Get Rid of the Companion Bible, Bullinger was a False Teacher!

companion-bible

“For those who lived under the Law it could rightly and truly be said, ‘It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He hath commanded us’. But to those who live in this present Dispensation of Grace it is as truly declared, ‘By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight’. But this is the very opposite of Deuteronomy 6:25. What, then, are we to say or to do? Which of these two statements is true and which is false? The answer is that neither is false. But both are true if we would rightly divide the Word of Truth as to its dispensational truth and teaching. Two words distinguish the two dispensations: ‘Do’ distinguished the former; ‘Done’ the latter. Then salvation depended upon what man was to do, now it depends upon what Christ has done.” – E.W. Bullinger, How to Enjoy the Bible, pg 108.

That portion of the last sentence italicized will demonstrate how Bullinger promoted a false gospel – that salvation was by works in a former dispensation. This was the same error that Darby invented and Scofield made popular.

Salvation is, was and ever shall be dependent on Jesus Christ’s shed blood and our receiving of His righteousness by faith alone. No one in any former dispensation received saving grace by the keeping of the commandments of Moses. These so-called dispensations are man made impositions upon the text that negate the word of God.

I am well acquainted with the thought E.W. Bullinger. He is a heretic. If you are relying on his study bible for insight into the meaning of the text then there is a good chance you’ve been deceived.

Murray had a lot of bad influences to inspire his false system of religion. We recently covered the immense impact of Swift and the racist identity crowd in forming Murray’s ideas but these pale in comparison to the influence 19th century hyper-dispensationalist E.W. Bullinger.

Hyper-dispensationalism was a more noxious flavor of C.I. Scofield’s dispensationalism. Bullinger himself taught a pre-trib rapture. Bullinger also taught a form of soul sleep where the person’s body, soul and spirit die at death. Add to this the demonic doctrine of annihilationism.

Here’s what Harry Ironside, a classic dispensationalist preacher had to say about Bullinger’s teaching:

I have no hesitancy in saying that its fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands; it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth.”

On the surface Bullinger seems like a brilliant and thorough theologian but let’s look a little deeper at what he was teaching…

If you’ve ever listened to Murray long enough you will hear him continually promote this overpriced study bible called the Companion Bible. His praise for this work knows no bounds. It’s within Bullinger’s notes, and appendices that we find the vipers. Not to mention many of his pamphlets which give a further clarification of his religious system.

I have studied the Companion Bible’s notes for quite some time. I know firsthand what is in it – if you have one you need to be aware that you’ve been misled. If you don’t have one, don’t waste your money on it.

Murray didn’t adopt all of Bullinger’s errors, such as the pre-tribulation rapture or soul sleep but the vast majority of it he did incorporate.

I have covered all of these issues at various points but here are a few notable false teachings of E.W. Bullinger, most of these can be seen formulated in his appendices:

* Annihilationism; that there is no eternal conscious judgment. Bullinger taught this.

* Hyper-dispensationalism; that Paul’s teaching was something very distinct from the apostles and the rest of scripture. I’m not going to get deep into this but it is a red flag that Bullinger has created a pervasive system of error. Asserts that the church began in Acts 9 and that communion, baptism and the gospels were not for the church.

* soul sleep, In Bullinger’s pamphlet The Rich Man and Lazarus Bullinger teaches that the death of spirit, soul and body take place.

* denies the personhood of the Holy Spirit, essentially non-Trinitarian but not modalist. Murray uses positions like this affirm modalism. In a recent broadcast Dennis Murray reiterated the “offices” concept of the Godhead. In other words, the Holy Spirit is not a person but merely a manifestation or power of God.

* none the four beasts of Daniel 7 are not historic but rather future world empires – Murray teaches the same thing.

* Noah’s perfection not moral, but genetic – you hear Murray talk about this all the time to prove that Genesis is about fallen angels having sex with women… Noah’s lineage was untainted by the DNA of fallen angels. Murray’s teachings about this are straight from Bullinger. This is from his Appendix 26.

* Nachash, the serpent… E.W. presents the idea that the serpent in the garden was Satan de facto; he asserts that the word for serpent means “glistening one”. Murray takes this and runs with it. Essentially, no literal serpent in the garden. Appendix 19.

* the Gap theory, Katabole – this is probably the biggest one. Bullinger provides the nuts and bolts for Murray’s katabole and elaborate ideas about pre-existence. E.W. basically tries to prove a point that everywhere the word “foundation” is used in the NT it really means the overthrow, presupposing a satanic rebellion before Adam and Eve. Bullinger taught that God created everything, destroyed it and remade it. This was a popular notion during his day. Murray takes it to another level of delusion though.

* Sons of God are the fallen angels who had sex with women – Bullinger provided Murray with the premise that angels can have sex with women and sire monstrosities. This is the reason for the flood we are told.

* Gospel is encoded in the pagan zodiac – Bullinger essentially Christianizes the pagan zodiac and tells us that the original zodiac contained the proto-evangelion and was corrupted.

* Biblical numerics – because of Bullinger’s work here biblical numbers in Murray’s teaching take on an occult significance.

There’s a lot more I’m going to add, I’m going to go back of E.W. Bullinger’s works very soon.

Advertisements

Author: Timothy Campbell

Independent researcher exposing Joel's Army / Latter-Rain Movement, Christian evangelist and helping to expose the plot of the ages - the church will be here during the great tribulation (or Golden Age of Gaia) and will have resist the beast and his mark...

103 thoughts on “Get Rid of the Companion Bible, Bullinger was a False Teacher!”

  1. I am not aware of any place that EW Bullinger offers any prophetic statements. He never said he was a prophet.

    Christianity has many different flavors. Jesus told us that we would not be united. The only idea of a united body is in Jesus’ return. It is okay that you do not agree with Bullinger. But claiming that he was a prophet, and a false prophet at that? Come on now.

    Like

    1. Actually in his notes he has plenty to say about prophecy that Murray picks up and regurgitates. His notes for the last portion Daniel, for example. He was hyperdispensational so there is a whole universe of false teaching there. He believed in a pre-trib rapture but I don’t bring that up. But simply the fact that he denies the person of the Holy Spirit is enough to qualify him as a false prophet. Would you rather I call him a false teacher? Bullinger was Murray’s chief influence and one of the main reasons we find what we do with him. You don’t believe me when I tell you how destructive these teachings are but I have intimate first hand experience with his and the chapel’s lies.

      Like

      1. I am not aware of anywhere that he presents himself as a prophet.

        I am not aware of anything that he prophesied.

        I do not see how the label of prophet or false-prophet fits?

        He analysed prophecies, that does not make him a prophet.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Definition: a person regarded as an inspired teacher. Maybe I have more flexible definition of what a prophet is? He is supposedly uncovering deep and hidden mysteries of the scripture like the gospel in the stars, biblical numerology, the mystery concerning the foundations of the world, et. al and proclaiming the truth of these things — I can give you example after example. In his notes on Daniel 7 he declared that the four beasts of Daniel are yet future and that is false prophecy. Do you have a copy companion bible? If not how can you be aware of anything he prophesied? What is your definition of a prophet?

        Like

      3. I have used a Companion Bible since the 1970s.

        There are five ministries that God gave to the Church. Prophet is one of those ministries. A prophet speaks messages from God to the Church.

        A ‘false’ prophet is one who claims to be proclaiming messages from God, but is not.

        Bullinger was a theologian. He studied the Bible. He presented his research. I am not aware of his ever prophesying.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. I would suggest you get rid of it as well — Bullinger’s dispensationalism is just another variety of Scofield. In fact, I’m about to get into a whole next series of articles refuting the errors of the premillennialism… you should really enjoy that. Premillennialism like Murray and the pre-trib crowd teaches is lie.

        Like

      5. My goal is to get them to reconsider Murray’s teaching and that they would ultimately have some conviction and turn from idolatrous false religion to Christ. This blog is about a year old – in it’s infancy. Alot of people complain about how I put the information forth but false teachers need to be called out as they truly hurt people and lead them astray. I’m just trying to get the main ideas out there and there is so much, I’ve just begun my work of deconstructing the Chapel’s doctrine for all to see.

        Like

  2. You’re obviously partial to Bullinger – I use the term “prophet” loosely. I would use it of anyone who proclaims God’s word, not of someone who receives direct revelation from God. False teacher or false theologian would be the better terminology? It’s all semantic. The question is, are you not aware of any of this man’s false teachings? I bring them up to show from where a vast portion of Murray’s delusions emanate.

    Like

  3. Using words ‘loosely’ leads to bad doctrine. Rightly dividing the Word of God, requires that we honestly study God Words in context and in it’s exacting detail. Loose hodge-podging of the God’s Word is poor habit.

    Like

  4. Hmm… we’ve devolved into a semantic discussion. You don’t seem interested in discussing Bullinger’s doctrine and misuse of scripture – nor it’s influence on Murray. He’s a false teacher – but I could also call him a false prophet as well and be justified in doing so. That Companion Bible you study is replete with error and it is Arnold Murray’s chief influence.

    Like

    1. E.W. Bullinger tried to be as exhaustive in his research as possible. Figures of speech, Hebrew idioms, language poetry patterns, and cross-indexing. He did a lot.

      Anyone who is interested in purely studying God’s Written Word, should consider using a Companion as a daily study Bible.

      Like

  5. No Christian holds all truth! Bullinger was a superb scholar and teacher. I have over the years come to enjoy his works very much. One such example is his treatise on the The Rich Man and Lazarus expose. I learned more about the true nature of shell, hades, gehenna, soul, spirit, etc. from this single reading then 25 years of pulpit preaching! I became a believer of annihilationism after reading this.

    Like

      1. Let me ask you a question, and then I will try to answer yours, but have you read Ryrie’s book: Dispensationalism, the revised and expanded edition, 1995, 2007 Moody Pub.? If not, you really need to read it!

        Of course I believe in the fulfillment of the NT Covenant, as ‘In Christ’, but the Old Testament or Covenant has some aspect of continuity or connectedness in the NT. But when we look at the promises of God to Covenant Israel, some of them are simply NOT fulfilled or of coherence to us Gentiles. Note, Acts 15 / 1 Cor. 10: 32. And what if the Millennium is literal, is this a time for the Church of God? And is everything just so-called spiritual in the visible Kingdom of God? Lots of OT verses and promises towards literal and National Israel! (Acts 3: 19- 21, etc.) And in Acts 28: 26-28, the Jews reject the Gospel as a people and Nation! But what of Matthew 23:39, and that “till you say, Blessed is He that comes in the name of the Lord.” Not to mention Zechariah 14 with Rev. 1: 7! Jesus is Coming Again to Israel! (Not downtown LA, or London!)

        Like

      2. I interpret OT scripture in light of NT revelation – Paul said that Christ broke down the middle wall of partition and that we are all made one body by the shedding of his blood. I see the elect as one people of God and one body – not two. The division makes no sense in light of other very clear passages.

        Like

      3. Christ is presently seated on David’s throne at the right hand of God…

        “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

        He now rules all nations with a rod of iron – He must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet. I do not buy the argument that Christ is not reigning in His kingdom right now. He reigns in heaven with His saints and here on earth we reign with Him but we must overcome…

        John 5:28-29…

        “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

        I do not see a gap of a thousand years between the resurrection of the just and the unjust here as you do, there are many NT examples to the contrary, such as this passage – this would have been a perfect time for Jesus to speak up about his future millennial earthly reign. When Jesus returns the elements will melt with fervent heat… it will be Judgment Day.

        You want me to interpret the bulk of clear passages dealing with the resurrection in light of an obscure passage from an apocalyptic book that is replete with symbolic language. I simply cannot.

        I should interpret Revelation 20 in light of the clearer passages dealing with the resurrection.

        Like

      4. Never read Ryrie’s book. My soul is so contrary to dispensational doctrine that I can hardly refrain from belting out a litany of ad hominems. Christ is seated on David’s throne, NOW. Not in the future. The dispensationalists deny this simple fact.

        Christ’s reign on David’s throne IS the millennial reign. It is heavenly reign but believers on earth participate in the administering of His kingdom on earth. Overcomers and martyrs in this life reign with Him in heaven as the believers in Thyatira…

        “And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.” – Revelation 2:26-27

        Those believers received that promise upon death… and it is a promise extended to ALL overcomers during this age.

        “I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” – Psalms 2:7-9

        Like

      5. @Timothy: First, and again, I have BEEN where your at, and again both AMILL and POSTMILL over time, being of course Reformed! But when I went to Gulf War 1, and after, this all came crashing down, both practically and theologically! And of course too, living and teaching in Modern Israel was a big learning curve! But, if we follow out your logic, then we must conclude that GOD is a conditional God, and certainly NOT a sovereign and a true providential God! For if God did NOT keep faith with National Israel, who knows what He will do even now? No, the whole “doctrine” of God is based upon God’s own faithfulness and His ability to keep His covenant promises and people! And again we Gentiles and Nations only come under Israel’s covenant promises, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek or Gentile.” (Romans 15: 8-9)

        And finally, Eschatology makes no sense if God again is not faithful to National and Modern Israel! The whole doctrine of The Day of the Lord and the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Messiah and Lord are first toward Israel! See, Zechariah 13: 8 & 9, with the whole of chapter 14! (Also Rev. 1: 7 and verses 1: 19, looking back to verses 1-3, “The Revelation (singular) of Jesus Christ… “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those thing which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”! Again, Jesus/Yeshua is Coming to Jerusalem and the Mount of Olivet, and NOT the United States, or Britain! Of course both will be affected, but GOD is only interested in His Covenant Promises, and here National Israel is first, and then only the Gentiles and Nations!

        Again, there is not two ways of salvation, but there are different purposes of God, first Israel and only then the Gentile Nations! Again, see both Ryrie’s lastest version of his book: Dispensationalism, as too Blaising and Bock’s book: Progressive Dispensationalism. And I am NOT a classic old school dispensationalist, but a “Progressive” one! Historic Pre-Mill; Post-Trib. But again, the Millennium is very important, and surely foremost towards National Israel! Our God is a/the Judeo-Christian God!

        Like

      6. What do you make of this passage?

        “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified…” – Romans 4:13-14

        Seems the Abrahamic promises were expanded to include the whole world, and those who believe by faith, the church…

        Like

      7. And who could find fault with this? Not me! And I am an evangelical Anglican too!

        Christ In The Separate Books Of The Word
        by E.W. Bullinger

        In GENESIS we shall understand the record of Creation (ch. i.), for we shall see in it the counterpart of our new creation in Christ Jesus (II Cor. v. 17). In the light which shined out of darkness (Gen. i. 2, 3) we shall see the light which has shone “in our hearts to give the knowledge of the glory of God in the face (or person) of Jesus Christ” (II Cor. iv. 6). No wonder that those who know nothing of this spiritual light of the New Creation know nothing of the light that was created on the first day as revealed in the record of the old creation. 1 The natural man sees only a myth and an old wives’ fable in the Creation record, and seems actually to prefer the Babylonian corruption of primitive truth. These “other Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart” (Eph. iv. 17,18). Woe be to those who follow these blind leaders, for “they shall both fall into the ditch” they have prepared for themselves by their fleshly knowledge and worldly wisdom. In the Creator we shall see Christ (John i. 3. Col. i. 16).
        In the first Adam we shall see the last Adam (I Cor. xv. 45. Rom. v. 14). In the first man we shall see “the second man, the Lord, from heaven” (I Cor. xv. 47).
        In the “seed of the woman” (Gen. iii. 15) we shall see the coming son of Abraham, the son of David, the Son of man, the Son of God; while those who are in the black darkness of Rome see either a helpless Infant, or a dead man, and a living woman – the Virgin Mary; having corrupted their Authorized Vulgate Version (in Gen. iii, 15), 2 to make it the foundation of this blasphemy.
        In Abraham’s shield we shall see the Living Word, coming, speaking, and revealing Himself to him (ch. xv. 1. John viii. 56).
        In Isaac we shall see Christ the true seed of Abraham (Rom. ix. 7. Gal. iii. 16). In the Annunciation to the Mother (Gen. xviii. 10. Luke i. 30-33), the miraculous conception (Gen. xviii. 14. Luke i. 35) and the pre-natal naming (Gen. xvii. 19. Matt. i. 21. Luke i. 31; ii. 21). In the projected death of the one we see the foreshadowing of the other, two thousand years before, and on the same mountain, Moriah; and this Mount, selected not by chance, or for convenience (for it was three days journey), but appointed in the Divine counsels as the site of the future altar of burnt offering (Gen. xxii. 2. I Chron. xxi. 28-xxii. 1. 2 Chron. iii. 1). In the wood laid upon Isaac (Gen. xxii. 6), and not carried by the servants or on the ass, we shall see Him who was led forth bearing His Cross (John xix. 17).
        In Joseph, of whom the question was asked, “Shalt thou indeed reign over us?” we see Him of whom His brethren afterwards said, “We will not have this man to reign over us” (Luke xix. 14). But we see the sufferings of the one followed by the glory, as we shall surely see the glory of the true Joseph following His sufferings in the fulness of time (1 Pet. i. 11), of which glory we shall be the witnesses, and partakers (1 Pet. iv. 13; v. 1).
        We must not pursue this great subject or principle in its further details, though we have but touched the fringe of it, even in the book of Genesis. As the Lord Jesus began at Moses so have we only made a beginning, and must leave our readers to follow where we have pointed out the way.
        It may be well, however, for us to indicate one or two of the leading points of the other books of the Old Testament.

        EXODUS tells of the sufferings and the glory of Moses, as Genesis does of Joseph, and in both we see a type of the sufferings and glory of Christ.
        Joseph’s sufferings began with his rejection, his own brethren asking, “Shalt thou indeed reign over us? Or shalt thou indeed have dominion over us ?” (Gen. xxxvii. 8). Moses’ sufferings began with his rejection and the question of “two men of the Hebrews,” – “Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us?” (Exod. ii. 14). In all this we see the rejection of Christ by a similar question, the thought of their hearts being put into their lips, in the parable, where “his citizens hated Him and sent a message after Him saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us'” (Luke xix. 11).
        But the issue in all three cases is the same. Of each it is true, as it is said of Moses, “This Moses whom they refused, saying, ‘Who made thee a ruler and a deliverer?’ The same did God send to be a ruler and a judge by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush (Acts vii. 35).
        Even so will God surely “send Jesus Christ whom the heavens must receive until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts iii. 20, 21).
        Thus early, in Genesis and Exodus, we have the great subject of the sufferings and the glory of Christ more than foreshadowed (1 Pet. i. 11; iv. 13; v. 1. Luke xxiv. 26).
        Exodus tells us also of Christ as the true Paschal Lamb (I Cor. v. 7, 8); as the true Priest (Exod. xxx. 10. Heb. v. 4, 5); and the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not men (Heb. ix).

        LEVITICUS gives us, in the offerings, a fourfold view of the Death of Christ (the Sin and Trespass Offerings being reckoned as one), as the Gospels give us a fourfold view of His life.

        NUMBERS foreshadows the Son of Man come to be lifted up” (ch. xxi. 9. John iii. 14, 15); the Rock (ch. xx. 11. I Cor. x. 4); the Manna that fed them (ch. xi. 7-9. Deut. viii. 2, 3. John vi. 57, 58); and the future Star that should arise “out of Jacob” (ch. xxiv. 17. Luke i. 78. II Pet. i. 19. Rev. ii. 28; xxii. 16).

        DEUTERONOMY reveals the coining Prophet “like unto Moses” (ch. xviii. 15. Acts vii. 23-26); the Rock and Refuge of His people (chs. xxxii. 4; xxxiii. 27).

        JOSHUA tells of “the Captain of the Lord’s host” (ch. v. 13-15. Heb. ii. 10; xii. 2) who shall triumph over all His foes; while Rahab’s scarlet cord (ch. ii. 12-20) tells of His sufferings and precious blood which will shelter and preserve His people in the coming day of His war.

        JUDGES tells of the Covenant Angel whose name is “Secret,” i.e. “Wonderful” (ch. xiii. 18, margin; compare Isa. ix. 6, where the word is the same).

        RUTH reveals the type of our Kinsman-Redeemer, the true Boaz; and the question of ch. ii. 10 is answered in Prov. xi. 15.

        SAMUEL reveals the “sufferings” and rejection of David, who became a “Saviour” and a “Captain” of his followers (I Sam. xxii. 1, 2), foreshadowing David’s Son and David’s Lord, “the Root and the Offspring of David” (Rev. xxii. 16).

        KINGS shows us the “glory which should follow,” and the “greater than Solomon” (Matt. xii. 42); the “greater than the Temple” (Matt. xii. 6), where everything speaks of His glory (Ps. xxix. 9 and margin).

        CHRONICLES reveals Christ as “the King’s Son,” rescued “from among the dead,” hidden in the House of God, to be manifested in due time, “as Jehovah hath said” (II Chron. xxii. 10-–xxiii. 3).

        EZRA speaks of “a nail in a sure place” (ch. ix. 8), which according to Isa. xxii. 23 is used of Eliakim, who typifies Christ.

        NEHEMIAH tells of the “bread from Heaven” and “water out of the Rock” (ch. ix. 15, 20), which are elsewhere used as typical of Christ (John vi. 57, 58. I Cor. x. 4).

        ESTHER sees the seed preserved which should in the fulness of time be born into the world. His name is there, though concealed, 3 but His will and power is manifested in defeating all enemies in spite of the unalterable law of the Medes and Persians.

        JOB reveals Him as his “Daysman” or “Mediator” (ch. ix. 33); and as his “Redeemer” coming again to the earth (ch. xix. 25-27).

        THE PSALMS are full of Christ. We see His humiliation and sufferings and death (Ps. xxii.), His Resurrection (Ps. xvi.), His anointing as Prophet with grace-filled lips (Ps. xlv. Luke iv. 22); as Priest after the order of Melchisedec (Ps. ex. Heb. v. 6; vi. 20; vii. 17, 21); as King enthroned over all (Ps. ii.), and His kingdom established in the earth (Ps. ciii.; cxlv., & c.).

        PROVERBS reveals Christ as the “Wisdom of God” (ch. viii. I Cor. i. 24); the “Path” and “Light” of His People (ch. iv. 18); the “Surety” who smarted for His people while strangers (ch. xi. 15. Rom. v. 8-10. Eph. ii. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 11); the “strong tower” into which the righteous run and are safe (ch. xviii. 10); the friend who loveth at all times, and the brother born for adversity (ch. xvii. 17).

        ECCLESIASTES tells of the “one among a thousand in the midst of all that is vanity and vexation of spirit” (ch. vii. 28).

        THE SONG OF SONGS reveals Him as the true and faithful Shepherd, Lover, and Bridegroom of the Bride, who remained constant to Him in spite of all the royal grandeur and coarser blandishments of Solomon.

        ISAIAH is full of the sufferings and glories of Christ. He is the “despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief” (ch. liii. 5); wounded for our transgressions, oppressed, afflicted, and brought as a lamb to the slaughter; cut off out of the land of the living (ch. liii. 2–9). Yet the glory shall follow. “He shall see of the travail of His soul and be satisfied” (ch. liii. 11). He will be His people’s “Light” (ch. lx. 1, 2. Matt. iv. 16); “The Mighty God” (ch. ix. 6. Matt. xxviii. 18); Salvation’s Well (ch. xii. 3); the King who shall “reign in righteousness” (ch. xxxii. 1, 2); Jehovah’s Branch, beautiful and glorious (ch. iv. 2).

        JEREMIAH tells of “the Righteous Branch,” and “Jehovah our Righteousness” (ch. xxiii. 5, 6); of the “Righteous Branch” and King who shall reign and prosper (ch. xxxiii. 15).

        EZEKIEL reveals Him as the true Shepherd (ch. xxxiv. 23), and as “the Prince” (ch. xxxvii. 25); the “Plant of Renown” (ch. xxxiv. 29), and “Jehovah Shammah” (ch. x1viii. 35).

        DANIEL reveals Him as the “Stone” become the Head of the corner (ch. ii. 34. Ps. cxviii. 22. Isa. viii. 14. xxviii. 16. Matt. xxi. 42, 44. Acts iv. It. I Pet. ii. 4, 6). Also as the Son of Man (ch. vii. 13, 16); and “Messiah the Prince” (ch. ix. 24).

        He is HOSEA’S true David (iii. 5), the Son out of Egypt (xi. 1);

        JOEL’S “God dwelling in Zion” (ch. iii. 17);

        AMOS’S Raiser of David’s Tabernacle (ch. ix. 11; Acts xv. 16, 17);

        OBADIAH’S “Deliverer on Mount Zion” (v. 17);

        JONAH’S “Salvation” (ch. ii. 9); the “Sign” of Christ’s resurrection (Matt. xii. 39-41);

        MICAH’S “Breaker,” “King” and “Lord” (ch. ii. 13; v. 2,5);

        NAHUM’S “Stronghold in Trouble” (ch. i. 7);,

        HABAKKUK’S “Joy” and “Confidence” (ch. iii. 17, 18);

        ZEPHANIAH’S “Mighty God in the midst of Zion” (ch. iii. 17);

        HAGGAI’S “Desire of all nations” (ch. ii. 7);

        ZECHARIAH’S Smitten Shepherd; The Man, Jehovah’s Fellow (ch. xiii. 7); Jehovah’s “Servant-the Branch” (ch. iii. 8); “the Man whose name is the Branch” (ch. vi. 12);

        MALACHI’S “Messenger of the Covenant” (ch. iii. 1); the Refiner of the Sons of Levi (ch. iii. 3); “The Sun of Righteousness” (ch. iv. 2).

        Thus, the “Word” of God has one great subject.
        That one great all-pervading subject is Christ; and all else stands in relation to Him. He is “the beginning and the ending” of Scripture, as of all beside.

        Hence, the Word of God, at its ending, shows how the beginning all works out; and how, that to which we are introduced in Genesis is completed in Revelation.
        Satan’s first rebellion is implied between the first and second verses of the first chapter of Genesis, and his final rebellion is seen in Rev. xx. 7-9. His doom is pronounced in Gen. iii. 15, and is accomplished in Rev. xx. 10.
        We have the primal Creation, “the world that then was,” in Gen. i. 1 (II Pet. iii. 6). “The Heavens and the Earth which are now” in Gen. i. 2, etc. (2 Pet. iii. 7). And “The New Heavens and the New Earth” in Rev. xxi. 1 (2 Pet. iii. 13).
        We have “night” in Gen. i. 1; and see “no night there” in Rev. xxii. 5.
        We have the “sea” in Gen. i. 10; and “no more sea” in Rev. xxi. 1.
        We have the “sun and moon” in Gen. i. 16, 17; and “no need of the sun or the moon” in Rev. xxi. 23; xxii. 5.
        We have the entrance of sorrow and suffering and death in Gen. iii. 16, 17; and “no more death, neither sorrow nor crying” in Rev. xxi. 4.
        We have the “curse” pronounced in Gen. iii. 17; and “no more curse” in Rev. xxii. 3.
        We have banishment from Paradise and the Tree of Life in Gen. iii. 22-24; and the welcome back and “right to it” in Rev. xxii. 2.

        This will be sufficient 4 to show the unity of the “Word” as a whole; and to stimulate Bible students to a further study of it on the line of this great fundamental principle.

        Footnotes:
        1. Though the recent discovery of Radium is beginning to open our eyes and show bow light can exist without the sun.
        2. Where the Hebrew masculine is misrepresented as feminine, and is thus made, as Dr. Pusey has said, the foundation of Mariolatry, and the basis of the Immaculate Conception.
        3. See The Name of Jehovah in the Book of Esther, in Four Acrostics, by the same author.
        4. More instances will be found in The Apocalypse, or, the Day of the Lord, republished as Commentary on Revelation, by Kregel Publications, pp. 58, 59.

        Like

      8. Well Abraham is of course the father of faith, and his being heir of the world is again through faith, and not the mosaic law. (Romans 4: 13 ; 16-17). But too as Paul also says in Ephesians 2: 8, faith itself is the gift of God! And for this gift to come into full fruition a man or person must be born again or from above by God, John 3: 3. Regeneration precedes faith in the order of salvation, i.e. “ordo salutis”. This term is applied to the temporal order of causes and effects through which the salvation of the sinner is accomplished; viz., God’s calling [and election], regeneration, adoption, conversion, faith, justification, renovation, sanctification, and perseverance. Yes, I am Reformed on salvation! 🙂

        Like

      9. Also, another thing – you see a lot of passages in OT concerning Israel pointing ahead towards fulfillment in a future earthly millennium – what is wrong with interpreting these passages as referring to the eternal state?

        Like

      10. Because that’s how I would interpret it – IF God had unfulfilled promises from the OT in regards to national Israel it would be easy for me to interpret those passages as being fulfilled in the eternal state.

        Like

      11. National Israel, is the historical Israel of the OT and in the New! Again we Gentiles share in “their” faith promises, and together in our Father Abraham! Again “we” Gentiles do NOT abrogate God’s covenant promises to Israel! The latter is really the essence of Dispensationalism, at least toward Israel, and I believe this is best seen within the PD or Progressive Dispensationalism. See old Robert Saucy’s book: The Case For Progressive Dispensationalism, The Interface Between Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology, (1993, Zondervan).

        Like

      12. Believing Jews then, who are part of the body of Christ? I have no problem with any of that really. What promises are you talking about specifically, the land promises? Okay, so God wants to fulfill specific promises concerning land to Jews according to the flesh who have faith in Christ. I don’t see how any of that proves premillennialism. Some see ethnic Jews returning to Palestine as a prophecy fulfillment – if they continue to reject Christ they will be uprooted again, it’s only a matter of time. If the land that God promised Abraham belongs to anyone it’s Jews who have accepted Christ. But further, what specifically are these covenant promises to Israel that I as a christian do not partake in?

        Like

      13. Point I’m making is you have a lot of text in the OT pointing towards the millennial reign where national Israel takes center state when it can also be shown to be referring to things being fulfilled in the church or in the eternal state.

        Like

      14. It surely does appear Timothy that you actually have much more reading and study to do within the whole of the Dispensational schema! That’s a friendly challenge mate! 😉 And just a note, for what’s its worth, but I hold the D.Phil. and the Th.D., both from England and the Reformed and Reformational place in academia and the academy. 🙂 Remember, I am 66, born in 1949… that’s been a few years ago! 😉 But, I am still about 160-165 at 5’11, and that’s an old RMC, Royal Marine “Bootneck” thing! Semper Fi as your American Marines say! 😉

        Like

      15. @Timothy: That would take a long piece to answer, but National Israel in their own Land, is surely the major issue! Jesus/Yeshua is Coming Again to the Land and People of Israel, simply and quite profoundly! Again Zechariah chapters 12 thru 14 MUST be read and studied, but from the presupposition of National Israel! As also Isaiah, say chapters 51 to the end, with too Ezekiel 38 and 39… just for a start!

        Like

      16. I’m sure I messed it up by replying to a different one than what I should have – my comment section as moderator is different than yours and I’m not seeing exactly what you’re seeing

        Like

      17. “Indeed many Jews in Israel will face Zech. 13: 8-9 in the eschatological end, and those who survive, will see the Second Coming of Christ, and the Millennium, (chapter 14!) And yes, GOD will have a Jewish Remnant!”

        Like

      18. And yes, a Jewish Messianic-Christian Remnant! Btw, I know some who live in Israel today! Great believers in the Lord and Savior Jesus-Yeshua! But oh what they face today in their Holy Land! ALL of us who Name the Name of Jesus, especially us Gentile Christians should pray for them!

        Like

      19. Jesus was and is a Jew, i.e. the King of the Jews, and for this HE was crucified! The charge was above His head on the Cross. But even now on the Throne of Glory, HE is the Jewish Messiah, and our Messiah-Christ for us Gentiles! Yes WE are Judeo-Christians, ALL! And how can one be a true Christian if one misses the Jewish Jesus?

        Like

      20. @Timothy: It has been a good tread! With dialogue and give and take, and WE are Brethren! 🙂 Btw, do you NOT consider old E.W. Bullinger a true Christian? Goodness, I don’t see how one could come to this conclusion? And of course we all have feet of clay!

        Like

      21. I don’t know. I’ve been reading about his teaching, I’ve seen some things that cause concern. There’s a lot of stuff, maybe on the broadcast we can discuss Bullinger as well since the Chapel promoted him so heavily, the readers will be interested.

        Like

      22. The gap theory, the theory that angels can have sex with women, there’s quite a bit of bad teaching – I had his Companion bible for years so I’m very familiar with him. Just look at what the dispensationalists have to say about him should give you reason to pause

        Like

      23. Yes, we would both agree that Arnold Murray was way off in many places, but I don’t doubt his love for Christ! And old EWB is also off in places too, but such often are eccentric type scholars! (Of course here I speak only of Bullinger. Murray was NO scholar type at all!) And “Bully” was certainly eccentric! But he was English! 😉 Btw, note the rather good scholarship for the most part of the Irish Archbishop Anglican James Ussher! See for example the Irish Articles of 1615, surely Reformed, and even called the papacy antichrist! But such were the Reformed in those days. Note, I did my D.Phil on Luther’s Ontology of the Cross. Aye, I love old Dr. Luther, warts and all! 😉 And man was he often anti-Semitic! But again, such were the times and great ignorance there!

        *Murray was a US Marine btw, and often said he was with the Frozen-Chosen in Korea. I was myself in Vietnam as an RMC, Royal Marine Commando, “attached” with the American Marine Force Recon, (1968), that was hell, in the Tet! I was young and enlisted then, but much later became an officer (“Mustang”).

        Like

    1. Yes, EWB (“Bully”) or Bullinger is the excuse for all kinds of false doctrine, but in reality Bullinger did NOT teach much of what he is supposed to have taught! Yes, he was somewhat of a hyper-dispensationalist, but his work here is rich over all even with some of his errors. And he did NOT believe in British Israelism, nor in Annihilationism! But his work on the soul must be read and studied, it is not always consistent, but it is not heresy in the strict sense.

      Like

      1. Hi Robert. Yes, you are correct he didn’t teach British Israelism – I hope I didn’t give the impression that he did. I will have to look at his beliefs on eternal punishment. This is from withchrist.org…

        “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.”

        Could you elaborate on this soul-extinction concept?

        Like

      2. Timothy: I would love to “elaborate”, but I just stumbled in here, and right now I don’t have the time. But again strictly speaking, Bullinger himself did NOT go that far and into annihilation, itself, as did his some of his followers. But one could press the issue. See btw, another Anglican Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, and his book: The True Image, The Origin And Destiny Of Man In Christ. Here is a Calvinist form of annihilation!

        *Perhaps I can get back later on this question from Bullinger? Note, I too am an Anglican rector, and a conservative one (semi-retired at 66). I am a Neo-Calvinist, but fully an Historic Pre-Mill, with too something of the PD or Progressive Dispensationalism. And of course Post-Trib, (2 Thess 2: 1). 🙂

        Like

      3. I was historic premillennial and progressive dispensatonal for a long time – these days I’ve changed my views on the millennium but I do understand the value of those positions. Dispensational premillennialism of the Scofield variety is just horrible.

        Like

      4. In general, I think we can say easily that EWB was a great biblicist and biblical theolog-scholar! His two major works, one of which he was given a doctorate (D.D. 1881), by the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the time: Archibald Campbell Tait, for Bullinger’s: A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (1877). And his later work: Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898). I have both, and almost everything in print by EWB. And yes, I have too Ms. Cary’s little book: E.W. Bullinger, A Biography (281 pages, with Index). And we should also mention that Bully was the clerical secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society, (from 1867 till his death in 1913). And since I am myself a Christian Biblical Zionist (I lived and taught in Israel for five years, after Gulf War I, which I was in myself, as an RMC, (Royal Marine, recon and intell officer. Retired after G.W. 1). I will share too, that he was personal friends with the well-known Jewish Zionist Dr. Theodore Herzl, and they shared in the biblical distinction between the Church and the Jewish People.

        Like

      5. Interesting… I didn’t know that Bullinger was affiliated with Herzl, I knew Scofield was. I’m just curious when you say there is a distinction between the Church and Jewish people, how do you mean? This is one of my big sticking points with dispensationalism. I understand the “elect” of God to be one body throughout all eternity.

        Like

      6. Also, here in America (I don’t know about Britain), Zionist and Christian Zionist are on par with being curse words – when you say you are a Christian biblical Zionist what do you mean? There is an uncanny interrelation between Zionism, Christian Zionism and British Israelism…

        Like

      7. @Timothy: I have been a regenerated Christian for almost 45 years, and I have held both the Amill and the Postmill in years past. But that was before I became Pre-Mill in 1993, and living and teaching in Israel. But I was born and raised Irish Roman Catholic in Dublin, Ireland. I left Catholicism in the 1970’s. Now with the post Gulf Wars, and Radical Islam, i.e. ISIS, etc. I am firmly convinced of the Covenants being still in full force toward Modern Israel, etc. See, Zech. 13: 8-9, with chap. 14! Indeed Jesus is Yeshua!

        *I am now living in the USA, and my little Irish brother (53) was an American Marine in the 1980’s, who is now an American citizen. And I was “attached” as an RMC two times with the American Marine Recon, two wars. And yes, Gulf War 1 was a big wake-up here, and that was but the beginning!

        Like

      8. I guess I’m more reformed in my thinking – I don’t believe in replacement theology though. I believe the covenant God made with Israel was renewed with Israel on Pentecost under the new covenant and the condition for inclusion in that covenant was faith in Jesus Christ – and it was expanded to include the gentile believers. The early church was first made of believing Jews… gentiles were added in afterwards. God’s will for Israel according to the flesh is that they believe the gospel, His eternal purpose for them is that they be one body with the church, the elect.

        Like

      9. @Timothy: Yes, I have quite noted how ad hom are so many anti-dispensationalists, which in reality is just a reaction to the Pre-Tribulational views, etc. The best of Dispensationalism is surely centred in the aspect of Modern Israel and the Covenants, etc., being first toward Israel, and only then toward the Gentiles or Nations! (Romans 9-11 ; 15: 8-9 / Eph. 2: 12 / 1 Cor. 10: 32) God does have two covenant people, National and historical Israel, and the Elect Church, both Jew & Gentile. But as Paul wrote to the Jew first, then also to the Greek or Gentiles (Nations), (Rom. 1:16). I would agree with much of Ryrie’s book: Dispensationalism, the revised and expanded edition, but I am again closer somewhat to the Progressive Dispensationalism! See Blaising and Bock classic book: Progressive Dispensationalism (1993) as too old Robert Saucy’s! (RIP to the latter, died in 2015)

        Like

      10. You would be preaching to the choir on the whole of Reformed theology! 😉 But indeed simply NO “supersessionism” for me anymore! (UGH with old NT Wright!) I am close on salvation to old John Frame! But on eschatology, the Reformed are simply still with the Catholic Church!

        Like

      11. I see it more as expansion theology as opposed to supersessionism, there is a continuity in the covenants… this is the new covenant:

        “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” – Jeremiah 31:34

        You are included in this if you are a gentile believer in Jesus Christ.

        Like

      12. @Timothy: Wow, I can see that YOU have not read either Augustine or Aquinas! And the latter was especially a Roman Catholic Theolog! Note Aquinas also called himself an Augustinian. And I generally like aspects of Augustine, but NOT on eschatology! There is little difference between Rome Catholicism and the Reformed on eschatology! Indeed the Judeo-Christian ethic is always first Jewish and with the Moral Law of God! Here is the High Ground and connection between the Covenants… Jesus was and is always the Jewish Messiah… the King of Kings and Lord of Glory, and HE WILL reign in both Jerusalem and Israel, on this Earth! But of course a New Creation and New Jerusalem!

        Like

      13. I’m familiar with them to a degree through the teachings of others. I learned a lot through R.C. Sproul and Kim Riddlebarger. I do seem to recall that the Reformers identified the beast with the papacy, that’s not a very Catholic teaching. Luther despite his repudiation of Catholic justification was not able to fully break free from Roman influence, same with a lot of the reformers. There was a time when I studied the writings of others on theology, these days I plead with God for enlightenment about the true meaning of the text.

        Like

      14. Amen to that but I guess my question is how are you adhering to a dual covenant premise? Are there two modes of salvation for the two camps? You know, there are dispensationalists who imply that please tell me you’re not one of them

        Like

      15. @Timothy: That’s a straw-man argument, just like there is NO law of God in the NT! Of course there is Law in the NT, its the Moral Law of God! The truth of the matter is that we so-called Gentile Christians have simply lost the strength of God’s Moral Law in the Gospel! We call it antinomian. The truth of faith alone always constructs the moral obedience to the moral law of God. This is the essence of the covenant of grace in both Testaments! And Gentile Christianity is fast becoming apostate here, save but the remnant in true faith! Here is where we need the Book or Letter of James, properly!

        “Speak and act as those who are going to judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” (James 2: 12-13, NIV 2011)

        Like

      16. It’s what the dispensationalists teach, that the two covenants are in operation and that each covenant has specific conditions that must be met to be a party to the respective covenant. You may not believe as the classical’s do, because you’re progressive as they say. If you don’t specify what you mean how can I know? Please clarify what the straw man is – I didn’t feel like it was, I thought I was being accurate. Do you see the two covenants as distinct or a logical continuity? I’m just trying to understand what you’re saying, you already know what the classical dispensationalists teach better than I do. I never had the stomach for it. You can not deny the dual covenant heresy emanates from this radical separation of covenants – or maybe you can but it would not make sense to me.

        Like

      17. Also the premillennial vs. realized millennial debate is as old as the book of Revelation itself so you cannot call it Catholic eschatology, that indeed would be a strawman. If you believe the early church council’s were inspired then you will take note that it (premillennialism) was designated as heresy very early on — look at what the church historian Eusebius had to say about the Cerinthian heresy.

        Like

      18. Please repudiate:

        “Dual-covenant theology is a Liberal Christian view that holds that Jews may simply keep the Law of Moses, because of the “everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:13) between Abraham and God expressed in the Hebrew Bible, whereas Gentiles (those not Jews or Jewish proselytes) must convert to Christianity or alternatively accept the Seven Laws of Noah. Many forms of Christianity, especially Conservative Protestants, consider this view to be heresy.” source – Wikipedia

        Like

      19. Quoting you:

        God does have two covenant people, National and historical Israel, and the Elect Church, both Jew & Gentile.

        Looks exactly like the dual covenant premise without giving the particulars of how salvation is achieved for each group.

        I’d also like to further add, God’s covenant with Israel was never unconditional. If the covenants are a continuous whole, believing Jews under the Old Covenant were broken off at the time of Christ if they rejected Him after His death. Unbelieving Israel was never a party to the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenant.

        Like

    2. Sorry I missed seeing some of your replies. Radio? Ya mean Internet type? And I am still doing some hospital chaplain work, so I am almost daily involved there. Do you, or can you see my e-mail? I don’t like to put it up on an open blog, with so many nuts about! And I am hardly a deep computer type! lol But, I do have a blog under irishanglican (Word Press).

      Like

      1. That’s me, but no relation to old JND! Though one of me great-grams was a PB or Irish Plymouth Brethren (she died when I was 15, so she had an affect on me!) and I have surely read my share of John Nelson Darby! Btw me gram was baptized by one of the Scofield editors, one Rev. Arthur T. Pierson, D.D.! Small world, eh! 😉

        Like

  6. You are obviously a very intelligent person. Why do you not start your own Bible study group? Why do you spend time trying to belittle someone else? I do not know who knows the full truth. I pray God will remove any and all false teaching from my life. Are you lead of the Holy Spirit to write against Murray? Could you not help more people teaching instead of trying to stir up arguments from Murray students? You know your story is only going to stir up Murray’s students and other Murray bashers. So what does this accomplish?

    Like

  7. This is really tiresome – once again, it was a hyperbolic statement but not to your taste. A person would not disservice themselves by getting rid of it – throw it in the dumpster, is that better?

    And cultic religion, tastes just like what I referenced. It’s straight from the pits of hell and it has a distinct stench.

    Bullinger teaches the gap theory, hyperdispensationalism – denies the personhood of the Holy Spirit, teaches that fallen angels had sex with women, I can go on and on. He teaches that the Zodiac is a primordial form of the gospel… no, the Zodiac is a primal form of the devil’s Babylonian dung. For Bullinger to suggest that the pagan Zodiac is a corrupted form of truth betrays him.

    Let’s focus on Bullinger’s teachings then found in Bullinger’s notes…

    See, dispensationalism itself generates a whole cascade of false prophecy – and Bullinger is from that school. So calling him a false prophet… that’s actually being nice.

    Like

    1. Do you ascribe to Bullinger’s heretical version of the soul sleep doctrine that teaches at death man’s body, soul and spirit cease to exist? It can be found in The Rich Man and Lazarus; or ‘The Intermediate State” Third Edition – this is an extension of soul sleep, unique to this man. I don’t bring it up because Murray didn’t adopt it. But since you have turned the inquiry to Bullinger I’m going to drag the rest of this man’s errors into the light that are not shared by Murray.

      Like

      1. Okay – you don’t want to discuss doctrinal problems with the notes contained within the Companion Bible. Rather you want to focus on hyperbole. I have a burning hatred for false religion. If you don’t want to discuss the issues then we really don’t have anything else left to discuss.

        Bullingerism is false religion. His notes are replete with heresy. A LOT OF LEAVEN LEAVENS THE WHOLE LUMP. Readers, I suggest you rid yourself of the Companion Bible with it’s hellish notes within it.

          Get a normal bible, not a Scofield of Bullinger adulteration. I only have one because I am using it to research his system of theology. I have literally thrown Companion’s in the dumpster on more than one occasion.

          Sorry E. If you want to keep accusing me of saying the holy scripture contains error within it then we need to go ahead and end the discussion. What Bullinger has done is place his corruption alongside the text. Shall we discuss that? Or some other strawman?

          I will use rhetorical devices on my blog when I feel it is necessary to do so to get a point across. If you have a problem with that, go invent a new language that is purely literal in every expression.

          Like

      2. You don’t understand my agitation and why I would use such speech and that’s fine – I will leave it at that.

        Here’s the main issue with dispensationalism – it divides the body of Christ into two distinct group with different redemptive plans. The church and Israel. There is only people of God, church, the elect throughout history. They all enter into that body by the blood of Christ.

        Because of the error of Anglo-Israelism and dispensationalism Murray claims to be Israel, i.e. that “other” group that Scofield and Bullinger were referring to. Do you not perceive the arrogance of what he has done?

        Sure, there is new testament era – but salvation is the same in every “dispensation”. They force these dispensations on the text in order to create these two groups. There is only one people of God.

        So let’s continue with this – do you believe that there two people’s of God with separate redemptive plans?

        Like

      3. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. – 1st Corinthians 9:17

        What does the term “dispensation” mean here, and how does it relate to the dispensations of dispensationalism?

        Also, do you believe that those who lived during the “dispensation” after the Mosaic covenant were saved according to the law?

        Like

      4. The system of dispensationalism does make a definite distinction between Israel and the church, as if the former is not or never will be part of the latter. They teach that when the church is removed then God’s program of salvation will begin for them again according to the dispensation of law (heresy by the way). There’s a difference between being under the law and saved by the law, which classical dispensationalism taught (Scofield). Dispensationalism/hyperdispensationalism creates millions of factions and divisions within the body of Christ.

        Like

      5. I take it that when the dispensationalist’s use the term for Israel, they mean all the physical descendants of Israel. Some of these descendants are “elect”, some are not.

        They hold this group of elect as a different body than the church (gentile) throughout history and into eternity. Hence separate plans of redemption. It seems in the tribulation they have ALL the physical descendants of Israel being saved, but that is ludicrous. Look up dual covenant theology, Zionist like Hagee teach it. Not all dispensationalists do.

        In other words, there is not one body of elect but a division between the church and Israel. Commonly you will hear them say the church is the bride of Christ and Israel is the wife of God. Bullinger teaches it. Murray teaches his elect followers are the wife of God the father.

        Murray defines himself and his followers as the “elect” in the dispensationalists sense because of anglo-israelism. This is what makes his cult so dangerous and frankly it’s why he has a post-trib rapture… because in his scheme, he’s the center of attention in the apocalypse. Whom the Zionists call the “jews” of dispensationalism Murray calls Kenites. It’s a peculiar adulteration of truth.

        No, I don’t support a pretribulation rapture nor any of those options you just mentioned.

        I don’t believe Daniel’s 70th week is future, nor do I believe in a future earthly millennium – so our eschatology is completely different, these are all the elements of dispensational futurism. I believe when Christ comes back there will be a resurrection of the just and the unjust, Judgment Day, then the eternal state.

        The great tribulation referred to in the gospels I take to have transpired in the destruction of the Jews and their worship. I believe there will be a period of general tribulation of no specified duration before Christ returns referred to as Satan’s little season. I believe Satan is currently bound and the truth of the gospel is going forth and he is being plundered.

        I will be the first to say I’ve been wrong in the past about eschatology and I await the Holy Spirit’s guidance for further insight into the meaning of the text. When I feel as though God has given me illumination I tell people. When I’m in error, I correct it. I test the truth I understand about the text with a rigor that would weary a lot of Christians.

        Like

      6. A couple of things – the person who asked me about getting a Scofield was simply mocking me. Murray derides Scofield to his students because of the pre-trib doctrine. This person didn’t like what I had to say and said something snide. I was simply responding in kind, that is to say, with sarcasm.

        How do I know that? Because the overwhelming majority of visitors here are Chapel students. The majority of visitors think I teach the pre-trib rapture simply because I call out Murray on his errors, that’s why she asked about my endorsement of the Scofield bible.

        But I hold them both in equally low esteem.

        And I stand behind my allusion to Acts 19. My point in using it is Christians dealt radically with the sin of idolatrous religion by burning their scrolls. Did I mean that Christians should thereby literally burn their Companion bibles? No.

        Did I mean Christians should destroy the text of Holy Scripture? No. But really, what can you do with a study bible that is full of error? I never burnt a study bible, but I’ve thrown plenty away, and not just Companion’s. Do words on a page meet any less undesirable fate when you burn them or throw them in the dumpster or bury them in the ground?

        If a person’s intention of getting rid of a study bible were to separate from the leaven that’s within the notes that would not be a sin. It could be considered a sin for them to give it someone if they truly believed the teachings therein to be harmful.

        In 2005, when the Lord opened my eyes I threw tons of religious material and study bibles in the dumpster and this was an honor to God.

        I had a friend with a large print Companion a few years back. I asked him to let me borrow it to really hone in on his teaching. I wanted to read through it again to get a fresh look at it. There are some parts that are good in it but the man invented his own screwy system of religion – I don’t know how else to say it.

        The point was to deal with sin radically. Cut it off. Cast it away. If your right eye causes you stumble, pluck it out. If Bullinger and Murray’s heresies are going to lead you down the path of destruction, cut it off. Devote it to destruction.

        If my choice of words offends you then I apologize, but I will stand by them. If within the article and comments I explained what I meant by “Burn the Companion Bible” then that is sufficient. It simply means to get rid of it. I use a lot of hyperbole and exaggeration on this site, if you don’t like that then I don’t know what to tell you.

        You call me callous but I can think of nothing more callous than teachings like the serpent seed/kenites, the 6th and 8th day creations, british israelism, et al.

        If you want to argue semantics I have no more patience for it. If you want to discuss the meaning of Holy Scripture then that is good. I’m for it 100%. That is what blog is about. Clarifying what Murray taught that was false and giving the reader some better ideas about understanding the text. You don’t acknowledge that intent.

        I gave you time to make your points – you accused me over and over of not answering your questions. You’ve been condescending towards me time and again. I allowed you self-moderate. You are free to comment as much as you want but from now I will be moderating. If you make good respectful arguments for your position I will post it. If you want to launch into a semantic diatribe I will delete it.

        I will make an extra effort to be respectful of your point of view and I expect the same from you.

        Like

      7. We will take up the subject of dispensations at a later time. I will try to put a new article together here soon and we can take it up there. I have taken note of your concerns and have deleted the offensive language… it doesn’t bother me but I realize others may be offended. I’m going to close commenting on this thread – I will post a new one soon and we can discuss dispensations.

        Like

      8. Because of your experience I can understand how it may seem callous – and maybe in your situation where there are no bibles a Companion would be a good thing. Kind of like where when someone is starving to death the last thing on their mind is what type of food am I eating.

        Where I live, in the US there is a superabundance of study bibles and false religion – so much so that people can hardly breathe. If you ingest the notes of the Companion, you will have spiritual problems, guaranteed. Even if it’s the only one you have access to.

        The Lord brought me out of the bitter bondage of false religion and let me see Bullinger’s hand in this in his influence on Murray. For ten years I have fought this nasty system of religion in one form or another. I’ve seen ruined families, ruined lives – lost souls, God’s purpose being thwarted due to false religion. So the anger that you have is shared by myself but maybe now I can better understand why you would promote Scofield’s or Bullinger’s study bible.

        And when I say burn the Companion Bible, it is rhetorical language for separate yourself from ungodly theology, not burn the bible. Recall that the Christians in acts burnt their valuable scrolls. Radical amputation. Get rid of it. If I were inclined to get rid of my large print Companion I would never give it to anyone else.

        I appreciate your work in the bible ministry – I myself support a ministry called esword who distributes free bible software around the world.

        Back to dispensationalism…

        Question: under the dispensation of LAW, how were people saved?

        Question: when the church age ends, how will people be saved?

        Question: throughout history are there two distinct groups of elect, or just one?

        And bare in mind the focus is on Bullinger’s teachings about this – let me remind you that classic dispensationalist’s regard Bullinger as a madman, consider Ironside…

        no hesitancy in saying that its fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands; it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth.”

        I came to the exact same conclusion before I ever read this quote. Why would I promote this study bible to anyone?

        Two other quotes on dispensationalism…

        “What is indisputably, absolutely, and uncompromisingly essential to the Christian religion is its doctrine of salvation… If Dispensationalism has actually departed from the only way of salvation which the Christian religion teaches, then we must say it has departed from Christianity. No matter how many other important truths it proclaims, it cannot be called Christian if it empties Christianity of its essential message. We define a cult as a religion which claims to be Christian while emptying Christianity of that which is essential to it. If Dispensationalism does this, then Dispensationalism is a cult and not a branch of the Christian church. It is as serious as that. It is impossible to exaggerate the gravity of the situation.” – By John H. Gerstner

        “But, since the day Darby began to preach the doctrine, Godly men have opposed. Many books have been published exposing the flaws in the intricate system. Most hack away at the branches, arguing peripheral issues. We intend to lay the axe to the root of the tree. My brother, I am a constant reader of my Bible, and I soon found that what I was taught to believe (by Darby’s doctrine) did not always agree with what my Bible said. I came to see that I must either part company with John Darby, or my precious Bible, and I chose to cling to my Bible and part from Mr. Darby.” – George Müeller

        So no. It isn’t a light thing. Classical dispensationalism actually teaches another gospel.

        I also perceive that you reject the orthodox definition of the Godhead, one being, “God” and three “persons”?

        Like

      9. This blog is about the Lord Jesus Christ delivering me from the Shepherd’s Chapel cult. It addresses his teachings and why people should stay away from it. Maybe the rhetoric “burn the Companion Bible” is extreme but I have explained what I mean by it. In the future I will try to be more considerate but I have explained what I meant by it.

        You came here defending the conjectures of other men.

        Like

  8. Excuse me? When did I say the bible was replete with errors? I said Bullinger’s notes were – replete, abundant. The meaning of a word is also context dependent, you seem to overlook that. Let’s get specific with Bullinger’s errors. Bullinger’s notes are the issue, but you want to overlook that in favor of a strawman.

    Like

  9. does any of you speak 11 different languages like he did. does anyone here know the original greek and hebrew. can you translate the masorah. well can you. if not keep silent. its a true sign of wisdom when a person knows when to speak or not to speak. untill you have mastered these dilects and read them as well as speak them you really have nothing to say about this subject. in the words of the master himself you know them buy there fruit. just because your at odds with the sheapeards chapel and arnold murry why do you attack e w bullinger who was a top scolar of his day rabbis came to him to translate the masorah.he was THE TOP in his feld gershbauc spoke quite highly of him . it also sounds like you dont hold the KJV in high regard either. the companion bible is top notch and so is its author but what does that say about trans humanism and new agers . what is it the niv your bible of choice what a piece of trash they should have left if at the foot of mt sini in the trash where thisendorff found it ready to be burned.

    Like

    1. That’s the wisest thing I read here man! Not to mention any other, I doubt Campbell could have written the scholarly Numbers in Scripture?

      Like

  10. I do not think Timothy Campbell is a good source of information.

    How your coming off Timothy Campbell… you are the False one.

    If this were my site, i would ban you and delete your threads.

    you sound like a Troll.

    Like

  11. You have accused Bullinger of a number of heresies but you provide no references to where he teaches such things. Bullinger has his issues and I don’t know Murray or care, but a number of your accusations are absolutely false or twisted at best which makes you a slanderer. Bullinger was a great scholar and most of his work deserves to be studied by every Christian. No one is required to agree with everything but ill surely be edified by much. Meanwhile you should try to back up your nonsense with some title, and page numbers and you will see where you have played the part of satan in false accusations.

    Like

edify

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s