Menu•SiteMap | Guests







My Stand: No. 5

• Gordon Rainbow     § Jeff Kuns     † Guest
§ † Dispensationalism, Reformed and Systematic Theology, etc.
  An Interchange: Jeff Kuns, MB's editor, and Max Weremchuk
• 'Christian' Zionism  Not based on ministry of J. N. Darby
• 'My Brethren  Comments on MB's layout, design, format etc.
§ Dispensationalism Again  A response to a paper by Max Weremchuk
• Anonymity – Another Look  Does Scripture contemplate anonymous ministry?
† An Appeal re Fellowship and Reception: by Richard C. Reed
 
 



PLEASE NOTE: For the security of our readers, all @ signs have been changed to 'AT' in order to prevent unsolicited email. If you wish to contact any of our guests please remember to replace the @ sign in the address line of your email.




DISPENSATIONALISM,  REFORMED
AND  SYSTEMATIC  THEOLOGY, etc.
An Interchange:  Jeff Kuns and Max Weremchuk
The following interchange shows that brotherly respect can be maintained even when matters are approached from different viewpoints and experiences. Jeff's comments make it clear that 'My Brethren' recognizes that dispensations are rooted in Scripture – without the editors being 'dispensationalists'. Max's early history with the 'Reunited' group – with which those brethren represented on MB have had no connection since 1890 – was heavily influenced by a strict objective school, over-occupied – in our judgment – with prophetic details and with a very narrow focus as to the Lord's coming.
While MB normally does not air views which we cannot fully support – in order to clarify our stand and to distance us from the views of certain groups, and from denominational views – we are making this exception. In the main, Jeff and Max are agreed on fundamentals, and we are thankful to Max – whom we value as a friend, and for his work on JND's biography – for sharing his views and experiences with us.       GAR

To: Max S. Weremchuk
From: Jeff Kuns
Wed, 9 Apr 2003

Jeff Kuns Dear brother,
… I don't want to seem overly 'concerned', but it was unclear to me from 'Off Track' what your present commitments were since it was written in 1991.

  • I thought I read elsewhere that you had some interaction with the Episcopal church?? I just want to get it right.

    I really don’t want you to think I discount your “Reformed standpoint” as you put it – we are almost forced to use certain terms –

    I feel, and I think you also feel, that we can walk a long time together and be a mutual encouragement if we are brotherly.

    I certainly give JND some credit for helping with this. I do not see him promoting 'hermeneutics' of any sort.

    My understanding is that JND rejected, as sin and mischief, the tendency of the mind to desire knowledge apart from dependence on the Holy Spirit – but you may have to check with his biographer! ;-)

    Greetings to your household!

    Yours in our Lord Jesus, Jeff.

    From: Max S. Weremchuk
    Wed, 9 Apr 2003


    Max S. Weremchuk Hi Jeff!
    Thanks for your reply which I will respond to more later.

    Every blessing, Max.

    From: Max S. Weremchuk
    Thu, 10 Apr 2003

    So Jeff, now I can get back to your email in more detail.

    I know there are believers who enjoy discussion in the sense of argument. That is, proving to others that they have the better position. Well, I don't belong to those.

    You wrote: "I'm sure I have understandings which correspond to that system (which Christian doesn't?)"

    In general, but I guess this applies for all views or standpoints more or less, dispensationalists feel and think their position is simply right.

    My experience here has been that the dispensationalists are the aggressive ones.

    You seem to view the Reformed position as synonymous with systematic theology. Well, we all practice systematic theology.

    One wonders why some people study 'theology'. Out of curiosity? Pride? The desire to serve others?

    Of course the whole mentality of going to some institution of learning to be able then to minister and teach is wrong.

    My family and I left the Brethren, not because we felt them so wrong that we had to leave, but because I knew my views would cause them problems.

    To be able to talk about it, and because it needs to be distinguished from popular dispensationalist views, I use the term 'Reformed Theology' – though I only want what the Lord truly teaches through the Word.

    As I said, we left the Brethren. This was a good thing because we can still retain contacts – and do – because we were not put out.

    I can't 'join' any Reformed based Churches here either – though we have contacts and I preach regularly as a guest preacher.

    Many believers here know next to nothing about what's in the Bible. Their views and standpoints being formed by the status quo and the media. The Bible playing no defining, authoritative role.

    I whole heartily agree with you on being able to walk together and be a mutual encouragement. Definitely!

    Darby is a man who made a deep, deep impression on my spiritual life as young man of 19 or 20.

    Being human entails so many things only heaven will make clear to us.

    There are essentials that I feel the Lord gave His Church through Darby.

    I quite agree with Darby's view on understanding without the Holy Spirit being sin. Definitely!!

    Academic study? Why have we Christians made something academic out of it?

    The consequence for me? Well the difference to the past is that I have hope.

    This world is the scene of the Enemy's power and it is here our Lord will show to him and all of creation that He is the Victor.

    I agree fully with Darby and the Brethren that things do not depend on us or that we can achieve something.

    It is not a question as to whether we can do something. It IS one as to whether Christ can.

    The only solution is the rapture? Well, then Satan can say: 'What You couldn't do with Israel in the wilderness You weren't able to do with these creatures after the cross either!'

    I have hope. I will not live to see changes for the better take place, but I will leave a Christian heritage to my children to carry on. I endeavor to pass something on to help the spread of the Kingdom. I work and serve in hope.

    The Darby family motto is one I plan to use as the title for the revised biography – together with the subtitle 'The Irish Clergyman':

    So Jeff, I have gone on and on and on. I hope you are still with me …

    Your brother in Christ, Max.

    From: Jeff Kuns
    To: Max S. Weremchuk
    Mon, 28 Apr 2003

    Dear Max,
    Glad you're back home! It was nice to hear your voice and say a few words.

    I feel that many misunderstand the principles, even the very word, of ‘argument’ – mostly, failing to see there is a cooperative effort involved in examining beliefs.

    To clarify from my last letter: I do not think only Reformed theology is systematic.

    But I do want to be clear that my concerns with systematic theology do not include the personal study of Scripture as you describe, and which is quite normal if you don’t get carried away.

    I think rather than saying, “which correspond to that system”, meaning Dispensationalism,

    The systems produced limit us because what is known – and so much is not known by man – of God’s counsels are far too vast and far too intricate to be contained, as I said, in man’s unimaginative form.

    In the Scripture subjects and persons are sometimes presented in more than one aspect, and it is not that you can just pick up a concordance and look up the word;

    While I agree with your point about the misleading popularity and general damage of popular Dispensationalism,

    I must admit my own ignorance in not knowing how everything ‘hangs together’, but this is the danger of systematic theology:

    C. A. Coates wrote, “I do not believe the Spirit of God would occupy us with a series of prophetic facts; His mission is to present a Person.

    This is why I feel comfortable to ‘accuse’ systematic theology of an over-emphasis on the objective and the minimization of the subjective.

    One thing which helped me was to learn that there is always an effect of holding certain truths, or even what we think are truths, and there is an effect in holding them certain ways

    I myself did not always understand that the Church’s hope is not the event of His appearing, but is Himself.

    I must remark that the way you have represented the teaching you received does not seem like what I have read or understand as early as JND's time.

    My ultimate point is that one could hardly look at the scripture and deny ‘covenants’, ‘administration’ or ‘dispensation’, ‘law’, ‘grace’, ‘the close of days’, etc.

    Yours in our Lord Jesus, Jeff.

    From: Max S. Weremchuk
    To: Jeff Kuns
    Tue, 29 Apr 2003

    Hi Jeff!
    I don't think we differ in opinion on so-called 'systematic theology'. I may have less problems with it because I have had a different access to it.

    I know some people hold onto a particular 'systematic theology' – there is not just one – as if it were the Gospel truth.

    Sad to say, I have made an experience similar to your Heidelberg Catechism one: a minister using the 39 Articles in an 'outreach' Bible study group instead of the Bible.

    There has to be a formal – if you dislike 'systematic' – study of Scripture. Learning clearly has a place.

    Most Christians I meet up with today have no idea of the contents of Scripture and how all works together to be a perfect, divine whole.

    Your Coates quote on prophecy is very, very appropriate.

    Your brother, Max.

    Page Top   Article Top

    'CHRISTIAN'  ZIONISM
    Paul Wilkinson writes that he is "currently undertaking PhD
    research on J. N. Darby and the Origins of Christian Zionism
    at the University of Manchester".

    To: Paul Wilkinson
    Tue, 22 Jul 2003

    Dear Paul,
    … I'm surprised that you seem to link "J.N.Darby and the Origins of Christian Zionism".

    That the restoration of Israel to the land will be by God's own direct intervention – not political means – is clear from the following:

    … In the Lord, Gordon.

    Page Top   Article Top

    'MY  BRETHREN'
    Its Layout, Design and Format
    Recently some friendly and well-intentioned – but ill-informed and uncomplimentary – comments have been received. This is an explanation of the rationale behind MB's appearance and an examination of the objections made.
    The guest who offered the comments will not be identified. It is not our intention to be personal or to retaliate, but to answer questions that may have arisen in the minds of other guests.       December 2003, GAR.

    First let me say that while Jeff and I, as editors, are always interested in the reactions of guests of MB – and welcome notice of any factual or typographical error –

    Visiting a web site, as I often do myself, is like being welcomed into a friend's home.

    • We may not like the dinner menu and table setting, and find the style of furniture and its arrangement and colour schemes not in accord with our tastes.

    • Even if an opinion is asked, most of us will temper our response with good manners and brotherly love.

    • We regret if the personal tastes of any are disappointed or offended by the way we present MB.

    It should also be understood that MB is not in competition with the publishers of printed ministry.

    • Neither is it our intention to present articles for the sole benefit of those who, like ourselves, already have an extensive library of history and ministry – or to duplicate the appearance of printed books.

    • Many, like ourselves, doubtless find it simpler and preferable to read from the printed page rather than from the computer screen.

    • Our approach, therefore, is to make it as easy as possible to read from the computer screen, and to navigate efficiently – though our solutions may seem "awkward" to some.

    • I have given up on a number of otherwise interesting sites which have a pleasant overall appearance as they are certainly not easy to read after a few minutes.

      • It is definitely "awkward" for me to try to read large segments of full screen width text – not book page proportion – with small and faint type,

    • and to be forced to scroll to the top of a page for a menu or table of contents links rather than have the constant convenience of a fixed frames menu.

    Our guest says, "I really hate all the 'bullets' everywhere in all of your texts. It's distracting and is not in keeping with the original material and makes it seem like you are trying to organize the original ministry in 'outline' form. It also stops the normal 'flow' of thought that was meant to be conveyed in the ministry with unnecessary distractions".

    • This certainly is a strong personal opinion, both as to the appearance of text on MB and as to its effect and possible motivation.

    • My choice of this method was to improve readability making the pattern of thought clearer, highlighting scripture quotations and introducing – what printers call – 'white space' to relieve long unbroken passages.

      • This reflects insights gained in a ten year stint with a local high quality printing company.

    • Other unconventional 'conventions' have also been adopted to improve readability:

      • We use a 'font size=4' to provide a larger, darker and easier to read text;

      • in most instances, 'round brackets' are replaced by printers' 'en dashes' to improve the "flow";

      • and 'italics' – while preferable in printed matter – appear too faint on the screen, and unless especially required for foreign words, are usually replaced by an 'underline'.

    Our guest also says, "it seems that two things are happening.

    "First, is that you both assume that the Spirit cannot use the original ministry as given without your help. You assume that one must have a 'good foundation' to be benefitted from the ministry. Let me say that in my own experience and several Brethren I know locally were not born and raised among brethren. I discovered the ministry over 20 years ago and had nobody but the Spirit to help me understand it. The Spirit of God can take the ministry and do with it what and as He chooses".

    • We certainly do not underrate the Spirit's power and ability to enlighten and guide souls when other means are not available. We have both proved this.

      • In most instances, unless it was originally written, we do not have "the original ministry as given" but a revised and edited printed version.

    • At the same time the usual and normal operations of the Spirit, as recorded in the Acts, are seen in His use of suitable vesels to enlighten and instruct:

      • Philip with the Ethiopian eunuch, 8: 29-35, although he was reading Isaiah;

      • Ananias and the brethren in Damascus with Saul, as directed by the Lord: "But rise up and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do", 9: 3-39.

      • Peter with Cornelius and his "kinsmen and intimate friends",
        10: 1-48.

      • Aquila and Priscilla with Apollos, though "he was mighty in the scriptures", 18: 24-26.

    • In the glad tidings – though the Scriptures and tracts have often been used, and the Spirit has access to all – Paul clearly states the normal method:

      • "and how shall they hear without one who preaches?", Romans 10: 14.

    Our guest continues, "Secondly the bulleting of the text robs the Spirit of His claim over the material and allows you to use it for an 'agenda' that may or may not be in keeping with the Spirit's mind thus acting the Holy Spirit yourselves. My wife noticed that you even go so far as to underline texts that are not underlined or emphasised in the original text. This distincly gives the impression of pushing forward an agenda. Instead of letting the Spirit help the one reading you have decided what is important in the text and should be noticed by the reader. I see it as also going beyond the original intentions of those who put forth this ministry with the exception of Gordon's thoughts which he has a right to do with as he chooses. I think you place too much reliance on your ability to help persons understand divine things instead of leaving these matters with the Spirit of God. I see nothing wrong with putting the ministry out on the internet for persons to find and enjoy. I just object when the ministry is tampered with in such a way as to suit a person's own objectives and agenda. I see these matters as being very simliar to those that arose at Stow Hill when JT's ministry was edited without his knowledge thus making the ministry say something it was never intended to say or serve a purpose it was never meant to".

      • I have left the above without 'bullets' so that other guests can decide which is easier to follow.

    • The above are very serious and intemperate allegations which, hopefully, our guest will reconsider and retract, or at least modify.

    Our guest may not realize that unless oral ministry was both revised and edited – as customary among brethren – most of it would be confusing and unsuitable to print.

    If our guest's reasoning is correct – and I do not think it is – then logically all Bible translators, including JND, would be

    We certainly do not want to offend the tastes of our guests,

    G.A.R.

    Page Top   Article Top



    DISPENSATIONALISM  AGAIN
    Jeff responds to 'A Farewell to Dispensationalism – Completely', a paper recently received from MB's friend and frequent contributor, Max Weremchuk. Max's paper is not reproduced here.       GAR

    To: Max S. Weremchuk
    From: Jeff Kuns
    Wed, 14 Sep 2004

    Dear Max,
    Sorry it's taken so long to write. It is late in coming for a host of reasons, some related to your letter, most not.

    I suppose I don't have much to say about the content of your letter as I would be coming from a position you have not specified, therefore, in a few things, I quite agree with you.

    • But do you think there is a possible false dilemma between your view and your description of the 'Brethren' or 'Dispensationalist' view?

    • I suggest this because all who understand Romans 11: 25-26 to mean that God has not completed His dealings with a Jewish remnant cannot all be lumped into the same 'position' – much less the same patterns of behaviour with those who disagree with them.

    • Personally, I fail to see how Jews are disconnected from blessing in the assembly as the truth was first commended to a remnant of Jews, as far as I understand.

    My sense is that many of these 'Brethren' groups are trapped in the past.

    • My hypothesis on why they seem to dwell so much on Israel and the Rapture and Dispensations is because that's what was widely current when they split off,

      • and thus, these topics became an undue influence on the people, a possible reason for stagnation

    • But there never seems to be much advance from that point of departure.

    • "No one can retrieve his position but by going back, like the Nazarite, to the point of departure. The 'altar at the beginning' is the only true place for recovery", JBS said.

    My ultimate point really is to say that there are brethren who see dispensations in the Scripture who do not follow the line you were exposed to, and while it is, in a sense, present in our understanding of Scripture,

      • we would yet be able to agree with your assertion (though not some of your conclusions) that

    • Dispensationalism is headed in the wrong direction – it is fatalistic and a frequent excuse for inactivity.

    • And speaking as one who would completely deny a Christian should participate in any form of Zionism, it seems quite obvious that the state of Israel

      • – aside from the fact that it exists as an authority, Romans 13: 6 –

    • currently has nothing which would morally connect it to prophecy that I can see. Is it the setting of a stage? We cannot say. But it is a poor thing for Christians to spend much time on.

    I expect that "until the fullness of the nations be come in" is currently in effect, if it were otherwise, I think we'd know.

    But I sympathize very much with your feeling of having people shun you for your convictions.

    • Though we must always be careful to mind our own affairs and not push others, for me, it is a lesson on the various degrees of wrongness we are faced with, both in ourselves and in others – a humbling lesson on the great patience and care that is needed with people.

    • Disagreement and division and confusion are part of the current situation – though you do not call it ruin – but whatever you want to call it, it is humiliating failure;

      • the situation is not according to the truth, Paul's ministry, or the mind of Christ.

    • Scripture tells us many times how God responds to man's practical failures, but I do not see that it is through setting him back in his previous capacity (publicly).

    11 and he has given some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some shepherds and teachers, 12 for the perfecting of the saints; with a view to [the] work of [the] ministry, with a view to the edifying of the body of Christ; 13 until we all arrive at the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, at [the] full-grown man, at [the] measure of the stature of the fulness of the Christ; 14 in order that we may be no longer babes, tossed and carried about by every wind of that teaching [which is] in the sleight of men, in unprincipled cunning with a view to systematized error; 15 but, holding the truth in love, we may grow up to him in all things, who is the head, the Christ: 16 from whom the whole body, fitted together, and connected by every joint of supply, according to [the] working in [its] measure of each one part, works for itself the increase of the body to its self-building up in love – Ephesians 4: 11-16.

    I also do not see how it necessarily follows that because Ephesians 4: 11-16 contains verse 13 – you understand what I mean – that verse 13 is speaking of an earthly progress as it is understandable in another way.

    • Perhaps the gifts of verses 11, 12 and 14-16 are provisional until such time as verse 13 is realized at the Lord's appearing.

    • I do not see how it would be morally possible to arrive at such a high state as verse 13 describes in the flesh – unless that is not what you mean.

    • I also fail to see how the "we all arrive" could fully apply to the success of the assembly in the world when many saints, including Paul, are buried in the ground. At least, that is what questions arise in my mind about your remarks.

    In all, I hope you will feel as I do, dear friend, permission to be frank with each other but peaceably, brotherly and as always,

    Affectionately In our Lord Jesus, Jeff.

    Page Top   Article Top


    ANONYMTY  –  ANOTHER  LOOK
    Does Scripture contemplate anonymous ministry?
    The following was written many years ago to
    the Editor of 'Open Forum' – a discontinued publication.   GAR

    The following comments are not intended, nor should they be construed, as an attack either on the Compilers’ practice of anonymity or of their policy of offering the same anonymity to the contributors to 'Open Forum'.

    That being said, I would like to offer some comments in answer to the question, “Is there anything in Scripture to guide us on the subject of anonymity?”

    • Let us examine various points which have been brought forward in support of anonymity.

    Doubtless, “many books are anonymous”, but these are mainly historical accounts.

    • The – human – authors of the didactic and prophetic books of both the Old and New Testaments – with the exception of Hebrews and the letters of John – are clearly identified in the text or elsewhere in the sacred record.

    • Such writings most nearly approximate the “expository writing” for which anonymity is desired.

    • The weight of scriptural evidence seems clearly against anonymity as a general practice where doctrine is involved.

    How the gospels which “seem actually to have been written anonymously” could have had “their names attached, accurately, no doubt – in the second century”, apart from direct personal knowledge is difficult to understand,

    • unless those by whom the ‘names’ were attached were also directly inspired. Such a circumlocuitous method would seem out of character for our God

      • “who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness’ ”, 2 Corinthians 4: 6.
    “Luke’s authorship” being “unobtrusive” is quite different from remaining anonymous

    • Can there be any doubt that Theophilus, at least, knew who had addressed the gospel and apostolic accounts to him?

    As to John, “the rumour spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die”, John 21: 23 – surely indicates that he must have been known.

      • “This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true”, 21: 24

    • – also shows that John must have been known as the author, for of what value is an anonymous witness?!

    • The “personality” of a witness, for such the “author” claims to be, is certainly not “irrelevant”.

    To conclude that “The above considerations seem to provide ample scriptural precedent for anonymous writing” is premature.

    • Let us not forget that

      • “All Scripture is God-breathed”

    • and that therefore the decision as to whether the human author was to remain anonymous would be made by God, not by his instrument.

    • There is therefore no scriptural precedent to guide us in making a decision to write anonymously.

    On a “further question”, it is important to recognize that the scriptures were written for others as well as for ourselves.

    • “Joel … Malachi” were doubtless well known to their contemporaries. Their names were therefore more than “a reference mark” at the time of writing.

    • That they may have become such to us centuries later is not in itself a sufficient argument in favour of anonymity, either now or at the time of writing.

    “But where the subject is doctrinal and not experiential, how is the author’s personality or history relevant to his subject?”

    • Now is this based on Scripture? Consider Peter's judgment,

      • “Just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom God gave him”, 2 Peter 3: 15.

    • Evidently Paul, under the Spirit’s guidance, thought his “personality” and “history” relevant to his subject when writing to the Galatians on the doctrine of the gospel of grace – see Galatians 1 and 2.

    • He charges Timothy,

      • “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others”, 2 Timothy 2: 2.

      • Later he says, “you, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purposes, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings … But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it”.

    • From the foregoing it appears obvious that the personality, experience and teaching of Paul are inextricably woven together and are in his judgment, whatever we may think, “relevant to his subject”.
    The reference to “Geshem says it”, Nehemiah 6: 6, as a possible ground of “prejudging the ideas presented”, is an unfortunate example.

    • Geshem was an enemy of God’s people and his false charge was used by their opponents to try to hinder God’s servants.

    The foregoing leads me to conclude that there is no biblical authority to support anonymity as a personal policy and that

    • there are ample indications that the identification of an author is a valuable personal testimony to the truths he asserts.

    G.A.R.

    Page Top   Article Top

    AN  APPEAL  TO  THE  BRETHREN
    IN  CONSIDERING  MATTERS  OF
    FELLOWSHIP  AND  RECEPTION
    Richard C. Reed, With Christ: November 29, 2004
    Richard's appeal is addressed to those brethren with whom he was identified. It is presented here as a thoughtful analysis worthy of consideration by all. The editors of 'My Brethren' do not agree with some minor details, but the 'Appeal' has not been changed, except for some editing re punctuation etc.   GAR
    See also Doctrine: Fellowship.

    A collection of quotations from Mr. Darby's letters concerning matters of reception and fellowship is being circulated.

    Although Mr. Darby always held all believers had title to remember the Lord with the brethren, there were in fact some he would not receive.

    • At the end of his life Mr. Darby counselled the brethren to consider 2 Timothy 2 because things had changed so much in Christendom. He was looking at a span of some fifty years. How much more have things changed in the one hundred years plus since JND went home to be with the Lord?

      See Ministry; C. A. Coates 1:
      Present Conditions in the Christian Profession, 1926

    • The quotes taken from Mr. Darby tend to cast him as one favoring a loose reception of all believers. The body side of the truth – that all believers are members of one body – is overemphasized and the truth of the house – the house of God is the assembly, and a place of order according to the divine mind – is being reduced in importance.

    • Indeed it is accurate to say that many dear brethren have little acquaintance with the truth of the house and know only the body side of the truth.

    • The failure of brethren is being used to advance the opinion that any believer can break bread without any responsibility attaching to that act.

    • If you are in possession of those quotes, please compare these comments with the quotes and the comments that follow. We are in the last days!

      • "Hold fast that which thou hast!".

    1. Vol 1: 42 – p. 34 in my edition – 1840: The reference is here to churches who refuse to receive all Christians and in so doing perpetuate division among the Lord's people. Mr. Darby's observations are entirely correct here, though we must recognize that brethren were themselves united at this point. They had not yet been tested.

    2. Vol. 1: 451 – p. 370 in my edition – 1864: Reception is based on membership in the body of Christ [not] intelligence in spiritual things. This principle is exactly right.

    3. Vol. 1: 13-14 – pp. l0-12 in my edition – 1869: A simple brother is to be received, even if defective in his understanding of system.

    • If we only receive those who agree with us, plainly we are sectarian. JND would have received one who is truly simple and so should we, or else we are just another sect, perhaps with more light than many, but a sect of Christendom, just the same.

    • Honesty requires the whole letter be read, and not just a quote excised. The third from the last paragraph makes it very clear that Mr. Darby says it is evil to allow one to be allowed to go back and forth among brethren and system.

    4. Vol. 2: 130-31 – pp. 109-10 in my edition – 1870: This letter makes it clear that we do not receive to the Lord's Supper – called the Lord's Table by some. We receive to the assembly.

      See Studies: The Lord's Supper and the Service of God

    • The local company is really receiving a saint in light of a fellowship that already exists. Scripture knows only one fellowship. Such a one received is subject to all the discipline of the house, according to Mr. Darby. Receiving a saint places that one in a position of responsibility.

    5. Vol. 2: 420 – p. 349 in my edition – 1875: There is no such a thing as receiving a saint as a visitor and receiving a saint to 'full fellowship'.

    6. Vol. 3: 543 – pp. 459-460 in my edition – 1878? Although the date of this letter is unknown, JND makes it clear that time has not changed his mind. Indeed that is good, because time does not alter moral principles.

    It is one's understanding that these quotes were originally excerpted from JND's letters and published in a tract printed by what was once an 'Open Brethren' publishing house.

    Mr. Darby tenaciously held to the view that all believers be received, and one fully supports that!

    We are equally wrong if we consider only the body side of the truth. To do so is to be like the man with the withered hand. We must consider both the house and body sides of the truth!

    One remains committed to the principle of receiving all believers in the light of the discipline of the house of God. We receive to the assembly, not to the supper!

    JND was a mighty man of God. There is no question but that he was used – as well as others – to help souls get clear of system and see the light of the assembly.

    It is sad, but true, that a legal line developed even while JT Sr was alive. That line bore sad fruit later on. Many, many lives were affected and there is no need to recount a sad story.

    In light of the ruin do we now reject the truths recovered in the ministries of JND, JBS, FER, CAC, and JT Sr?

    Will we be faithful? Let us not turn JND's comments taken out of context against what JND plainly believed.

    Did the brethren become too exclusive? That is not an easy question to answer, although the principle of excluding what is not suitable to the Lord is a right one, no matter how legally we have handled it.

    It may be that brethren came to receive only from among themselves, and JND does call that arrangement a sect.

    If brethren went too far in one direction. do we meet that by going to the other extreme?

    A 'simple' believer is not one who desires to break bread with us out of convenience.

    A 'simple' believer will not place conditions on the assembly. There will be no reservation to continue to go back and forth between companies of the Lord's people.

    It is a matter of dealing with issues the Lord allowed to come upon us, and seeing if there is a righteous way to heal the breaches in light of the Lord's soon coming for all true believers.

    The Lord has allowed the questions of reception and autonomy of local meetings to come up once again. We really need to look to the Lord about this.

    We need to be on the line of recovering our brethren! Scriptures that present principles of recovery, like Jeremiah 15 – especially verse 19 – Genesis 14: 12-16, and 1 Samuel. 30: 1-20, do not suggest that recovery is achieved by a going back and forth.

    It is not a return to 'us' that should be sought. It is the acknowledgement of the truth that we should seek – 2 Timothy 2: 25.

    Since breaking bread implies fellowship, we should make sure there is a righteous basis to go on together. We must love all believers, even though we can not go on practically speaking with some.

    These are the last days. We all need to seek the Lord out as to these matters.

    The foregoing is submitted humbly in the interest of faithfulness to the truth and love for the brethren and the Savior who has bought us all!

    Richard C. Reed, 1991

    Page Top   Article Top


    Your guest entries and messages will show that
    the continuation of My Brethren is important to you.

    Page Top