| Re: |
Being a Lawyer allowed Mauro to be very effective in his doublespeak.
One sentence this, another the complete opposite when speaking to
"Mr. Mauro's system of dispensational teaching can only produce confusion and reduce the Word of God to chaos in the minds of his readers. In the following quotation he throws overboard the whole teaching of Scripture as to our Lord being specially the King of the Jews. He says: "Specially is it to be remembered that the true Israel was never at any time, in the purpose of God, an earthly nation or kingdom.
This being recognized, it will be clearly perceived without any further help from the Scriptures, that the whole rabbinical doctrine of an earthly Kingdom over which the Messiah,' the son of David, was to reign and, to which all the nations of the world were to be tributory, was from top to bottom a work of their carnal imaginations" (The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 123). Here we are told that the idea that the Lord shall be King over Israel is simply a rabbinical idea, that it is not taken from Scripture in any shape or form. We are aghast at such a contradiction of Scripture.
Let us quote a few scriptures to prove this.
When the angel came to Mary with the news of the high honor that was to be put upon her, he said to her: "Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever: and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:30-33).
Surely this is explicit enough for anyone. Christ is to sit on David's throne, and reign over the house of Jacob. Mr. Mauro says this is a rabbinical conception, from top to bottom.
If this is so, how was it that the wise men of the east came to Jerusalem, asking, Where is He that is born King of the Jews? They had seen His star in the east, and had come to worship Him. When Herod heard of this he was troubled, and called the chief priests and scribes and demanded to know where Christ should be born. How did they reply? Was it rabbinical conception, or did they appeal to Scripture? They appealed to Scripture, and there is no appeal from this surely. They quoted from Mic. 5:2: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be RULER in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Here our Lord is to be RULER in Israel. It could not be more explicit.
Take another scripture from Isa. 9:6, 7: "For unto us is born a Child, unto us a Son is given: and the GOVERNMENT shall be on His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, UPON THE THRONE OF DAVID, AND UPON HIS KINGDOM TO ORDER IT, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever." Surely this is as plain as possible.
We all remember the wonderful entry of our Lord into Jerusalem, riding on the colt of an ass in fulfillment of the prophecy: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, THY KING cometh unto thee: He is just and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass" (Zech. 9:9). Other Scriptures might be adduced to prove that Christ is the King of the Jews. He Himself acknowledged to Pilate that He was King. His cross bore the superscription, "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matt. 27:37).
Enough has been given in the way of proof texts.
We ask then, Has Christ sat on the throne of His father, David, in Jerusalem and reigned in righteousness and peace? We know this has not taken place as yet. Scripture awaits its fulfillment. Christ is to be King over Israel yet.
One more passage, however, we quote to show how the King is going to reign: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. "In His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is His name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
"Therefore the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt: but, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land" (Jer. 23:5-8).
Two or three things are prominent in this passage. First, a King is to be raised up unto David. Second, that the King is JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, identifying Him with our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. Thirdly, the children of Israel are to be gathered from the north country whither the Lord has driven them, and they are to dwell in their own land. The teaching that the Jews are to be gathered to their own land in unbelief, that according to Zechariah the spirit of grace and of supplications will be granted to them, and they shall look upon their Messiah whom they have pierced, and mourn for Him as a man mourns for his only son, falls into line with the whole scheme of prophecy concerning Israel. It cannot be said that anything like this has ever taken place.
To try, as Mr. Mauro attempts, to prove that this was fulfilled when a matter of scarcely 50,000 Jews returned from Babylon in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah is simply the despair of exegesis. That was "a trickling stream" compared to what is happening at this present time.
That the Jews will go back in unbelief is clear from Scripture. It was the believing Jews that went back to Jerusalem in the days of Ezra, men whose spirit God had raised to go up to build the house of God at Jerusalem, as we read in Ezra 1:5. Scripture, however, clearly shows that in the future the Jews will return to their own land in unbelief: "I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. THEN [not before] will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean... a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you.... I will put My Spirit within you.... Ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers.... I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded... the heathen that are left round about shall know that I the Lord built the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the Lord have spoken it and I will do it" (Ezek. 36:24-36).
Surely it speaks of blindness as to what is happening under our very eyes, to question what is developing at the present time. The Jews ARE going back in unbelief, but in no "trickling stream." The wastes ARE being builded. Tel Aviv, for instance, is built on the desolate sand-dunes of a few brief years ago. "
| 2016/3/26 18:33|
| Re: |
One thing that I liked about Jim Fowler's study on Revelation is the following:
"These varying interpretations are not issues to fight over. There is value in each of them. From the preterist we can learn that Christianity is contextually rooted in the past, and so is the Revelation. From the historicist we can learn that Christianity is continually timely, and so is the Revelation. From the Futurist we can learn that Christianity is confidently hopeful for the future, and so is the Revelation. From the Triumphalist we can learn that Christianity is constantly recognizing Christ's victory, and the book of Revelation certainly reveals such.
Regardless of which interpretive method one employs, one has to admit that there is symbolism in Revelation that pictures the triumph of Christ; the letter was first written to historical churches in Asia in the past, back in the first century; it is a revelation that has had some message for Christians throughout history; and Revelation does speak of the ultimate victory of Christ at the end of time in the future.
In this study we will employ a Christocentic or Christological interpretation that would probably be a sub-category of the Triumphalist or Symbolic interpretation.
The reason I employ the Christocentric-Triumphalist interpretation of Revelation is because it seems to me to provide the best consistency with the interpretation of the rest of the Scriptures. The Bible is consistent in its message from beginning to end, and the Bible is the best commentary on the Bible. The consistency of this interpretation is seen from its:"
| 2016/3/26 18:35|
| Re: |
"The reason I employ the Christocentric-Triumphalist interpretation of Revelation is because it seems to me to provide the best consistency with the interpretation of the rest of the Scriptures. The Bible is consistent in its message from beginning to end, and the Bible is the best commentary on the Bible. The consistency of this interpretation is seen from its:"
When will Jim Fowler begin to interpret the Bible this way?
And why do you, Julius keep pretending that you are not a preterist when you continually betray yourself by your words and the authors you continually quote?
What is your agenda to continually bombard this place with this heretical nonsense?
| 2016/3/26 19:36|
| Re: |
Brothers I Marvel at the complexities of theology. And what men will employ to convince us of doctrines that are simply not taught in the New Testament.
Our Presbyterian brethren develop a complicated theology called The Covenant of Grace to justify the baptism of infants.
The cessionists develop a strange theology based on the canonization of scripture at the end of the first century. They do this to say that spiritual gifts are no longer in operation in this day in age. That is the same gifts of the prophetic gifts.
Others will come along to distort the scriptures to say that hell is not eternal.
And they're at those that are distorting the scriptures that seek to justify same-sex marriage.
And the praeterist comes along and develops a complicated theokigy to say that all prophetic events were fulfilled in 70 AD.
It's interesting in the doctrines above that one must appeal to a complicated theology to prove these doctrines true.
A simple reading of the New Testament will show that only believers in Christ are baptized.
A simple reading of the New Testament will show that the sign gifts are still in operation and have never ceased.
A simple reading of the New Testament was show that hell is eternal.
A simple reading of the New Testament will show that marriage is between a man and a woman.
A simple reading of the New Testament will show that Christ has yet to return.
William Tyndale who gave us the English Bible had only one goal in mind. He wanted to give a Bible where the ploughboy and the milkmaid could get truth directly from God and not from the priest of the Roman Catholic Church. Or any other ecclesiastical authority or theologian.
We have the Holy Spirit and the word of God today. I don't need to read a complicated theology book to see their preatetism is lacking. As a matter of fact praetetism is simply not taught in the scriptures. And that Christ is yet to return.
| 2016/3/26 20:10|
| Re: |
Thank you for your thoughts, as always Bearmaster. No one is shouting you down or preventing you from having a conversation.
If we have the truth, what is there to fear? The Bereans were good listeners and also had a teachable heart, yet, searched the scriptures diligently to see if the things Paul told them were true. So many things that Paul said are being rejected, today.
Blessing to you, dear brother.
| 2016/3/26 20:49|
| Re: Julius|
Bro don't feel like I'm being shouted down. Having a conversation. Have searched the scriptures. Don't find praeterism to be true. As well as the other doctrines I mentioned in my previous post.
| 2016/3/26 21:02|
| Re: |
Well said Blaine.
There's no fear Julius. I have listened to the arguments & they just don't "smell right" (discern something not quite right). Even some of the pre-tribbers (the real dispensationalists) can make a decent argument if you follow the rabbit trail with tunnel vision glasses on. But if you know the whole/full counsel of scripture, you know it ain't the truth. Preterism is like that too. I have Sam Storms' book called "Kingdom Come" & in fairness plan on reading it after I finish reading Joel Richardson's book I'm reading now, "When a Jew Rules the World". But I know the scriptures & I don't think you should need a preterist teacher with charts & prethought specific usages of scriptures to explain God's intent on so great a subject. And really, as I have said before, what jumped off the page to me was in Acts where before Christ's ascension the disciples asked, "when will come to restore the kingdom to Israel" & he just said, "it is not for you to know the times or seasons, only my father." Jesus in many other places corrected wrong understanding in the disciples' statements. If Preterism is true & there is no coming restoration of Israel where all Israel will be saved, why didn't he correct their ignorance? Or as preterists like to say, "was God trying to just confuse them?" (When twisting scripture references to make their point).
Anyways, I have heard & read the arguments, & I don't fear them. I just don't buy them. Sorry.
| 2016/3/26 21:06|
| Re: |
Hey Blane, I don't find preterism to be true either.
| 2016/3/26 22:29|
| Algernon J. Pollock |
The excerpt that Rev__Enue posted was written by Algernon J. Pollock 1864-1957. A Plymouth Brethren * minister. and a dispensationalist.
The entire critique can be found at : http://bibletruthpublishers.com/a-brief-examination-of-mr-philip-mauros-later-views-on-dispensational-truth/a-j-pollock/lbd15072
another excerpt from the same artical Algernon J. Pollock writes :
"Mr. Mauro weakens his whole position by the virulence of his attack on the well-known Scofield Bible. In his introduction to his volume, "The Gospel of the Kingdom," he writes: "Through an incident of recent occurrence I was made aware of the extent-far greater than I had imagined-to which the modern system of dispensationalism* has found acceptance among orthodox christians; and also of the extent-correspondingly great-to which the recently published 'Scofield' Bible (which is the main vehicle of the new system of doctrine referred to) has usurped the place of authority that belongs to God's Bible alone" (p. 5). Now this seems to us to be a really bitter and virulent attack. We are not able to subscribe to every note in the Scofield Bible, but we are bound to admit that Dr. Scofield has got together a large number of very helpful notes, explanatory of the text of Scripture, and remarkable in their combination of clarity, conciseness and general correctness.
(*Throughout this pamphlet we reproduce extracts from Mr. Mauro's works exactly as they are. Italics and capitals in every case are his.)
In this note Mr. Mauro charges Dr. Scofield with usurping the place of authority which belongs to God's Word alone. Can he substantiate this charge? Does not Dr. Scofield print in the Bible which bears his name, the authorized text from Genesis to Revelation without the alteration of a single word? Dr. Scofield's notes are distinct from the text. They are explanatory and helpful. They do not claim to be inspired.
His notes are on a par with a servant of the Lord who stands up, reads a portion of Scripture, and then seeks to expound it to his hearers to the best of his ability. The one does it by word of mouth; Dr. Scofield does it by writing. How unjust it would be to denounce every servant of the Lord who stands up to give an exegetical address, as usurping the place that belongs to God's Bible alone! The so-called Scofield Bible is GOD'S Bible, whatever Mr. Mauro may say. It is within his province to express his opinion as to the wisdom of the explanatory notes or otherwise, but he has clearly gone beyond the bounds of fair criticism in this case.
Mr. Mauro returns to the attack: "It is a matter of grief to me that a book should exist wherein the corrupt words of mortal man are printed on the same page with the holy Words of the living God; this mixture of the precious and the vile being made an article of sale, entitled a 'Bible,' and distinguished by a man's name" (The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 6). To write off the notes in the Scofield Bible in this sweeping fashion as "corrupt" and "vile" is going far too far. One's moral sense is shocked by such utterly unfair treatment.
It is true that Mr. Mauro makes a frank acknowledgment of a very unchristian state of mind that marked him when he held the views he now attacks. He says: "It is mortifying to remember that I not only held and taught these novelties myself, but that I even enjoyed a complacent sense of superiority because thereof, and regarded with feelings of pity and contempt those who had not received the 'new light,' and were unacquainted with this up-to-date method of 'rightly dividing the word of truth.'... Yet I was among those who eagerly embraced it (upon human authority solely for there is none other), and who earnestly pressed it upon my fellow-Christians" (The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 6.).
All honor to Mr. Mauro for this frank acknowledgment. It would have been out of good taste to have referred to it in this pamphlet, if it had not been that he is committing the same fault in the book we are reviewing. Proverbs tells us, "Whoso confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall have mercy." We may well ask in the light of the extracts we have just given, Has Mr. Mauro forsaken, as well as confessed, the wrong attitude he took towards those he differed from? It does not look like it. The virulence of his attack on the Scofield Bible, the recklessness of his accusations, are surprising in a lawyer, and above all in a Christian teacher. We wonder if he does not even now view with "pity" and "contempt" those who hold the views he once held and pressed, but which he has now renounced.
Here is a statement, referring to the Scofield Bible, that far exceeds the bounds of common fairness: "There is no doubt whatever that it is mainly to this cleverly executed work that dispensationalism owes its present vogue. For without that aid it doubtless would be clearly seen by all who give close attention to this doctrine, that it is a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible, and not a scheme of doctrine derived from it" (The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 21).
Mr. Mauro cannot complain of these extracts being reproduced, seeing he has written them himself, and wishes for their widest circulation. It is only just and right to take account of the way he treats the notes in the Scofield Bible and its Editor. Dr. Scofield's editorship refers solely to the notes and comments on the Bible that bears his name, and not to the Bible itself.
Back to top
Dispensation or Era
Mr. Mauro sets off by describing the dispensational teaching presented in the notes in the Scofield Bible as Modernism, ancient Rabbinism, and even akin to Russell-ism. And yet he once firmly believed it, and found support in the Word of God for it, but now has no terms too strong in which to denounce it.
What is meant by the dispensational teaching that is particularly engaging our attention? Briefly, it began with the preaching of John the Baptist, that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, followed up by our Lord and His apostles proclaiming the same truth. That consequent on the rejection of our Lord by the Jews, the Kingdom of Heaven is in mystery; that is, it is not in display; that when the present Church period is closed by the rapture, the Jews, gathered to their own land in unbelief, will pass through unparalleled judgments, culminating in the Great Tribulation, as foretold by our
Lord, followed by His coming as the Messiah to reign over His ancient people and over the world as King of kings and Lord of lords, the Kingdom lasting for 1,000 years, commonly called the Millennium, the Kingdom in manifestation in all its splendor, no longer in mystery. Then "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Hab. 2:14).
This dispensational teaching was in vogue on both sides of the Atlantic long years before the Scofield Bible saw the light. It was taught by such spiritual giants' as J. N. Darby, W. Kelly, C. E. Stuart, C. H. Mackintosh, W. Trotter, F. W. Grant, Walter Scott, etc., and cannot be rightly described as "a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible."
| 2016/3/26 22:49||Profile|
| Re: Algernon J. Pollock |
Amazing! proudpapa, believe it or not, my first Bible when I got saved overseas was the Scofield bible. From that time as a young man in my early 20's, I grew up in the Lord on the KJV and I memorized scripture without even thinking about it. I used to read all of Scofield's notes convinced that if they were in the Bible they were accurate. After awhile, devouring the Word and tuning my spiritual ears to the voice behind the Word, I realized that Scofield's notes were another voice and "another voice His sheep will not follow". At that time I knew nothing about nothing, just knew that Scofield's notes were not jiving with what I was reading in God's word. So, I got the Thompson Chain Reference and have had that one ever since. I felt no animosity towards Scofield, it was the beginning of my education where I was to learn that even author's of Bibles, Lexicons and study aids can be wrong. And no one, has all the truth. I go back to what Jim Fowler said about something can be learned from all the eschatological positions.
And this was a transition for me out of dispensationalism of Scofield, that took a long time because in my early days in the Lord, I was much too busy as an evangelist and did not get into serious study of Revelation until later. Like Philip Mauro, I have sympathy for others who line up with Scofield. How could I not? I like what you said about "light" in your piece about Mauro and Thomas Edison. Light does not force it's way in, it waits for an opening and then it cannot help but come in. I have found that to be true in my own life.
| 2016/3/27 0:02|