is a valuable tool in Bible interpretation. I don’t dismiss is merely because Darby popularized it. Granted it, like any other interpretation, can be taken to extremes. Many opposed this parallel track of Israel/Church long before there were any signs of the restoration of the nation of Israel.

As an aside, Preterist teachings on eschatology also developed long before any signs of life were seen in the ancient land of Israel.

The initial clashes between Darby and Newton concerned end time events. Personally I think Darby used his unique teachings to elevate his position among the Brethren. His battles with Newton, and subsequently with Muller, progressed from topic to topic in order to gain footing and develop an upper hand among adherents. Thus theological differences were used as a means to an end, and as a way to identify parties. The end is control. The driving force is the lust for power. Did we not also see this when the Midwest LC’s were expelled?

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dispensationalism is a valuable tool in Bible interpretation. I don’t dismiss is merely because Darby popularized it. Granted it, like any other interpretation, can be taken to extremes. Many opposed this parallel track of Israel/Church long before there were any signs of the restoration of the nation of Israel.

I'm okay with dispensationalism as well, just not an extreme form. I lean towards progressive dispensationalism and am open to commonwealth theology as well.
https://www.biola.edu/blogs/good-boo...pensationalism

When Jesus died and rose he definitely ushered in a new age. The law came through Moses but grace & reality came through Jesus. Nevertheless the OT saints were also saved by faith in God (Hebrews 11) but the test of faith and expectations were different yet Jesus taught that repentance from sin was required just like in the OT.

Ezekiel 18:27
Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

Acts 3:19 (NLT)
Now repent of your sins and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped away.

Acts 3:26 (NLT)
When God raised up his servant, Jesus, he sent him first to you people of Israel, to bless you by turning each of you back from your sinful ways.

Luke 13:2-3 (NLT)
Do you think those Galileans were worse sinners than all the other people from Galilee?” Jesus asked. “Is that why they suffered? Not at all! And you will perish, too, unless you repent of your sins and turn to God.

Another difference between myself and Darby would be that I believe the church will go through the tribulation which is Satan's wrath but will be raptured before God's wrath which is around the sixth seal which is a pre-wrath view of the end times. So I would interpret the Olivet discourse applying to Jesus' audience who were his followers and not unbelieving Jews. Hence warnings such as Matthew 24:13 "But the one who endures to the end will be saved." would apply to us as well.

I agree Preterism is a heresy.