Modem Dispensationalism: It's Origin and Distinctive Tenets
The following paper was written in response to a request
from a brother in the Lord associated with those known as "Brethren,"
who found himself the object of criticism by an accredited leader among the
"Brethren" (herein designated "Mr. J.B.") because he has
pointed out that some of their currently-held doctrines are in conflict with
the Scriptures. The matters in question are of supreme interest to all members
of the household of faith and the publication of this paper is timely, because
it deals concisely with all the more important questions in regard to which
differences unhappily exist just now. Philip Mauro. Washington, D.C., July
1938.
Modern Dispensationalism: How Old?
Mr. J.B. begins by avowing his acceptance of "the dispensational teaching brought out by Brethren about 100 years ago."
It really matters little when this system of doctrine
was brought out, or by whom;
the
all-important question being, Is it in accordance with the Scriptures?
Nevertheless it is desirable that we should not be in error as to the time and
the agents of its origin. I therefore state that, according to the best
information I have been able to obtain after diligent inquiry, modern
dispensationalism was not brought out about 100 years ago, nor was it
brought out by those known as "Brethren." So far as I can find it had
no existence as a formulated and recognized system of doctrine until the publication
of the "Scofield Bible" something over thirty years ago.
True it
is that certain teachings of the Scofield Bible, particularly the miscalled
"literal" interpretation of Old Testament prophecies concerning
Israel, Zion, Jerusalem, etc., had previously been held by some of the leading
"Brethren." But such teachings were by no means distinctive of their
doctrine. For from the beginning of the gospel era there had been in the
Christian company a party which sought to perpetuate the Jewish nationalistic
and Messianic hopes and their ceremonial rites and observances. When, however,
the nation was dissolved, the people being scattered and the temple destroyed,
the ceremonial part of Judaism necessarily came to an end; though still they
clung to their hope of national restoration, basing it upon the principle of
literalistic interpretation of Old Testament prophecies, and to this day
Christians are found who, in spite of the clear teachings of the New Testament
to the contrary, encourage them in those delusive expectations.
I am
confident, however, that the basic doctrine of dispensationalism - the
postponement theory - was not held by any of the early "Brethren."
Some years ago I stated in a book, which has had a wide circulation that —
"The best known and most spiritual leaders of the movement — as Darby, Kelly, Newberry, Chapman, Mueller and others, 'whose names are in the book of life' — never held the 'Jewish' character of the Kingdom that was preached by our Lord and by John the Baptist, or the 'Jewish' character of the Gospels (especially Matthew) or that the Sermon on the Mount is 'law and not grace' (Scofield) and pertains to a future 'Jewish' Kingdom."
The above
quoted statement has never, to my knowledge, been disputed. Conversely, those
teachings that were really distinctive of the "Brethren" are utterly
abhorred by the dispensationalists (or "fundamentalists," as they
prefer to be called.) I refer to doctrines such for example as: (1) the
unscripturalness of sectarianism; (2) and to clergy; (3) the acceptance of the
Holy Scriptures as the sole basis of truth and rule of conduct for God's
people, apart from all systems of theology and all priests, prelates or other
ecclesiastical functionaries; (4) the assemblings of the saints on the first day
of the week to remember the Lord without ritual or formularies or a presiding
minister. Mr. Darby and his co-laborers were most certainly not
"dispensationalists" or "fundamentalists" in the modern
acceptation of those terms; and conversely, to those teachers who gave to
dispensationalism its formulated character — such as Dr. Scofield, Dr. Gray,
Dr. Riley, Dr. Gaebelein, Dr. Pettingill, Dr. Barnhouse — the distinctive
teachings of Mr. Darby and his associates were and are anathema. Well
were it for the "Brethren" and for the influence of their testimony,
which has fallen into a lamentable state of decay, if they should remember from
whence they are fallen, and "repent and do the first works" (Rev.
2:5), should heal their shameful divisions and return to the simple truths they
emphasized at the beginning. In so doing they would rid themselves of most
(and the worst part) of their dispensationalism; and what remained of it would
not give rise to strife and division.
In this connection it should not
be overlooked that dispensationalism came into existence during an era which
was marked by world-wide unrest, by social and political upheavals, and
specially by extraordinary fermentations of the human spirit. It was the era
which gave birth to Adventism, Russellism, Eddyism, Mormonism, Darwinism,
Agnosticism, Bahaism, Spiritism, Anglo-Israelism, Pyramidism, Theosophy, etc.
This fact does not prove that dispensationalism is a system of error; but it
does raise a strong suspicion that the author of all error and confusion has
had a hand in concocting it; and most assuredly it places upon all the people
of God (and especially upon those who assume the responsibility of teachers) an
imperative obligation to test carefully all its doctrines by the Word of God
before accepting it as "new light".
1
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Article Summer 2003 Front Page Next Article