Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology

The Plymouth Brethren Heresy

by Victor and Pastor Doyle Dewberry

The following article was originally a message and response posted by Vicor to the webmaster of "Jesus-is-Lord.com" on his thoughts on "Dispensationalism by W.E. Cox," and a response by Pastor doyle Dewberry, on a Christian forum. Both post and response are included here.

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

 

Comment by Victor to Webmaster

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 Plymouth Brethren 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

 

Response by Pastor Doyle Dewberry

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

Amen!

This message was originally posed as a response to "Dispensationalism by W.E. Cox on a Christian forum on June 18, 1999 by pastor Doyle Dewberry of Setting Forth The Doctrines of Grace In Salvation. Doyle D. Dewberry was born in 1927 and is an outstanding student of the Bible and a retired Baptist Pastor and author of The Sovereign Grace Baptist Proclaimer. He is formerly of Alameda, California and he can be reached by email at sovereigngrace at 5star-living.com.