Subject: Plymouth Brethren Heresy
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 00:55:38 +1000
From: Victor <christensenvr@iprimus.com.au>
To: webmaster@jesus-is-lord.com

Greetings,

Something to read. Please keep in mind that I never claim to agree with
everything in the articles that I send out, although this one comes close to
getting a perfect score from me. It is fair to say that the teachings of the
Plymouth Brethren have transformed Christianity and corrupted the Protestant
faith in many areas relating to prophecy and the gospel. The Schofield
Reference Bible which represents the thinking of the Plymouth Brethren and
which is a primary source for the distribution of last day delusion  could
well be renamed "The Abomination That Maketh Desolate". I am currently
working on a paper dealing with the concept of Universal Justification which
is probably better described as Unconditional Justification. This error is
now standard teaching in most Protestant organizations and it represents a
perversion of the gospel.

The error of the PB teaching is that they separate the forgiveness of sins
from faith in Christ. They teach that all  past, present and future sins
were forgiven when Christ died of the cross. According to this thinking
everyone is born saved, they just don't know it. The truth is, the Bible
never separates forgiveness from receiving Christ and a living union with
Him. Every sinner is under total condemnation until they receive Christ in
actual and real terms. Outside of a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with Jesus
forgiveness simply does not exist. This is the very heart of the Protestant
gospel. Union with Christ PRECEDES the forgiveness of sins and is the CAUSE
of forgiveness. Calvin wrote,

"[S]o long as we are without Christ and separated from Him, NOTHING which He
suffered and did for the salvation of the human race is of the least benefit
to us. To communicate to us the blessings which He received from the Father,
HE MUST BECOME OURS AND DWELL IN US …. until our minds are intent on the
Spirit, Christ is in a manner unemployed, because we view Him coldly without
us, and so at a distance from us. … He is of no avail save only to those…
WHO ARE CLOTHED WITH HIM  . … it is by THE SPIRIT ALONE  that He unites
Himself to us. By the same grace and energy of the Spirit we become His
members, so that He keeps us under Him, and we in our turn possess Him".
(Institutes of the Christian Religion Bk 3, Chap.1, sec 1. see also section
3 and 4)

The Lutheran Church has largely abandoned Luther's gospel of righteousness
by faith and has embraced a modified version of Unconditional Justification.
Luther himself rated the concept of universal justification by imputation
only that is now taught by the Lutheran Church as an abomination. This is
his description of the teaching of Unconditional Justification which has now
become the gospel of modern Lutheranism.

"Among the distinguished teachers there are some who say that forgiveness of
sins and justification by grace consists entirely on divine imputation ...
Against this HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE UNDERSTANDING AND ERROR  the holy apostle
has the custom of always referring to FAITH IN CHRIST ". (D. Martin Luther's
Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimar 1883 -) 10,1,468 Eng. trans Robert C
Schultz)

One of the reasons why many embrace error today is because heresy has been
made to "sound right". And if a doctrine can be made to "sound right" that
is good enough for most to accept it. Basically most Christians and many
pastors today are unaware that the Hebrew culture gave biblical terms very
different meanings to the way they think.  As a consequence there are many
who are quick to impose modern concepts onto biblical terms and to read into
the Scriptures things that are not there. The modern Church goer understands
the term righteousness only in two ways,  as either expressing a forensic or
moral idea. But in Hebrew thinking the modern concepts of forensic and moral
righteousness are absent, or at least highly modified. The Hebrews
understood righteousness in relational or soteric terms and Scripture
alternates between these two concepts sometimes without warning so that the
same word in one context can have different meanings. The practice of many
of giving righteousness an unvaried moral meaning demonstrates their deep
ignorance of biblical thinking.

The biblical concept overlaps the modern concept of righteousness in some
areas but departs widely from it in others. For example, in Hebrew thinking
there is no such think as a strictly objective concept of righteousness. In
relational  terms righteousness is a status, but it is the status of either
an existential or inherent condition. In biblical teaching a person is only
righteous if they are in a state of faith. Righteous measurements means
accurate measurements. That is, measurement are only call righteous
measurements because the ARE righteous measurements. In Hebrew thinking the
term righteousness ALWAYS describes WHAT IS and has no purely theoretical
content. This means that the biblical concept of righteousness ALWAYS HAS A
SUBJECTIVE CONTENT.  In biblical thinking  RIGHTEOUSNESS AS A RELATIONSHIP
IS LOCKED INTO THE WORLD OF EXPERIENCE which is the exact opposite of the
modern concept of forensic righteousness. There is much in the modern
concept of righteousness that has been borrowed from Plato's world of ideas
rather than the Bible.

In biblical terms saving righteousness is the ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of receiving
Christ, NOTHING MORE, AND NOTHING LESS. The forensic gospel stands apart
from biblical teaching because it is based on a STRICTLY THEORETICAL and
FAKE LEGALLY IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS that is disconnected from the presence of
Christ in the believer. In order to be righteous in the sight of God and
receive the forgiveness of sins a sinner must be quickened by the Spirit and
brought to a REBIRTH in faith and receive Christ as an ACTUAL PRESENCE.
Luther declared,

"You cannot be saved through the work ... of Christ Himself WITHOUT YOUR OWN
FAITH. For God will not permit ... Christ Himself to take your place ... .
UNLESS YOU YOURSELF BELIEVE . ... [no] work is of ANY USE AT ALL even if it
is Christ's the Saviour of the whole world, His benefits and His help are of
NO USE to you UNLESS YOU BELIEVE". (D. Martin Luther's Werke. Kritische
Gesamtausgabe (Weimar 1883 -) 10, 306, 308. Eng. trans Robert C Schultz

There can be no forgiveness, in theory, legally or otherwise, BEFORE THE
SINNER RECEIVES CHRIST. The concept that the whole world was justified on
the cross, WITHOUT FAITH AND APART FROM CHRIST is the heresy of the age.
Chapter 11, article 4 in The Westminster Confession states, “God did, from
all eternity decree to justify all the elect; and Christ did, in the
fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their
justification; NEVERTHELESS THEY ARE NOT JUSTIFIED UNTIL THE HOLY SPIRIT
DOTH, IN DUE TIME, ACTUALLY APPLY CHRIST TO THEM". On the question of how
forgiveness occurs it is the Calvinists who have the truth and the Lutherans
who teach heresy. The neo Protestant concept of unconditional forgiveness is
identical in its structure to the Roman Catholic concept of meritum Christi
and sacramental grace. We have come to the place where the question needs
asking, "Will the real Protestant please stand up"?

Before the end there is going to be another battle over the gospel as fierce
and as disruptive to the unity of the church as the sixteenth century
reformation. Quotes from Lutheran sources demonstrating a departure from
Scripture and the reformation gospel will be provided in the coming article.
In the coming battle Protestants will not only oppose Roman Catholic error,
but Protestant will oppose Protestant, and Jesus words will be fulfilled:
"Do not think that I come to bring peace on earth, I did not come  to bring
peace but a sword". (Matthew 10:34)

kind regards,

Victor

SOVEREIGN GRACE BAPTIST
PROCLAIMER
Setting Forth The Doctrines of Grace In Salvation

Message - DISPENSATIONALISM
By W.E. Cox - Updated 6/18/99

Dispensationalism, as we know it today, had its beginning with the Brethren
movement, which became prominent around 1830. This group came to be known as
"Plymouth Brethren," because their publications centered in Plymouth,
England. Ever since the days of John Nelson Darby, dispensationalists have
been prolific writers, and their works are in abundance today.
The Brethren movement constituted a radical change from the historic
teachings of Christianity. This group claimed to have "rediscovered truths"
which had been lost sight of since the days of the apostles. Although the
Plymouth Brethren are a very small sect, their "rediscovered truths" are to
be found in nearly every Christian denomination. This is mostly because of
the great influence of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was written to
perpetuate these views after Scofield had come under the influence of Darby.
Over two million copies of this "Bible" have been sold since its publication
in 1909.
According to Oswald T. Allis (Prophecy and the Church), W. E. Blackstone's
book, Jesus is -Coming, also did much to spread the Brethren views among
Christians in America. Several hundred thousand copies of this book were
mailed out gratis to Christian workers during the early part of this
century.
The Brethren boasted, from their very beginning in the nineteenth century,
that their teachings represented a wide departure from the doctrines of
their predecessors and contemporaries. According to them, all the prominent
commentaries, all the church fathers, and even the Reformers, were deluded
by "man-made doctrines," while only the Brethren were subject to and
submissive to the Bible as the Word of God. That this superior attitude has
not changed in our day is evident from the following quotations from
dispensationalists.
In a recent book (When the King Comes Back, pp. 13, 14) Oswald J. Smith, in
one sweeping statement, attempts to discredit all major commentaries because
these commentaries are not in agreement with his views:
"I know very few of the old commentaries that are trustworthy when it comes
to prophecy. Nearly all of them spiritualize the predictions of the Old
Testament prophets and confuse the kingdom with the Church. Hence their
interpretations are worthless". (italics mine).
Having quoted Isaiah 11:1-13; 12:1-6 (on page 63 of the same book), Smith
says of these passages:
"None of it was fulfilled at the first advent, and none of it can be
spiritualized, for it has no fulfillment in the Church, in spite of what the
great commentators say.God did not see fit to enlighten them". (italics
mine).
The Scofield Bible also cautions its readers that its teachings are the
opposite of those of historic Christianity, those historic teachings being
untrustworthy. The reader is told that as he studies the Gospels he must
free his mind from the beliefs that the church is the true Israel, and that
the Old Testament foreview of the kingdom is fulfilled in the church.
Scofield admitted that this belief was "a legacy in Protestant thought" (p.
989).
In speaking of the dispensational teaching that the church was not
prophesied in the Old Testament, Harry A. Ironside (Mysteries Of God, p. 50)
boasts of the fact that this teaching was non-existent until introduced by
John Darby in the nineteenth century.
"In fact, until brought to the fore, through the writings and preaching of a
distinguished ex-clergyman, Mr. J. N. Darby, in the early part of the last
century, it is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon throughout a
period of 1600 years! If any doubt this statement, let them search, as the
writer has in a measure done, the remarks of the so-called Fathers, both pre
and post-Nicene, the theological treatises of the scholastic divines, Roman
Catholic writers of au shades of thought; the literature of the Reformation;
the sermons and expositions of the Puritans; and the general theological
works of the day. He win find the "mystery" conspicuous by its absence."
Writing in the introduction of a book by Lewis Sperry Chafer (The Kingdom in
History and Prophecy, p. 5), Scofield said:
"Protestant theology has very generally taught that all the kingdom
promises, and even the great Davidic covenant itself, are to be fulfilled in
and through the Church. The confusion thus created has been still further
darkened by the failure to distinguish the different phases of the kingdom
truth indicated by the expression "kingdom of Heaven," and "kingdom of God."
John Walvoord, in an article in Bibliotheca Sacra (Jan.-Mar., 1951, p. 11)
points up the fact that his millennial thinking is a departure from that of
the great Reformation theologians.
"Reformed eschatology has been predominantly Amillennial. Most if not all
the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were Amillennial in their
eschatology, following the teachings of Augustine."
These quotations serve to prove at least two things concerning
dispensational theologians: (1) their actual contempt for the thinking of
historic Christian theologians, and (2) the fact that dispensational
doctrines (note especially their teaching that the church is separate from
Israel) are of comparatively recent origin.
Present day dispensationalists are of necessity premillennialists. The
doctrine of premillennialism, however, is much older than the doctrine of
dispensationalism. Historic premillennialism can be traced back to the early
post-apostolic history of the church, while, as stated before, modem
dispensationalism originated in the early nineteenth century. Historic
premillennialism had no teaching whatsoever of a future hope for Israel
outside the church; such a separate future hope for Israel is the main
teaching in modern dispensationalism. Oswald T. Allis (Prophecy and the
Church, pp. 8, 9) lists nine features of dispensationalism and goes on to
state correctly that not,more than two of these were held by historic
premillennialism.
Historic premillennialism could be defined simply as the belief, based on an
interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10, that there will be an earthly reign of
Christ following his second coming. This was believed to be a perfect
peaceful reign, during which time perfect laws, justice, and tranquillity
were to prevail because Satan would be bound and therefore unable to lead
people into sinful pursuits. This school of thought held that there would be
two resurrections, which were to be separated by a period of one thousand
years. At the first resurrection all saints would be rewarded; at the second
all the unsaved would be judged and punished. Every believer of every age
was to be resurrected at the first resurrection, and every believer (having
been made a part of the church) would take part in the earthly reign of
Christ.

So it is unfair and untrue for modern dispensationalists to claim to be the
champions of premillennialism. While all dispensationalists are of necessity
premillennialists and futurists, it does not follow that all
premillennialists, nor even all futurists, are dispensationalists. Both
dispensationalism and futurism are merely recent additions (and foreign
elements at that) to historic premillennialism. Both new theories seem to
have originated during the nineteenth century.
Before examining the beliefs of the dispensationalists, which differ so
radically from the historic Christian teachings, let us satisfy our
curiosity as to how these radical changes in doctrine could gain such wide
influence, even breaking across denominational lines and flying in the face
of accepted creeds. I believe the answer to this dilemma can be gained by
taking the spiritual pulse of Darby's generation.
A study of the early nineteenth century reveals that doctrinal preaching was
all but unheard of, and any emphasis on the second coming of our Lord was
held up to ridicule by the clergy. Liberalism was in vogue, and lethargy had
crept into the churches. The pulpits were filled by "professional"
clergymen, and the people were like sheep without a shepherd. Lay-people
were being spiritually starved. They longed for some sure word of prophecy,
but heard only horns with uncertain sounds from the pulpit Sunday after
Sunday. In a climate such as this a natural by-product would be almost total
ignorance with reference to things taught in the Bible. It was into such an
incubator as this that Brethrenism was born.
It is not surprising that into such a spiritual vacuum there should arise,
not only Darbyism, but all sorts of innovations. The Mormons were teaching
chiliasm (millennialism) about the time of John Darby. Joseph Smith put out
a book (Book of Mormon) in 1830-the same year which is recognized as marking
the recognition of Darby as a leader among the Brethren. Smith, like Darby,
taught a regathering of Israel. In 1831 William Miller (the founder of
Adventism) began proclaiming his "findings." Miller set 1843 as the time
the.world would come to an end. Many of his followers sold their possessions
and put on their robes to await the Lord's return. Judge Rutherford wrote a
book entitled Comfort for the Jews. Rutherford was the successor to Charles
Taze Russell, who founded Millennial Dawnism around 1880. Russell published
his works beginning in 1881, the year before Darby's death. Rutherford's
group has been known as "International Bible Students," "Russellites," and
are best known to us today as "Jehovah's Witnesses." Their fantastic
millennial theories are well-known and need no elaboration here.
This spiritual climate not only accounts for the ready acceptance of
Darbyism, but it also lends insight into the direction taken by these
"rediscovered truths." The Brethren teachings, with their emphasis on
prophecy and the second coming of Christ, met a need in the lives of the
spiritually starved people of that generation. It is not difficult to
replace a vacuum! If we should not be surprised that Darbyism met with a
ready response in such surroundings, neither should we be surprised if the
people of that generation - with their lack of biblical teachings - passed
all of Darby's spiritual "legislation" even though many of the bills in his
legislation contained "riders" (strange innovations). Darby not only
returned to the faith once delivered to the saints - which admittedly had
been discarded and needed to be recovered - but he went far beyond that
faith, bringing in many teachings of his own, which were never heard of
until he brought them forth. The words of Lewis Sperry Chafer, himself an
outstanding dispensationalist, would seem to be very appropriate at this
point (The Kingdom in History and Prophecy, p. 14): "Satan's lies are always
garnished with truth and how much more attractive they seem to be when that
garnishing is a neglected truth!"

Comments Welcome
E-Mail: Doyle Dewberry
Pastor, Alameda, Calif

http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/disp2.html#f8