Bullinger's friends included well-known Zionist Dr. Theodor Herzl. Another close personal and theological friend was the famous Sir Robert Anderson. Bullinger's views were often unique and sometimes controversial. He is so closely tied to what is now called ultradispensationalism that it is sometimes referred to as Bullingerism.
Ironside — declared Bullingerism an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth. Mainstream dispensationalism holds that the Church began at Pentecost , as described early in the Acts of the Apostles. In stark contrast, Bullinger held that the Church , which the Apostle Paul revealed as the Body of Christ , began after the end of Acts, [14] and was not revealed until the Prison Epistles of the Apostle Paul. Bullinger described dispensations as divine "administrations" or "arrangements" under which God deals at distinct time periods and with distinct groups of people "on distinct principles, and the doctrine relating to each must be kept distinct.
Other than ultradispensationalism, Bullinger had many unique views. For example, Bullinger argued that the death of Jesus occurred on a Wednesday, not a Friday, after Pilate had condemned him at the previous midnight, [17] and that Jesus was crucified on a single upright stake without crossbar [18] with four, not just two, criminals and that this last view was supported by a group of five crosses of different origins all with crossbar in Brittany put together in the 18th century.
Bullinger argued for mortality of the soul , the cessation of the soul between death and resurrection. Bullinger was a supporter of the theory of the Gospel in the Stars, which states the constellations to be pre-Christian expressions of Christian doctrine.
As a prolific writer in England during the 19th century, the Archbishop of Canterbury granted him an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree in in recognition of his biblical scholarship. In contrast to his peers within the Church of England Anglo-Catholic , he bravely embraced a dispensational rather than covenantal view of the Bible.
He was born at the zenith of the original Plymouth Brethren and his writings reflect their influence--at least certain portions. Bullinger's writings have successfully helped to clarify a number of dispensational distinctions. However, in spite of being able to see through the darkness of erroneous tradition, this cleric did not separate but remained within the Church of England Anglicanism.
After the turn of the century, Bullinger's works became the doctrinal foundation for several post-Acts 2 -dispensational groups scattered throughout Europe and North America. Most widely known for The Companion Bible -- the Authorized Version of with the Structures and Critical, Explanatory, and Suggestive Notes and with Appendixes Kregel , Bullinger's copious notes contain vast amounts of technical information, typically overwhelming the average reader today. He clearly and faithfully believed that the original canon of Scripture was the inerrant Word of God.
However, his views on biblical inspiration contained subtle error, which in turn caused anomalies in his views regarding interpretation.
While he acknowledged the Holy Spirit as "guide and teacher of His own Word", he did not believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit for the new-creation believer and thus the biblical doctrine of the Spirit's illumination was conspicuously absent from his theology. At a time when German Higher Criticism had inflicted much damage upon Christians, he rightfully lamented the fact that believers were more steeped in religious traditions than in the Word of God. However, his efforts to remedy the situation were deficient and focused on secondary issues.
For Mr. Bullinger, the problem for believers was exclusively one of interpretational methodology. He wrote:. The Root of all the evils which abound in the spiritual sphere at the present day lies in the fact that the Word and the words of God are not fed upon, digested, and assimilated, as they ought to be.
If we ask the question, Why is this the case? The methods and rules by which alone such an understanding may be gained are not known or followed; hence the Bible is a neglected book [emphasis his]. His answer to understanding the Bible, doctrinal truth, and resolution of ecclesiastical division was in applying appropriate methods of interpretation. Due to his failure to clearly understand or articulate the truth of spiritual blindness , all could and would be solved by simply using his comprehensive and technical approach to reading and studying Scripture.
Again he states:. By the aid of these twelve simple canons or rules, other passages and subjects may be taken up and pursued both with pleasure and profit--subjects which are even yet matters of controversy and of conflict. Bullinger did not clearly acknowledge the necessity of the Holy Spirit's sovereign illumination of the Text.
Either he believed that the Fall wasn't serious enough to render man incapable of grasping truth with one's natural abilities, or he believed in the Wesleyan doctrine of common grace, thus siding with Roman Catholicism rather than the Reformation or historic dispensationalism.
Approvingly he quotes a Bishop Butler, who said:. Again, not a word about the Holy Spirit's sovereign ministry of revealing truth John nor of the natural man's inability to understand spiritual things, as expounded by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 2.
In light of his immense intellect, Mr. Bullinger appears strong on man's native ability and weak regarding the sovereignty of God--the root cancer found in all forms of religious humanism, which includes a majority of contemporaries who adhere to Mr. Bullinger's teachings. While he held that God's oversight extended to the original Hebrew and Greek autographs, thus ensuring their inerrancy, he stressed that afterwards there came a great breakdown in divine providence regarding translation work and that English translations were riddled with error due to the application of "erroneous methods and rules".
It would seem he saw himself and his methods 12 Canons of Bible Study as the answer to his self-imposed problem. Bullinger's written works assiduously avoid discussion of quintessential theological issues example: soteriology ; issues which had been debated for centuries.
He erroneously assumed that these truths were self-evident to those who "understood" Scripture. He believed conflict would disappear and unity would be restored to Christendom if believers simply read their Bibles using "appropriate methodologies".
By contrast, we will do well to heed the words of dispensationalist Lewis Sperry Chafer:. There is not the slightest possibility that the most educated and brilliant mind can make one step of progress in the understanding of spiritual truth apart from the direct [sovereign], supernatural teaching to the individual heart by the indwelling [Holy] Spirit. There is no didactic [pedantic] discipline in the world comparable to the teaching of Christ by the Holy Spirit, both because of the fact that infinity characterizes the themes which are taught, and because of the Teacher's method of approach by which He, by the Spirit, enters the innermost recesses of the heart [mind] where impressions originate and there not only tell out the truth of transcendent magnitude, but causes the pupil actually to grasp the things thus revealed.
Lastly, Mr. Bullinger and his followers believed and taught the errors of: soul-extinction--a type of annihilationism and universal reconciliation. Most seriously, they failed to understand the biblical truth of "spiritual death".
Enyart is proof that one need be neither Calvinist nor Covenant in theological orientation to embrace Theonomy. He loudly espouses all of the Mosaic code as the mandatory basis for American Gentile civil law, e. Enyart states, "The Bible is a criminal justice textbook.
Of course, those who get baited into these situations learn rather quickly the power of the mute your opponent technology button that is standard fare in the broadcast industry. Many of Bob Enyart's beliefs are drawn from the works of E. The work is highly praised and promoted by a small cadre of ardent supporters.
While initially his followers disavowed that Bob was a theonomist, Bob Enyart affirms both elements of post-Acts 2 dispensationalism and theonomy. Since being pressed, he now refers to himself as a "dispensational theonomist" and informs his listeners to "get used to that [term] because I think this mix is going to be around for a while. In contrast to current day theonomists, Bob Enyart and associates are militant philosophical indeterminists similar to the heretical Charles G.
Finney and Moral Government Theology. This has led them to embraced views on God similar to those found in 'Process' theology and 'Openness of God' movement. As should come as no surprise, Bob Enyart has embraced Open Theism and now considers himself an "Open Theist" as well. Those who follow these erroneous ideas would do well to consider the warning of Dr.
It is thus demonstrated that the erroneous exaltation of human ability [free will] in the beginning becomes man's effectual undoing in the end. This "undoing" can readily be seen in the bizarre rationalizations, arguments, and teachings put forth at the sect's theological clearinghouse-- TheologyOnline.
Ecclesiastes is correct, then all other scriptures bearing on the point will fall into line. But, alas, we have to show that his interpretation is plainly a false one, and that the subsequent texts adduced as proofs are by him twisted and misrepresented in shocking fashion.
It is the case of a man getting a fixed idea into his mind, and then making everything conform to it. He becomes the slave of an idea. But let us see if Eccl. Ecclesiastes teaches all that Dr. Bullinger dogmatically says it does. When death supervenes a dead man is completely out of touch with his earthly environment. He knows nothing of his former surroundings. Let us quote the passage in full: "The dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun" Eccl. Indeed, to explain the passage as Dr. Bullinger does is to go too far, even for him. He teaches the resurrection, but here in this passage the dead have no more a portion forever. This can be true only as far as this world is concerned. A dead person will never have a portion in this life forever.
But to take it literally, as Dr. Bullinger does, would shut out the resurrection. Indeed, if the man ceases to exist, it is not a resurrection that can take place, but a re-creation. But when it is seen that the outlook Solomon had was "under the sun," all is plain and simple. Bullinger builds up a whole theory on a gross misinterpretation of a single verse.
It is significant that Dr. Bullinger begins his proofs by quoting Old Testament passages. It is not that the Old Testament is not equally inspired and equally authoritative as the New Testament, but that the New Testament gives fuller light on such subjects as we are examining. Christadelphian and Adventist writers do the same thing. They base their anti-Christian theories on misinterpreted Old Testament scriptures. Reviewing a Christadelphian writer, the late F. Grant in his monumental work, "Facts and Theories as to.
Roberts, a Christadelphian writer], out of over fifty passages produced, nine belong to the New Testament and forty-seven to the Old. Whilst out of the passages which he thinks might be adduced as against his views though scanty in number , nine out of ten are from the New Testament Really does it not seem a question between the Old Testament and the New? It is not that; but still there is a tale that these quotations tell, the moral of which will be found in 2 Tim.
That means that these writers are groping for light amid the shadows of a dispensation where was yet upon this subject comparative darkness. They look at death as it existed before Christ had for the believer abolished it. They look at life there where as yet it had not been 'brought to light. It is no wonder that Dr. Bullinger was quoted as an authority in a debate by Miles Grant, a prominent Annihilationist.
On page 6 Dr. Bullinger quotes a scripture that completely upsets his own theory: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it" Eccl. Ecclesiastes But this is just what Dr. Bullinger denies. He writes: "Where Scripture is silent, we may well be silent too; and, therefore, as to the spirit and its possibilities between dying and resurrection we have not said, and do not say, anything. Bullinger has just said the very opposite of this on the strength of his misapplication of Eccl.
Now he affirms that he dare not contradict the statement that the spirit returns to God when the dust returns to the earth. But he plainly does contradict this. He is not consistent. Then he has a fling at his bugbear-"Tradition. As to Spiritualists they are not Christians at all.
So his fling is rather misjudged. We wonder how he would have explained Eccl. If Dr. Bullinger had followed that out he never would have been a clergyman, or preached, or written books and pamphlets. To take this passage other than in its manifest setting would be arrant folly; it would necessitate the throwing aside of the Sermon on the Mount, and all the exhortations to the heights of Christian living, just as Dr.
Bullinger has refused the fuller light of the New Testament by pinning his faith to a misconception of an Old Testament passage. Verily he builds a grotesque superstructure on a handful of shifting sand.
0コメント