In my recent project where I've been attempting to understand the birth of Dispensational Theology in the Brethren movement, I have seen more evidence that seems to connect it with a distinctly non-Calvinistic soteriology. For a while now, I have been suspicious of the influence of Arminianism on that movement, and as I read through some of Darby's and Macintosh's writings posted on the "Stem Publishing" website, I have found that the way they speak about justification, sanctification, regeneration, propitiation, sin, etc, is symptomatic of that influence. This, in part, may explain the reason for the vast majority of dispensationalists in our day who reject Calvinistic theology. Perhaps that rejection is not an historical association alone, but I think it may be one of the fundamental causes for the development of Dispensationalism. I also see a general disregard for historical theology and its categories, whether it be conscious or not, I don't know. This too would contribute to the rejection of Calvinistic theology among the Brethren in Darby's day, and the overemphasis among Dispensationalists in our day, on the priesthood of the believer. Which, coupled with a basic misunderstanding of the reasons why they are "Protestant", has inevitably resulted in the disdain that many American Evangelicals have for creeds and confessions.
So, I am wondering if anyone with more time invested in their writings would have some insight to share.
3 comments:
In modern Plymouth Brethren circles, the majority do tend to be more Arminian in their views, though one finds some measure of debate on the subject. In the assembly I grew up in, their were a handful of men who held to predestination in a more Biblical way, though they tended to reduce "Perseverance" down to a mere "Eternal Security" view. They also tended to reject Limited Atonement, though you might find an odd duck every once and awhile who had read alot of A. W. Pink or listened to alot of Donald Gray Barnhouse and affirmed it. And I knew of Brethren assemblies that ended up splitting and forming two new assemblies over Calvinism. Generally, however, people seemed to believe that Scripture taught Free Will and Predestination, and that the two were simply illogical and irreconcilable to human eyes. There was a lack of clarity over other more specific issues, such as imputation and regeneration. As much of this could be traced back to the influence of Chafer, Ironside, and Moody as to the founders of the Brethren movement, not to mention numerous other well-known Fundamentalist and Evangelical preachers of the last century and a half (Billy Graham, Warren Wiersbe, J. Vernon McGee, David Jeremiah, Chuck Swindoll, etc.). The fact of the matter is that the average Plymouth Brethren person doesn't read or study theology. They, like most of American Evangelicalism, tend to read whatever popular Evangelical literature is being touted at the time, if they read anything other than their Bibles at all. Various men will teach in any given assembly, due to the rejection of the clergy system and the exaltation of the priesthood of all believers (though, as some have said, their view of it may more accurately be called "the priesthood of every believer" - every believer, armed with the Bible alone, is a priesthood in and of himself). Of course, neither of these things function consistently, as church tradition and authority are inevitable, if one is to have any sort of orderly assembly. Since various men teach in any given assembly, and since there is such an emphasis on Scripture, the Brethren as a whole tend to know their Bibles much better than any other Evangelical sect. Sadly, they still interpret it wrong. This has tended to keep them from being deceived by the Joel Osteen's of the world, however. They're rarely led away by the nutcases on TV.
Because the Brethren are Restorationists, they tend to be pretty ignorant of church history or historical theology. I did have some education in that regard in Brethren circles, but it was minimal. You do occasionally have some argument for a line of people from the early church down to present day who sought to worship according to Scripture alone. One book that seeks to promote that view is E. H. Broadbent's "The Pilgrim Church". I suppose his argument would be akin to the "Trail of Blood" idea found in some Baptist circles. But this is a rare argument, only found among a handful of the most educated Brethren, and it is truly impossible to substantiate. The idea held by most is that the apostles had it right, but the churches started drifting spiritually and doctrinally during their lifetimes. And after the last of the Apostles died, things took a nosedive spiritually. Constantine added to the troubles, and things weren't really recovered until the 1820's. Since Brethren don't see themselves as having any relation to the Roman Catholic Church, they don't really see themselves as "Protestant", though it's not something that's really talked about or even considered, it seems.
The Plymouth Brethren just think of themselves as "believers in Christ". They don't consider themselves a denomination, and they usually reject the term "Plymouth Brethren". The term was coined by those outside the movement, not by the Brethren themselves, and it has never been widely used in Brethren circles. In fact, I never even heard the terms "Brethren" or "Plymouth Brethren" until I was 19 or 20 years old. At that time, I inquired of one of our elders (who was mentoring me at the time) about the terms, and he filled me in on our history. Prior to that, I guess I had thought we were just another Evangelical subgroup, albeit the one group who got everything right.
I could have been raised in a much worse situation church-wise. Much of what I learned in Brethren circles planted the seeds for where I am today. I only wish they could have come with me when I left their wrong doctrines behind.
So there's one former Brethren's response. I think that covered every matter you raised. If I missed something, or if you have any questions for me, just let me know.
Wow Kerry,
Thanks for the thorough response. This will be most helpful. I'm trying my best to understand those with whom I disagree, but it is like you said, there are much worse theological environments in which one could be raised. The "Brethren" like other movements, have emphases and bents that can help correct our own theological leanings, so I don't want it to seem to anyone as though I think they had everything wrong or that I think everything they got wrong made then UN-Christian--that's not the case. But I am very interested in trying to find out why Dispensational Pre-Millennialism, and why then? I think your comments will help me to move in that direction, especially this one, "Because the Brethren are Restorationists, they tend to be pretty ignorant of church history or historical theology."
Thanks again for you insight. Oh, btw, did the study meet yesterday morning?
We did. Were you out of town? Same crowd showed up, of course. Mysteries were plumbed, eggs were eaten, we had a different waitress, I was half asleep. It was an event.
As far as the Brethren go, I definitely wouldn't recommend it for anyone. The subjective, individualistic aspects of it can be devastating to one's faith, including the notions of a Carnal Christian - Spiritual Christian distinction. For me, it wasn't just that I came to believe that Calminianism and Dispensationalism were wrong, though that was part of it. In other words, it wasn't just abstract theological propositions that I disagreed with. It was a personal struggle to put into practice the false doctrines I was taught, and a realization that they didn't work because they weren't true. When I found Reformed theology, I found it to be both Biblical and the answer to my personal struggle. So while I am thankful for the good things that came out of my life among the Brethren, I have no hesitancy in criticizing them where I think they're wrong. In short, don't feel you need to apologize for being critical. While I fellowship with non-Reformed people all the time, and even have a weekly Bible study with some, their errors are real and sometimes serious ones, and I don't hesitate to tell them so. At the same time, there are non-Reformed people other than the standard Evangelical teachers that I would like Reformed people to consider more than they do, particularly in areas such as liturgy. But that's a subject for another time.
Post a Comment