What about the Brethren movement?

[Jon 316]

Hi folks, I'm new here. quick intro to lead into my question.

I heard the gospel through the brethren. Although they taught etrenal security, I do not think they were 'reformed' in the fullest sense.

After 'getting saved' I eventually left teh fellowship for several reasons. The key one being that they felt that they alone had the 'new testament pattern'. The particular branch of the brethren I was involved in was the churches of God also known as 'needed truth'. They broke away from the plymoth brethren over issues of church government. They felt that the local churches of God should be controlled by a centralized government.

Any, my point is. They felt they were the church. My study of church history shows me that this was a 'reformed issue' i.e the desire for pure worship and ecclesiology hence all the church splits.

Anyway, just wondering what folk think...

 

[Hippo]

The tradgedy of the Brethren movement is that their initial motivation was a desire to end sectarianism however this is precisiely the trait that they adopted.

I have a deep affection for the Brethren movement and they have had very great men in their midst but their falling was a belief that they could somehow transcend the fall and create a perfect Church that everyone else would have a duty to follow.

I am quite partial the Darby's idea of the total ruin of the church that broke the direct apostolic succession but they go too far in abrogating apostolic teaching as being the basis through which we interpret the Bible.

 

[Jon 316]

Yeah,

I wonder, as a young person, at the time of my conversion, if they messed with my head a bit. At times I get very dismayed with todays expression of church. I'm sure something of brethrenism rises up within me.

 

[OPC'n]

From what I've read about the Brethren Movement, it isn't good. They are the ones who brought into full force Dispensationalism.

 

[Jon 316]

when you say full force dispensationalism. Do you mean the different 'eras' and 'covenants'? and if so, how is this incompatible with reformed theolgy?

 

[OPC'n]

The movement began in the 1800's. Not sure it that answers your "eras" question. As far as it being incompatible with reformed theology I guess it would depend on whom you ask. Personally, I believe it attacks the heart of the Gospel. It is humanistic whereas reformed theology is Christ centered. Of course, there is a large range of dispensationalists. Some are extreme to the point of being heretics to those who have some dispensationalism in their beliefs who are good brothers and sisters in Christ. It's been awhile since I read the book, "Wrongly Dividing The Word Of Truth A Critique of Dispensationalism" but it's pretty good.

 

[Zeno333]

when you say full force dispensationalism. Do you mean the different 'eras' and 'covenants'? and if so, how is this incompatible with reformed theolgy?

Standing by and observing the answers to that one

 

[Jon 316]

thanks, I'll check out that book. do u know who the author is?

 

[OPC'n]

John H. Gerstner and Sproul did the foreword

 

[Jon 316]

thanks!

 

[toddpedlar]

when you say full force dispensationalism. Do you mean the different 'eras' and 'covenants'? and if so, how is this incompatible with reformed theolgy?

When different 'eras' and 'covenants' become different salvific methods and devices used by God, that is when you are in the dispensational mindset, and running strongly contrary to reformed thought.

Here is how the Westminster Confession of Faith portrays covenant theology. Note that in it we do confess that the Lord has historically used different "dispensations" of one Covenant of Grace. Dispensationalists would strongly disagree with this formulation, positing that the church and Israel serve as different "peoples of God" and have different means of salvation, whereas we would argue that all are saved in one and only one way - Jesus Christ the Lamb of God.

Chapter 7. Of God's Covenant with Man.

1. The distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.a

a. 1 Sam 2:25; Job 9:32-33; 22:2-3; 35:7-8; Psa 100:2-3; 113:5-6; Isa 40:13-17; Luke 17:10; Acts 17:24-25.

2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,a wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity,b upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.c

a. Gal 3:12. • b. Rom 5:12-20; 10:5. • c. Gen 2:17; Gal 3:10.

3. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,a commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved,b and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.c

a. Gen 3:15; Isa 42:6; Rom 3:20-21; 8:3; Gal 3:21. • b. Mark 16:15-16; John 3:16; Rom 10:6, 9; Gal 3:11. • c. Ezek 36:26-27; John 6:44-45.

4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.a

a. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; Heb 7:22; 9:15-17.

5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel:a under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come,b which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,c by whom they had full remission of sins and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.d

a. 2 Cor 3:6-9. • b. Rom 4:11; Col 2:11-12; 1 Cor 5:7; Hebrews 8-10 throughout. • c. John 8:56; 1 Cor 10:1-4; Heb 11:13. • d. Gal 3:7-9, 14.

6. Under the gospel, when Christ the substancea was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper;b which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,c to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;d and is called the New Testament.e There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.f

a. Col 2:17. • b. Mat 28:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25. • c. Jer 31:33-34; Heb 12:22-28. • d. Mat 28:19; Eph 2:15-19. • e. Luke 22:20. • f. Psa 32:1 with Rom 4:3; Acts 15:11; Rom 3:21-23, 30; 4:6, 16-17, 23-24; Gal 3:14, 16; Heb 13:8.

 

[JM]

Stem Publishing has a listing of the early PB writers.

 

[OPC'n]

when you say full force dispensationalism. Do you mean the different 'eras' and 'covenants'? and if so, how is this incompatible with reformed theolgy?

LOL! Now I get you "eras" question now that Todd spoke up! You meant dispensations! Sorry, I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer tonight!

 

[Jon 316]

dont worry... you reccomended a good book

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Wasn't one of the Brethren splits about Calvinistic soteriology - viz., Darby was a five-pointer and others weren't?

Also, I assume you're talking about Plymouth Brethren rather than Bohemian Brethren, Moravian Brethren (i.e., Zinzendorf), and others?

 

[Hippo]

Wasn't one of the Brethren splits about Calvinistic soteriology - viz., Darby was a five-pointer and others weren't?

Also, I assume you're talking about Plymouth Brethren rather than Bohemian Brethren, Moravian Brethren (i.e., Zinzendorf), and others?

I do not recall any splits on Calvinism, splits were more often to do with second degree seperation (seperating from those who did not seperate from those in error).

It is quite ironic that the historic split arose when the Brethren in Plymouth were expelled from the movement, it would be more accuarte to describe the movement as the "Non-Plymouth Brethren"