Brethren Archive
The Year 1928

The Gospel of the Kingdom: An Examination of Modern Dispensationalism

by Philip Mauro


Marty said ...
Mr. Philip Mauro, in his book "The Gospel of the Kingdom," bitterly assaults dispensational truth, particularly as set forth in the Scofield Reference Bible, denouncing it as a "fabrication," "a humanly concocted scheme" not derived from the Bible but imposed on the Bible. Mr. Mauro advocates stopping the further pubHcation and sale of the Scofield Bible because it contains, in his opinion, "so grievous a misreprentation—amounting to vilification of the holy Law of God." He severely criticizes the late Dr. C. I. Scofield as a deceptive, misleading, dishonest Bible teacher who perverted the Scriptures to fit his theory of dispensational truth. Mr. Mauro writes his book as a challenge to all who believe in the literal, earthly, future reign of Jesus Christ.
Dr. I. M, Haldeman, for nearly fifty years the pastor of the First Baptist Church of New York City, has ably answered the challenge in his volume, "A Review of Mr. Philip Mauro's Book 'The Gospel of the Kingdom.' " He writes, "Dr. Scofield is not here. He cannot defend himself. But the Word of God defends him and sustains him." And throughout Dr. Haldeman's book, one is confronted by a mass of Scriptures in a continuous chain, producing overwhelming cumulative evidence that "the Word of God defends and sustains" Dr. Scofield's teaching of the millennial earthly kingdom of Christ.
Dr. Haldeman's vindication of dispensational truth is superb. He refutes Mr. Mauro's imaginative spiritualizing exegesis in masterly fashion. For example, in discussing Mr. Mauro's claim that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. was the second coming of Christ, Dr. Haldeman's keen analysis and biting satire expose the utter fallacy of Mr. Mauro's position in the light of the plain statements of the Word of God. Again Mr. Mauro in his determined effort to support his false notion that the Kingdom is not earthly, takes the prophecy that Christ will reign upon the earth executing judgment and justice, ruling the whole earth with righteous government—and actually declares this prophecy fulfilled today. Replying to this, Dr. Haldeman holds before us the condition of our sin-sick world with all its crime, war, greed, idolatry in heathen lands, Bolshevism, rebellion against the authority of man and God; and then he says,
"To say that in such an hour Jesus Christ, our Lord, is reigning as a King, prospering and executing judgment and justice in the earth, and thereby bringing the world in subjection to his own divine order and rest; if it were not such a self-evident untruth, so even without the shadow of a foundation in fact, it would seem like the utterance or statement of the veriest trifler, making light not merely of the Word of God, but the tragedy of a world full of sin, shame, and sorrow" (p. 205).
In this fashion Dr. Haldeman examines severally the arguments against dispensational truth, subjecting then one by one to the unanswerable logic of the Word of God and demonstrating them to be absolutely unsound.
Mr. Mauro's position represents a system of Bible interpretation long followed by many commentators and expositors, that of sapping the literal meaning out of the promises made to Israel by applying them to the Church. According to this system, when God said "Israel" or "Jerusalem", He meant the Church; He was using figurative language! This is the method of the flat-interpretationists who, like Mr. Mauro, ignores dispensational distinction. Dr. Haldeman calls this "the unspeakably pernicious and thievish principle of robbing the promises and prophecies of the Bible, of their literalness and spiritualizing every statement until the Scriptures become a nose of wax to be twisted into any shape to suit the theory which an inventive mind may suggest."
Mr. Mauro deserves the treatment he receives in the volume. He claims that God has utterly finished with the Jewish nation. This implies that God's unconditional covenant promise of earthly blessing upon Abraham and his descendants must fail. And further, in view of the fact (most important Bible study fact which is ignored by Mr. Mauro) that the nation Israel is God's photograph of the individual believing soul, Mr. Mauro's claim logical amounts to the denial of the eternal security of the believer. Therefore Mr. Mauro deserves to be branded as Dr. Haldeman brands him, "a dangerous teacher, misapplying Scripture, misplacing truth, perverting it, and thus, dishonoring the Word of God."
Dr. Haldeman's review bristles with interest; using the keen edge of sarcasm with a skilled hand in a righted cause, in the defense of truth, he cuts clean through Mr. Mauro's blunders one by one in a thorough-going manner such as affords the reader the satisfaction of seeing Truth ably vindicated.
Mr. Mauro is given the thrashing of his life. Dr. Haldeman's logic is incontrovertible. His stand is soundly scriptural. His book is a classic; read it and be delighted.
by I. M Haldeman, D.D.
"Grace and Truth" 1932
Wednesday, Feb 22, 2023 : 06:45
Syd said ...
Important for readers to take note of—some material on this website, like Mauro’s views on dispensationalism, departs from Scriptural truth. AJ Pollock also exposes the error of Mauro’s writings in his examination——and John Bloore in the preface of Pollock’s piece, says its “a useful exposure of Mr. Mauro's fallacious teaching.”
Wednesday, Feb 22, 2023 : 20:17
Mark said ...

It should be understood that on this website is the availabilty of primary sources for research into the various aspects of the "Brethren Movement" so called. 

It does not mean that the one placing the various documents and manuscripts on it agrees with everything expressed in them any more than with the ones in the Christian Brethren Archive in the John Rylands Library at Manchester University. Those who turn to it ought to be aware of that. 

It needs to be kept in mind when studying the history of "brethren" that those in every section of it think they are in the right bit! Several companies claim to be the "original brethren" or the "primitive company" - and they cannot all be right on that, can they? Obviously not! 

The danger when looking into this matter is to accept the opinions found in secondary sources. Tertiary sources are even more unreliable. 

Hence the value of this website in being able to seek out information from those who were there at the time, evaluate from all sides, and importantly, to study the scriptures in the spirit of the Bereans.

Wednesday, Feb 22, 2023 : 21:54
Jonathan said ...
Mark, I'm puzzled that you have a number of times claimed that many sections of brethren think they are the original or primitive company, but I don't see evidence for this statement. Most sections of brethren which I have come across would actively reject such a view.
Thursday, Feb 23, 2023 : 07:18
Tom said ...

Well it is common for the Exclusive groups to believe they are the inherent descendents of the 'primitive company', or the only ones on the 'ground of the One Body' etc. If you look at the circle chart in Noel which shows the 'primitive company' at the center, and every section, bar the one the author is in, as a schism, I would suggest that was, and is, common thinking. Certainly the TWs and the Taylor break-offs hold it. Indeed the Renton section of the Taylors holds that anyone who left before June 1970 was wrong. In theory the KLC's are not mean to hold it, but I've heard it taught by prominent teachers. One said to me 'how could God have two seperate comapnies gathered to His Name in the same place. Many of the conservative Gsopel Hall groups effectively believe the same thing, ie. that they are the only true Church, or they are the actual Assembly in any given place.

By the way, without wantint to sound pedandic or disappoint anyone, another thing I often heard, was the phrase 'Brethren doesn't have a captial B'. In the context it is used in the last two comments, ie. a proper noun, i'm pretty sure it should do according to English gramatical rules!

Thursday, Feb 23, 2023 : 14:32
C Gribben said ...
The Oxford English Dictionary cites this title as the first usage of "dispensationalism." (I suspect there might be one or two earlier examples.) Compare Google ngram searches for "dispensation," "dispensational," "dispenationalist," and "dispensationalism." The first two terms have c19th origins, but not clear that the others do!
Saturday, Feb 25, 2023 : 02:55
Syd said ...
Dr Daniel Hummel, a very competent historian, during an interview on his recent book, “The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism,” said that the term “dispensationalism” was first used by Philip Mauro. With good insight, he also said that JN Darby “would not respond to the term “dispensationalism”—meaning, as I understand him, that Darby would view the modern knowledge and use of it as a scripturally unintelligent attempt of men trying to systematise the ways and dealings of God. Darby never used the word “dispensationalism” and from what I have read, never reduced it to a system of theology, nor did he specify that there were a certain number of dispensations. But he clearly explained what a dispensation was, how God tested man and how he failed in every case of his stewardship during that period.
And by the way, Darby would have vehemently objected to the notion that he is regarded by some as "the father of dispensationalism." Perhaps others have better facts on any “system” of Darby’s on the dispensations.
Thursday, Sep 28, 2023 : 03:41

Add Comment: