My Stand: No. 5

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

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.

• My experience [at Calvary Chapel] is that … there were attempts to mix ‘Reformed’ and ‘Dispensational’ systems – and it all appears very open minded, but I think it’s nonsense.

• I too noticed a superficiality – too much with myself – but I think it is the times, not necessarily the direct fault of that system.

• I say, sadly, that unreality and religion seems to be in control with many.

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 –

• but I want you to know, for the sake of further discussion, that I do not consider myself a Dispensationalist any more than I consider myself a Protestant and so I will not be defending anything like that.

• I'm sure I have understandings which correspond to that system – what Christian doesn't? – but I don't read books about it or study it.

• I think the question, when it comes to systematic theology, is not 'Which one?' but 'What for?'

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 do not want ‘ecclesiasticism’ to have a place with me, I want to be a brother.

• I don’t mention it anticipating we’ll have any problems, but as far as the Reformed vs. Dispensational question goes – speaking personally to you – I just don’t have the heart for it.

• I have never been enriched discussing systematic theology. I have gotten demoralized – more legal even – but I’ve never become inspired, loving, or buoyant.

• And please understand, I don’t question that there is order in God’s ways. I simply question whether there is a capacity with men to describe it comprehensively – and I question any enlargement of the affections resulting from it's study.

• Personally speaking, I was never so free with others until I was delivered from defending my system – because I feel that’s all it ever was.

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

• He admitted covenants as much as he did dispensations and I do not see that he emphasized features of the truth against each other or to the detriment of each other.

• People just don’t understand that at the time ‘dispensational truth’ was something that needed some working out – but it was still only a feature.

• Isn’t this something of the creation of the “private sphere” you reference in 'Off Track'?

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! ;-)

• But he could hardly be included with Scofield, Ryrie, Lindsay, et al. Even if they’ve read him, they’ve little understood him.

• Academic study of Scripture is dangerous, not unnecessary, but care ought to be exercised.

• The practice of interpretation is unworkable in academia. Iinterpretation was never meant for that “private sphere”. And so much for my opinion …

Greetings to your household!

Yours in our Lord Jesus, Jeff.

From: Max S. Weremchuk
Wed, 9 Apr 2003

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

• Actually I feel we pretty much agree. I have found the Reformed aspect edifying in that it has enriched my spiritual life by leaps and bounds – but I would never have wanted to miss my Brethren upbringing. I owe a lot to it.

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.

• Nevertheless there are times when things can and should be discussed in a positive and friendly way.

• So, none of the following is meant as an attack or comes from a 'I know better than you'; attitude.

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

• Now I'm not sure if you were referring to Dispensationalism or Protestantism in the sentence before – or both. Well, on both accounts, a very large number of Christians don'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.

• Most really don't take the time to think about it at all and probably couldn't really define the position if they were pressed to do so – especially on the cardinal points which affect the whole 'system' and its outworkings in interpretation.

• For the most part they are very surprised to hear that serious Christians can even consider other views to be faintly biblical.

• This is discouraging because it is in many ways evidence of naivete. But I have understanding for it because I grew up in that atmosphere and acted the same way.

• It would be helpful though if they would at least admit to not being able to rightly claim that they are right and others wrong when they do not even know what others hold and why.

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

• Many have an attitude of superiority and arrogance that does not go well with Christ-likeness.

• But the majority are such who have just caught a thought or an idea here and there, which they then fiercely defend, without knowing how it all hangs together.

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

• What do you do when you want to know what the Bible says, e.g., about angels? You go and look up all the passages that refer to or deal with them. You compare, notice how they supplement each other and so forth. You need all the passages taken together to prevent yourself from going off-track by wrongly emphasizing only one aspect or passage – and of course praying all along for understanding.

• That is all that systematic theology is. It is a vitally necessary 'thing'. Making an institution out of it, building universities and colleges, getting degrees for it and so on is something else – and wrong!

• I have a degree and I have taught on occasion at a Christian seminary, but I feel the whole structure and system of training for the ministry is wrong.

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

• In the first instance it has to do with me and my personal relationship to Christ.

• If there is a desire to learn and understand more of the Bible it should always be brought into connection with relationship and responsibility. It can never be abstract knowledge.

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

• Training is good, but the 'outfitting' for the ministry – for serving in love those whom the Lord loves – cannot be obtained at any school.

• The biblical model of older Brethren in the Lord training and leading on the younger – Paul/Timothy principle – is the right one.

• Why do we look to worldly institutions for accreditation in the Church? Nonsense! Not only nonsense it is destructive.

• I hear many Churches in the USA require applicants for a pastor position to have a Ph.D. before they will even consider them.

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.

• I cannot give up what has become a conviction to me – and I have suffered loss because of it.

• This is not a theoretical or intellectual thing for me. It is something I hold in communion with my Lord and am thankful to Him that He has shown me – as I believe He has – what is more in accordance with His Word.

• It is not a position ' I ' hold, but one held by the majority of believers throughout the centuries and by many and devoted men whom the Lord has used for blessing in His Church.

• Because the dispensationalist view is so strong in North America – it has become a 'business' – the deceiving impression arises that this is the major view worldwide. This impression is very, very wrong.

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.

• I have no personal position or party to defend. The only thing that can convince me are arguments from God's Word. I am willing to follow that Word regardless of the costs to me.

• I have no favorite or pet views that I will not give up regardless of how strong the arguments from the Word speak against it. That would be foolishness.

• But what I have found within the 'Reformed' sphere is a greater harmony in the Word of God than ever before. A wonderful unfolding and coherence. A deep blessing.

• But I have had to pay a price.

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.

• The Brethren actually pleading me to stay, but I knew it would cause sorrow on both sides sooner or later and so we left while things had not come to a head.

• I cannot fellowship with the Brethren because they require of me to ascribe to points as the truth I no longer can.

• The leading brother in Germany, to whom I had a father/son relationship, will no longer allow me to visit him. He says I have given up "the hope" – which I definitely have not! I believe the Lord will return in power and glory, it is just in the details of the events surrounding that return where we disagree.

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

• There are too many things I learned from the Lord through the Brethren that I hold dear as the truth and which I would be compromising should I become more fully involved.

• What worship means I learned from the Brethren. The Church at large has next to no idea what that is. For many it is, as someone said so pointedly here, "happy-clappy".

• No real reverence or awe. It's 'Hey man! Jesus is one of us! Hang loose!'

• Then there are women in the ministry and so on and so on.

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.

• It amazes me. The reasons why some people ever became believers I cannot understand. They are so shallow, so superficial.

• That would not have been enough to get me converted. Where is the conviction? Where the obedience?

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

• The range of our contacts and friendships with believers in various groups is large. I do not hold any feelings of superiority or holier-than-thou towards them.

• It is just that being able to associate with them 'officially' would require my assenting to – even if only outwardly – things I cannot.

• I would be identified as a 'Mennonite' or whatever – Not much different from Cronin's days in Ireland!

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

• Actually it was more Turner's biography than his writings.

• Through that book I discovered a man who really knew Christ – who walked with him – to whom Christ was a living reality. That overwhelmed me.

• I wanted that. It was not the knowledge or the learning – it was the relationship.

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

• We tend to take shortcuts and think if a person like Darby was so spiritual – and he was – how could he have been wrong on so many points he himself felt were insights into God's truth given to him as a gift?

• Well, we don't seem to have that problem with Luther or Calvin or Spurgeon or countless others.

• Learning to be more properly – biblically – objective in regards to Darby was a difficult lesson for me to learn.

• For many Brethren, Darby is an 'either/or' person – either completely for him or not.

• Criticism in any form is viewed as rejection of truth – even though standard phrases are used, such as: 'he was just a man like everybody else', 'he wasn't infallible' and so on.

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

• These remain because they are not bound up with a certain view or group. They are divinely universal – and the Church at large would do better to accept them …

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

• You are right, Scofield and all the rest can't compare to Darby – don't even come close.

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

• If we can't boast of having been at university then at least a Christian College or Bible School. Why?

• Solid training is important. Good, sound scholarship should not be rejected out of hand. But what we need in the Church are Fathers in Christ. Where are they?

• The present structures don't seem to allow them. I am convinced they are there, here and there. In little groups, faithfully serving the Lord. One simply wishes it would have a greater sphere.

• On the other hand what I have learned through my studies is that once groups start getting larger the decline sets in.

• Our Lord's wisdom cannot be beat. He said: "Let them sit down in groups of fifty" – no mega Churches, no drive-in Willow Creek services, no Crystal Palace. And yet they changed the world.

• The Church today with its super outreach, its use of media, its attractive packaging? What has it changed? The world? No, only itself. It is no longer recognizable as the Lord's bride. That is sadly fact.

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

• As a dispensationalist I would have said: 'All this decline and chaos is sure evidence that we are living in the end times. That's the way it has to be. Will even get worse. The only solution is the Lord's coming'.

• But that is defeatism. Do I believe man can achieve something? Do I believe we can turn things around for the better? No!

• But I am convinced that the Lord can by working through His Spirit in the lifes of His own.

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.

• The Church is the Lord's creation – not ours. The gates of hell will not prevail against it.

• Coming to take us away because we have so miserably failed is not a demonstration of victory.

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

• But dispensationalists seem to see the truth of everything being dependent on the Lord and the Holy Spirit as only demonstrable in our failure and His coming to take us away.

• Is this convincing to Satan? Satan knows Christ is all powerful. But can Christ take a group of miserable rebels and turn them into His image and change the world through them? Can He?

• Apparently not if the dispensationalists are right.

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!'

• This is even more ironic when seen from the dispensationalist view. What believers in the Church – who have a much deeper, intimate fellowship with Christ and greater blessings – could not do with the Spirit's power
  • a group of Israelites – without the indwelling of the Spirit and hardly understanding who Christ is – will accomplish within a 7 year period.

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.

• What we need are not spectacular events, but faithful believers carrying outtheir service in obedience where they are – affecting their partners, their families, their fellowships, their towns and thus their world.

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

• 'I hope for better things'. That is my motto as well.

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.

• I suppose the fear of bad reasoning, or lack of reasoning, being exposed is what is to blame.

• But how we can we ever know a weak reason if it’s never tested? So, as I said over the phone, I’m very glad you are brotherly about discussion.

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

• I found one ‘informal’ definition on the web, like yours, which said that systematic theology involves collecting and understanding all the relevant passages in the Bible on various topics and then summarizing their teachings clearly so that we know what to believe about each topic.
  • I have a problem with it, and will get to it momentarily.

• Another place said the ‘Pre-Enlightenment’ definition was that ST was “the Queen of the Sciences” and “that … all truth claims from various disciplines were validated (or invalidated) by the prior established truth of theology”.
  • I left that lifeless corpse to the vultures.

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’m thinking more of an institutional and sectarian product.

• I’m concerned with the point at which every such system departs from God’s system, becomes a vehicle for a sect, and divides the brethren.

• I feel that the institutions, so called para-church ministries, seminaries and bible colleges are like Protestant ‘indulgences’. They all imagine a shortcut to spiritual education … for a little money.

• There is a place for the presentation of the truth assembly-wise, family-wise, etc. and God makes provision for us to be taught – this is all in Scripture and doesn’t need defending –
  • but the institutional side is not found in Scripture.

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

• I might better have said 'which correspond to any system',

• because I think it’s fair to say that I hold something from every system – and I think it’s fair to say that we all do.

• Some systems have common doctrines with others, some present the truth better than others.

• But I can’t argue from that that they are a valid form of presentation because they have ‘parts’ that are true, or the false dilemma that there’s ‘no other way’ to have these discussions.

• On the other hand, I don’t advocate not knowing or avoiding understanding why people believe certain things.

• I think we agree that if you can’t understand ‘how anyone could believe that’ then you don’t know enough.

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.

• The practical problem is that the truth ends up only partially presented, gets a history and finally replaces actual thinking.

• I read one author who appealed to the Heidelberg Catechism to prove the Scripture, not the other way round.

• I heard another well-known brother talking about studying the Scripture, calling it, “the art and science of Biblical interpretation”.

• The only reason these two things are not immediately rejected as false is because of the long history of academic intrusion and rationalism into the things of God.

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;

• sometimes the word isn’t in the passage and you must have some intelligence about what is being said.

• We say this or that is a ‘feature of the truth’ in thus and such a connection; perhaps it cannot be expressed all at one time, or all in the same connection, or it has some other implication or emphasis – it is intricate.

• This is done in the Scripture in a way that only the Holy Spirit could have done it!

• And I just mention this because it is a rare theologian that does not deny this in practice.

• And it’s even more rare for a reader of theologians to come away from a book thinking he hasn’t now ‘read it all’, if he agrees with what he read.

• I think this is done ignorantly, for the most part, but it is not without consequence – as you noticed when you said, “My experience here has been that the dispensationalists are the aggressive ones”.

• But I would venture that it is a Christian committed to any religious traditionalism, of whatever theological persuasion, who will become someone who makes light of his opponent – believer or unbeliever.

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

• I could not accept the implication that the actual amount of people that believe in a thing is an indication of its truth or untruth.

• Truth should be estimated by other criteria. I only say it as a principle of reasoning; “if blind lead blind, both will fall into a ditch”.

• I don’t notice less sectarianism with Protestants who are Covenant-Reformed (‘a’ or ‘post’) than I do with Protestants who are Dispensational (‘pre’ or ‘mid’, or progressive).

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

• knowing the points of a system, rather than the Lord’s mind.

• His mind is gained from knowing Him.

• I think most Christians would readily admit knowing a theology is not the same as knowing Him, but the truth is, the system is known everywhere more than the Person.

• And the knowledge of prophecy doesn’t come without the Person anyway! “The spirit of prophecy is the testimony of Jesus.”

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.

• “And I cannot help warning my younger brethren against much literature that is abroad on prophetic subjects.

  “Books and pamphlets which occupy you with events and dates, and especially those which connect events occurring at the present time with prophecy, are to be shunned.

  “The effect of them is to occupy souls very much with what is going on in the world, and I am sure the Spirit of God is not seeking to do this.

  “He would present to our hearts the One who is in glory, and separate us even now to His company outside everything that is going on here”. Spiritual Blessings, page 123.

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

• Again, it may be ignorance or innocence, and someone may even claim it is the job of systematic theology to present what is objective to begin with – but
  • it is not necessary, it is additional to what has been provided by God for our growth, and as much as it is, it does not build us up.

• We need the objective, of course, but seminaries and colleges are not the “pillar and base of the truth”.

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

• The Lord said, “Take heed therefore how you hear.”

• For instance, many Dispensationalists are so occupied with the rapture they have forgotten about the appearing, and what is the effect? The meaning and import of the rapture changes!*
  [* See Doctrine: The Lord's Coming.]

• J. B. Stoney said, “In the Lord's supper you announce His death ‘till he come’.
  “No doubt the rapture is preliminary, but the prominent desire is with reference to Christ Himself.

  “The tendency with us all is to be pre-occupied with our own benefit; but as your heart is true to Him you are not thinking of your own relief merely;

  “your eye is fixed on the morning star as the harbinger of the day when Christ will have His right place here”.

• Elsewhere he said, “Limiting the coming of the Lord to the rapture has tended to foster laxity in walk”.

• I am not trying to convince you of a pre-tribulation rapture but explain the effect of an improper emphasis.

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

• But if I understand ‘the hope’ to be the rapture then I am turned in on myself and get a wrong view of it.

• The rapture, as far as I understand it, is for the Lord Jesus, where He receives His bride.

• His appearing is our hope, and something to live in accord with – which you have claimed – as everything will then be according to Him.

• But I hope you can see how it would change things in a practical way for a person who believed dispensational truth.

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.

• To me, failure and relief are irrelevant to the question of the rapture.

• I don’t deny relief coincides with the rapture – but the rapture is not because of failure –
  • as with Noah, a feature of the rapture is preservation from a scene of judgment.

    “I also will keep thee out of the hour of trial, which is about to come upon the whole habitable world”.

• The world is under judgment and this is coincident with apostasy, not because of apostasy.

• I can really understand what you are saying about defeatism, but as I am trying to explain, not everybody thinks of the rapture as the hope, nor emphasizes it to that extent.

• I’m sorry it is felt you have given up the hope. But I read:
  • “… to all those who love His appearing …” not ‘the rapture’.

• The opposite danger, I suppose, is that we do not want to be those who say, “Where is the promise of His coming?” which I know you do not.

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.

• So what use is a theological system to me?

• There may be controversy over what these things mean, how they affect us practically,
  • but to be contentious is, I think, an expression of insufficient love for the brethren and a mishandling of the truth –

• the illusion being that we’re actually helping the situation by standing inflexibly for our precious ‘terms’ is pretty much rubbish …

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.

• In any case, my experience has not been of Christians emphasizing it over against the Person of Christ.

• I do not imply that there are not such who do so, sadly there definitely are, but that has not been my experience in general – more the exception.

• There are those who wear 'systematic theology' as a badge and group definition and those who wear 'dispensationalism' as such – both are in error by so doing.

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

• But any systematic theology should only be a tool to help understand God's truth – not define it.

• As we are limited creatures our understanding of truth will always require correction and expansion – even if we are clear on basic fundamentals.

• Systematic theology needs to be a living thing, not something rigid and unmovable.

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.

• They went through the different articles point by point, trying to understand the exact wording and so on as if they were dealing with Scripture! I very strongly disagree with things like this!

• Systematic theology should only be a tool to help me remember what I have learned from Scripture.

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

• See again St. Paul and the school of Tyrannus.

• If not, things can run wild with subjectivity. The New Testament is very clear on the need for learning and understanding – of having a firm basis.

• Of course this should never be separated from a living relationship to Christ – Who is the truth.

• In Christianity, as opposed to all other forms of learning, truth is not a thing, it is a Person.

• Sadly things can take on a life of their own. This results in Bible colleges and universities where you get grades for the extent of your knowledge and so on.
  • Utter nonsense and something I disagree with. (Allowing unbelievers to get titles in theology who have no connection to the essence!)

• Nevertheless there needs to be instruction, more than is generally available in a Sunday ministry meeting or Wednesday night Bible reading.

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.

• It's: 'I think' and 'I feel' and 'I believe'. Some with this attitude would claim it is being 'spiritual' and emphasizing the personal and direct relationship to Christ.

• What they do not realize is that it is just as much ' I ' as propagating and defending a certain view.

• They have simply substituted their own opinion for that of others – who might have been more spiritual and biblically 'correct' than themselves.

Your Coates quote on prophecy is very, very appropriate.

• I just wish more dispensationalists would take it to heart. For many, 'events' have replaced Christ.

• They are so involved in studying aspects of – supposed – unfulfilled prophecy and current developments that they have neglected a deepening and strengthening of their relationship with Christ …

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".

• As I understand it 'Zionism' was originally a movement for establishing a homeland for the Jews and now for supporting the state of Israel – that is clearly a political movement.

• JND's stand against political involvement is generally well known. See Doctrine: The World and Its Politics on MB.

• I'm not aware of anything in JND's ministry that would support 'Zionism', whether 'Christian' or otherwise.

• However it is quite possible that some have built their case for it on an erroneous view of his ministry on prophecy – as others have built their prophetic schemes on his ministry on 'dispensations' and the 'rapture'.

• As I understand it, the present state of Israel is not envisioned in Scripture, though no doubt there will be unbelieving Jews in the land in the tribulation.

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

• "Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Although I have removed them far off among the nations, and although I have scattered them among the countries, yet will I be to them as a little sanctuary in the countries whither they are come. Therefore say, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: I will even gather you from the peoples, and assemble you out of the countries where ye are scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel", Ezekiel 11: 16-17.

• "Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, O my people, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I [am] Jehovah, when I have opened your graves, and have caused you to come up out of your graves, O my people. And I will put my Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I will place you in your own land: and ye shall know that I Jehovah have spoken, and have done [it], saith Jehovah ... And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they are gone, and will gather them from every side, and bring them into their own land: and I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all And they shall not defile themselves any more with their idols, or with their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions; and I will save them out of all their dwelling-places wherein they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: and they shall walk in mine ordinances, and keep my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children's children for ever: and David my servant shall be their prince for ever", Ezekiel 37: 12-14, 21-25.

… 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 –

• the layout design and format – as well as the content – of MB has been taken on as a responsibilty in our service under the Lord.

• I have personal knowledge of this having transcribed both addresses and readings from tapes for printing.

• The tampering with JT's ministry was an aberration. Nothing in the least similar has ever been done on MB to change the meaning of any ministry presented.

• In his letters, JT often refers to those who have been of good service in both the revising and editing of his ministry.

• Our guest may not be aware of the editing done recently by KBT as mentioned in the Prefaces to "Selected Addresses' and 'Selected Ministry'. In addition to some minor editing – of the previous publications – KBT says,
  • "and finally, to ensure consistency with further recovery to the truth, since the ministry was originally given".

• This is a change in policy which has not been followed on MB. The 1961 Stow Hill meeting record states:
  • "The question of 'editing' came up, in respect of F.E.R., in a few cases where minor adjustments in doctrine had come in, and after fairly lengthy consideration it was decided that his ministry should be reprinted untouched.

    "Mr. Gardiner confirmed that no 'editing' had been done with J.N.D.'s Collected Writings. Also J.T.'s ministry was not changed either it was printed as he said it, or it was not printed at all".

    Of course the above refers to the original edited publications.

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

• guilty of robbing the Spirit of His claims over the Scriptures, tampering with the Scriptures to suit their own objectives and agenda and hindering the flow of thought.

• According to Morrish's Bible Dictionary, pages 794-5, the earliest New Testament Greek manuscripts, or 'Uncials', date from the 4th century and
  • "are all capitals, have no spaces between words, and few if any points …

    words were divided at the ends of lines without any mark being attached … and sometimes without regard to syllables …"

• Many Bible translations separate the texts by verses – similar to 'bulleting' – or, as JND, paragraph the text.

• All use upper and lower case letters, modern punctuation and some use quotation marks and various means to emphasize text.

• All show chapter and verse numbers – useful though certainly uninspired – and most have marginal or footnote references embedded in the text.

• Most insert words to make the sense clear – sometimes without notice – and to a greater or lesser extent paraphrase.

• According to the reasoning of our guest all the above ahould be unnecessary and only interferes with the Spirit's work and the flow of the text and is distracting.

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

• but our first aim in all we do is to serve our own master who is able to make us stand. Romans 14: 4.

• Therefore we pursue our way in good conscience before our Lord, trusting that we many never have to face any, whom the AV translators describe as those
  • "who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil".

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.

• But I felt it was important to respond as I know how it feels for people to not reply and I don't like it myself.

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'.

• It is deplorable, shameful and humbling that a situation should exist among the people of God that would cause any brother to have to resort to anonymity because of “fears of repressions and persecution”, 'Open Forum', 9-1a.

• Having been, to my shame, connected for many years with a party in which “repressions and persecutions” were the order of the day, I can deeply sympathize with any who do or might, suffer under such an unchristian attitude.

• My own conviction is that the admonition,
  • “he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully”, Jeremiah 23: 28,

• precludes me from seeking or accepting the shield of anonymity.

• Others must act according to their own convictions and in this I recognize the scriptural principle,
  • “Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand”, Romans 14: 4.

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 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.

• One has had an opportunity to read the material and consider the quotes in their contexts. Please allow some very brief specific comments and then some general observations in an appeal to the brethren to be careful about adopting loose principles.

• In 1875 JND says the assembly must be satisfied as to adequate testimony, though it was not so at the beginning of the recovery. Why the change? Why does he say that now – in 1875 – 2 Timothy 2 has to be considered, but not earlier?

• Was it not because of the change in conditions? The Bethesda question had been raised. and he was no doubt concerned about the serious departure that had come in. What would he say about our day? Would he not advise us also to consider 2 Timothy 2: 19-22?

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.

• Every believer has a title to be there as a member of the body of Christ. Just above, though, in a portion of the letter that was not quoted, JND says the person received is subject to the discipline of God's house, and is not to assert a condition to be free to go anywhere.

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.

• It is understandable that those who have historically supported an open reception policy would find it to their advantage to make it seem that Mr. Darby also favored open reception.

• If he did, there was no reason at all for the Open division to have ever taken place. If these quotes represent 'the whole' of JND's views, he indeed must have been an 'open brother', but one trusts we all know that is not the case.

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

• But he also said saints were not free to go back and forth, and one supports that too!

• In addition he counsels the brethren to consider 2 Timothy 2: 19-22, and one even supports that!

• Every believer does have a title to remember the Lord with us as a member of the body of Christ, and not simply because he is a member of 'us'. If that 'us' is narrower than the body of Christ, we are plainly wrong.

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!

Doctrine: The Assembly: The Assembly in Four Aspects: F.E.R. and Ministry: M. W. Biggs 1: Short Papers on the Church

• The body side means He receive all believers to the assembly.

• The house side says responsibility attaches to the assembly, and we must consider what a believer is linked with. JND said things were becoming difficult in his day – it was not so simple as at the beginning before any trouble came in amongst the brethren. What of our day?

• Ecumenism is growing, and we hear much about all Christians being together. In the system the most abominable doctrines are accepted, and things are far worse than in JND's day.

• Even amongst some companies of so-called brethren there has been apostasy from things once held to be true. Paul's ministry has been given up as seen in the return to the clerical system and lack of head coverings on the sisters. The view that Christ could have sinned but didn't is tolerated if not widely accepted.

• Do we not need to be extra careful today? Can we really receive saints, dear though they may be, who have links to such things? Should they not be asked to judge them?

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!

• If a truly simple believer asked to remember the Lord in genuine simplicity, and the person known to be pure in walk, one would not object.

• But in the fifteen years since one left open ground, there has been only one person presenting herself to one's local assembly in greatest simplicity, and that dear sister did not ask to break bread, and we did not invite her.

• Many other persons have become known to us, but they could not be viewed as simple, and did not ask to break bread with us.

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.

• His ministry was largely one of getting free from system and dealing with the question of independency of meetings.

• Although greatly used of God, the recovery was not entirely committed to him. In His wisdom, the Spirit of God raised up others as well.

• Mr. Stoney and Mr. Raven were used to help the saints see the breaking of bread was to be at the beginning of the meeting, as introductory to the service of God.

• Mr. Raven was further used to bring light as to eternal life and the Lord's person. Mr. Coates emphasized the assembly and personal devotion to the Lord and the truth, and was a bridge between FER and JT Sr. Mr. Taylor Sr was used to to solidify the truth of the assembly, and under his ministry the brethren had rest.

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.

• The enemy has had his way in a public sense, but the door is still open to those who overcome. In these Laodicean days the Lord appeals to individuals.

• The brethren have failed publicly, and that was to be expected, because everything committed to man in responsibility fails! Brethren are not exempt from the lot of all other men! Let us not think that we have corporately kept what others have not!

• If we say Christendom is in ruin or that the testimony is in ruin, let us own our own part in the ruin.

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

• One would shudder from the thought of rejecting what God has given to us! Many have been through much deep and personal exercise over this ministry.

• Now, while one acknowledges the failure of brethren, and one's own many failures, one refuses to acknowledge that the truth has failed! The truth stands out in brightest contrast to the deepening darkness!

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

• He would receive a simple saint, but he would never support one going back and forth! Let us not try to use JND as a justification to return to open principles.

• "… If one wanted to be among the brethren, then next among the sects, I should not allow it. and would not receive such a person …", JND's Letters, Vol. 3: 133 – 1881.

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.

• The brethren even in JT Sr's day acknowledged many times that there were certainly other companies of brethren and many saints in the systems of men.

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

See Ministry: J. N. Darby 1: What is a Sect?

• We need to get back to the Scriptures as the final arbiter while we continue to value ministry God has seen fit to preserve.

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

• One truly believes that genuine, simple believers are to be received. A 'simple' believer is one who does not come with conditions, but simply desires to remember the Lord.

• If such a person. known to the brethren, seeks to break bread. the local brethren should act as they feel would honor the Lord, acting without seeking the approval of others, but also not acting independently of others whose consciences might be affected by their action.

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

• JND makes it clear that in receiving such a one, he would be free if that person were in our area, and no local company to which that believer would be attached exists in our area. In other words, it is not a matter of convenience.

• A believer walking with a company of believers with whom we do not walk should be provided the means to get to his own company if one exists in our area. Such a one should not seek to remember the Lord with us simply because he is in our area!
  
  See JND's Letters. Volume 2: 10 – 1869.

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.

• In receiving a saint. he is received to the assembly. It is confusion to receive a saint continually who intends to break bread with two companies holding divergent views on important matters.

• We are in a peculiar position today. It is most difficult. There are many true and godly believers in various companies of the Lord's people. Why are there so many companies? It is surely in part due to our failures!

• Without question there has been harsh treatment of dear brethren that went beyond what was due to the Lord. Our failure is only part of it!

• The movement of Israel out of Egypt and into the land was accompanied by one test after another. Even the final settlement in the land left a permanent division between two and a half tribes and the others.

• We need to understand that brethren suffered greatly in the questions of independency vs. unity, in the question of the Lord's Supper – why do some brethren end their meeting with it? – eternal life, the Lord's Person, and even the position of the servant in accountabi1ity to the brethren.

• Brethren suffered greatly – on all sides – when divisions came over these issues. Time does not change moral issues.

• The desire to heal those divisions is to be commended! The way to heal them is not to ignore them, but to go back to them and look at them. and see if there is a reconciliation possible on a righteous basis. There is probably room in all divisions for each side to confess failure to the other side!

• Christendom is being swept by an ecumenical spirit that will eventually end up with Babylon, after the true believers are translated to the glory. Ecumenism promotes the idea that all professing Christians should be together, no matter what doctrines might be held.

• In our zeal to restore relations with other believers. we need to avoid being ecumenical. We need to have a right judgment on things. It is not a matter of us being the right party and everyone else wrong!

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.

• We cannot afford to maintain a party spirit any more than we can afford to throw away everything brethren suffered for in the name of loving our brethren.

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.

• As members of the one body, all saints have title to the privileges of the assembly, chief among which is participation in the Lord's Supper and the service of God.

• In view of the breakdown, we must regulate reception in light of the house of God being a place of discipline – Hebrews 3: 5-6; 1 Timothy 3: 15; 2 Timothy 2: 19-22 – just as Mr. Darby advised.

• In the light of the assembly being God's house, reception can be neither sectarian nor open. We do not receive a brother or sister because they are with 'us'. Neither do we receive on the basis of convenience, relationships in the flesh, or self-will.

• If we receive a believer without regard to the consciences of brethren elsewhere, we have taken a large step toward occupying the ground of local autonomy.

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.

• Even though we all acknowledge we have all failed the Lord in responsibility, we must also acknowledge the truth that was brought out through the ministries of J. N. Darby, J. B. Stoney, F. E. Raven, C. A. Coates, and J. Taylor, Sr., and not seek to overthrow what has been gained for the Lord and his saints!

• Of course we acknowledge that even these beloved brethren themselves experienced failure, and one does not wish to place ministry on the level of inspired Scripture.

• The enemy did sow tares like the harsh legalism in an attempt to overthrow what the Spirit of God was doing, but was there not an abundance of 'wheat'? Surely, there was an abundance of good food for the people of God?

• Are we really prepared to say it was all tares – darnel – and go back to 1848, saying all since was one gigantic mistake? One shudders at the thought of giving up all of the 'land' that was secured for the brethren and glory of God.

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.

• It is a plain fact that there are indeed very few 'simple' believers today, especially among companies of so-called brethren. How is a brother or sister who is not so simple to be treated? The answer is with love and faithfulness.

• A believer who has joined another company of believers who oppose what we hold dear is more accountable than a believer who is truly simple. Is it really faithful to receive such a one, on the condition that he is allowed to return to a company that historically opposes what we hold dear?

• It is not a question of godliness – there are many believers who are very godly in most companies of believers. A believer who has a history should be expected to give an account and clear himself, and we should be prepared to do the same.

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.

• It is wrong to be self-occupied, but let us invite the Spirit of God to search us, and if there is need for adjustment in any of us let us accept it in meekness and humility.

• The Lord's words for us today are found in the words to Philadelphia and Laodicea. Let us hold fast what we have. The enemy wants to snatch it away.

• Let us also heed the knock at the door. At the very end the Lord is outside and seeks response. Are we available to him?

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