BSBKJVWEBYLTASVBBEWMBT4TDBY|HymnsMusicDonate
Menu
General

Philip Mauro

P
proudpapa Mar 26, 2016

A Short Biography of Philip Mauro

(1859-1952)
As far as twentieth century Christian figures are concerned, Philip Mauro stands out as one of the most captivating. After coming to a saving knowledge of the Lord in 1903, at the age of forty five, Mauro, a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of the foremost patent lawyers of his day, began his "Testimony" of what was to him the most important event in his life.

His repeated successes in courts of law, coupled with his legal briefs, could not but gain recognition, for they were "models of accuracy, conciseness, and literary finish." As such, they were "frequently used by judges in the text of their decisions." Perhaps one of the most important occasions where his legal work was requisitioned was in connection with the famous Tennessee-Scopes trial in 1925. The brief or argument which Bryan used, and thereby won the case, was prepared by Philip Mauro.

His early twentieth century was a period of great expansion for many errors, such as Dispensationalism and Anglo Israelism. Rising to the forefront of Christianity's great struggle against these foes, he applied the preparation God had given him, and scored great victories for sound doctrine. As a result of his body of work, the following generations have been able to pick up weapons at the spot where he fell and continue the struggle for Truth, as it is to this day.

The very fact that a materialistic, scientific lawyer of such high reputation as Mr. Mauro had become such an earnest Christian and such an able advocate of Christianity, both by his pen and public addresses, caused him to be sought for increasingly as a speaker at Bible conferences and in Christian circles generally.

Perhaps one of the most important occasions where his legal help was requisitioned was in connection with the famous Tennessee-Scopes trial in 1925.

True, William Jennings Bryan, the "silver-tongued" orator, thrice Democratic nominee for President of the United States, devout Christian and popular Bible teacher, was retained by the State of Tennessee to defend its law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in its public schools. The brief or argument which Bryan used, however, and thereby won the case, was prepared by Philip Mauro. This was a great victory inasmuch as the defense attorney was none other than Clarence Darrow, the brilliant and successful criminal lawyer.

And if others did not forget Mauro's legal ability, neither did he forget his former business and legal associates. These he had faithfully and personally witnessed to after his conversion and fervently prayed that they, as he had been, might be brought out of darkness into light. One of the most famous of these was Thomas A. Edison.

As successful patent counsel for the Columbia Phonograph Company, Philip Mauro had repeated encounters with this wizard, who was regarded as "one of the company's most formidable antagonists," in the extensive litigation involving patents. Despite the fact that Mr. Mauro was Edison's legal opponent and invariably his victor, Edison evidently retained his respect for him personally as well as for his intellect, for when in 1926 Mr. Mauro wrote Edison, "giving him a personal testimony as to the peace of mind and conscience that had come to him through trusting in Jesus Christ, the result was an invitation to visit Mr. Edison at his laboratory in Orange, New Jersey." When the two met on October 29, 1926, they had not seen each other for about twenty years.

The story of their interview is best told be Mr. Mauro himself as printed in The Last Hour, edited and published by himself. "Mr. Edison is now in his eightieth year; but his mind is evidently as keen as ever. All his life his attitude regarding things not seen- God, the human soul, life hereafter, etc.- has been severely skeptical. But now, in the sunset of his days, he has undertaken the investigation of those great matters, with a desire to know the truth, but with insistence upon PROOF. 'I want FACTS,' was the way he expressed the attitude of his mind. Owing to Mr. Edison's deafness, it was difficult for the editor to speak to him. But it was better so; and the promise was given that he would read attentively a short letter on the matter discussed." This Mr. Mauro wrote "the day following the interview."

"Dear Mr. Edison,

"It was a real pleasure to see you and hear your voice again. Moreover, the matters touched upon in our conversation of yesterday gave me much to think about.

"You want facts. So do I. A reasonable man's belief should rest upon nothing less substantial than well-attested facts. So here is a fact for you:
"God (whom you reverently call "the Supreme Intelligence") loves you and wants your love in return. My visit to you and this letter are evidence of it, though, of course, not sufficient to prove to your satisfaction either that God is, or that He cares for Thomas Edison. But wait.

"Another fact: God is Light.
"How do I know? I know only in the way that light can be known- by experience. For the nature of light is such that it admits of being known only in the way of experimental knowledge. I am saying this to the man who has had more to do with the development of artificial light than any other who ever lived in this dark world, and who probably knows more about light, in a practical way, than any other. How then could the existence and the nature of light be demonstrated to one who had been shut up all his life in a dark cell? It could be done only in some way such as by opening a window; and then the light would enter, and prove itself.

"This I say, because you are seeking a solution of the mystery of life and the soul by the way of analogies form nature. Very good. Much truth can be got in that way; as Butler, in his famous Analogy has abundantly shown. I hope you will continue your investigation, and in your customary thorough-going fashion; for it is the most important you ever undertook. And in this connection I call you attention to a clear and pertinent analogy; the point of which is that the proof you demand can be had only by experiment. For myself, I know that God is Light, and that He sheds light in the heart that is opened to Him, because I put the matter to the test of experience twenty-three years ago, and have enjoyed the consciousness of spiritual light ever since. Moreover, my experience is that of millions of others.

"Let me remind you that light will not force its way into a place that is tightly closed; but that, if only a tiny chink be opened, in it comes, proving itself.
"Likewise Christ, who is 'the true Light,' does not force Himself into the chambers of the soul against the human will. For the nature of the matter is such that, like the smell of a violet, the color of a sunset, or the taste of honey, it can only be known by experiment. The 'Good Book' that you asked me not to quote, says, 'Come and see,' 'Taste and see.' Is not that strictly scientific?

"You have been truly doing God's work in helping to enlighten the darkness of nature. But there is a spiritual darkness too. So follow the analogy, and it will lead you straight to the truth, and to the solution of the whole mystery of human existence.

"With sincere affection and respect,
(Signed) Philip Mauro."

Philip Mauro was a prolific writer. His works includes God's Pilgrims, The Church, the Churches and the Kingdom, The Hope of Israel, Ruth, the Satisfied Stranger, The Wonders of Bible Chronology, The Last Call to the Godly Remnant, More Than a Prophet, Dispensationalism Justifies the Crucifixion, Speaking in Tongues, and Things Which Soon Must Come to Pass. Many of these works may be obtained through Schoettle Publishing Company, Inc.


http://www.schoettlepublishing.com/biographies/pmauro.htm

sermonindex Mar 26, 2016

I recently discovered Phil Mauro and his writings PP. They have been like an oasis of truth in a barren desert.

I did not know about that story regarding Thomas Edison.

P
proudpapa Mar 26, 2016

Hi Julius here is a full bio :
http://www.philipmauro.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/CHAMPION-Of-THE-KINGDOM.pdf

P
proudpapa Mar 26, 2016

"Philip Mauro loved the Lord Jesus Christ above all else and he loved the Scriptures just as much.
For me the most striking fact about him is that from the moment he was saved in 1903 at age 45, he never again consulted a doctor until his death at age 93 on April 7, 1952. He trusted only God for his health and physical well-being. That is an incredible testimony.
As he grew in stature as a believer, his views on certain subjects changed as he received more light and revelation from God. He chose to acknowledge his mistakes and to retract his opinions rather than to seek the approval of man by clinging to his previous position. He become a prolific writer, sharing the new light he had received. As a result, many friends turned against him, labeling his views "revolutionary” yet he remained undeterred.
With his motto, "Scripture interprets Scripture”, and a subsequent significant library of writings as his greatest legacy, Philip Mauro is the ideal Christian role model ”“ a "simple soul” who took God at his Word and lived the Word.

sermonindex Mar 26, 2016

Here we go again with another preterist agenda based false doctrinal presentation. Most Christians reject this nonsense and 100% of them who have the Holy Spirit in them absolutely deny this false and erroneous twisting of God's Word.
This ungodly doctrinal heresy is posted by the same gang of 4 here on a regular basis . Can't understand why the same characters alway bring this garbage up even when they have been told repeatedly by Greg not to do so.

"Question: "What is the preterist view of the end times?"

Answer: According to preterism, all prophecy in the Bible is really history. The preterist interpretation of Scripture regards the book of Revelation as a symbolic picture of first-century conflicts, not a description of what will occur in the end times. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning "past.” Thus, preterism is the view that the biblical prophecies concerning the "end times” have already been fulfilled””in the past. Preterism is directly opposed to futurism, which sees the end-times prophecies as having a still-future fulfillment.

Preterism is divided into two types: full (or consistent) preterism and partial preterism. This article will confine the discussion to full preterism (or hyper-preterism, as some call it).

Preterism denies the future prophetic quality of the book of Revelation. The preterist movement essentially teaches that all the end-times prophecies of the New Testament were fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans attacked and destroyed Jerusalem. Preterism teaches that every event normally associated with the end times””Christ’s second coming, the tribulation, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment””has already happened. (In the case of the final judgment, it still in the process of being fulfilled.) Jesus’ return to earth was a "spiritual” return, not a physical one.

Preterism teaches that the Law was fulfilled in AD 70 and God’s covenant with Israel was ended. The "new heavens and new earth” spoken of in Revelation 21:1 is, to the preterist, a description of the world under the New Covenant. Just as a Christian is made a "new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17), so the world under the New Covenant is a "new earth.” This aspect of preterism can easily lead to a belief in replacement theology.

Preterists usually point to a passage in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse to bolster their argument. After Jesus describes some of the end-times happenings, He says, "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” (Matthew 24:34). The preterist takes this to mean that everything Jesus speaks of in Matthew 24 had to have occurred within one generation of His speaking””the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was therefore "Judgment Day.”

The problems with preterism are many. For one thing, God’s covenant with Israel is everlasting (Jeremiah 31:33”“36), and there will be a future restoration of Israel (Isaiah 11:12). The apostle Paul warned against those who, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, teach falsely "that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some” (2 Timothy 2:17”“18). And Jesus’ mention of "this generation” should be taken to mean the generation that is alive to see the beginning of the events described in Matthew 24.

Eschatology is a complex subject, and the Bible’s use of apocalyptic imagery to relate many prophecies has led to a variety of interpretations of end-time events. There is room for some disagreement within Christianity regarding these things. However, full preterism has some serious flaws in that it denies the physical reality of Christ’s second coming and downplays the dreadful nature of the tribulation by restricting that event to the fall of Jerusalem."

sermonindex Mar 26, 2016

PP,

I am still working on The Hope of Israel (not a superficial book, many scriptures), and it is undeniably clear that he has a deep love for Jesus Christ.

1 John 3:14

sermonindex Mar 26, 2016

Which jesus? Oh yes the jesus who returned in 70 AD in an ethereal spiritual body and is now reigning over the spiritual world both unseen and invisible. The jesus who returned to set up his invisible eternal kingdom and even now is manifesting his rule over the whole sum of everything that was, is and was to come and came already,
You can keep that jesus,.

sermonindex Mar 26, 2016

PP, does Mauro believe Jesus came back physically in 70AD?

Is that the hallmark of preterism? Believing that Jesus came back in 70AD?

How can anyone believe that? That would have become part of human history.

Not having studied Preterism, I just don't know what defines it.

P
proudpapa Mar 26, 2016

p. 600 of "Things which soon must come to pass.

"It is truth of immenence interest and importance that the second coming of Christ will be coincident with ":the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men" and that it is for that reason alone that His coming again has been so delayed....."

add : "It is most needful we should clearly understand that of those whose blessed privilege it is to live in this day of salvation all who do not "come to repentance" ere He returns,will perish v.9.
In fact, the substance of the whole passage is this : the Lord's second advent is delayed for no other reason than that it means judgment for all who are not in Christ and God is not willing that any should perish.


add : He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

sermonindex Mar 26, 2016

I think that is pretty clear. Thanks PP.

I once posted this from Jim Fowler's website Christinyou dot net. I see he has a dot com now, too. Just search "Revelation Series" if you want to find it.

When I posted this I said that the Triumphalist interpretation makes the most sense to me when you let scripture interpret scripture. The only thing I know about Preterism is what Jim says below.

Varying Interpretations
It will be instructive to consider some of the varying interpretations of Revelation and the interpretive methods they employ. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of varying interpretations of the Revelation, but some of the broader schools of interpretation might be identified as follows:

(1) Preterist interpretation. This label is derived from the Latin word praeter, meaning "past." This interpretation views the pictures of Revelation as referring to what was happening in the past, in the first century. They see the images as representing governmental persecution during the reign of either Nero or Domitian. Most understand Revelation chapters 21 and 22 as referring to the future, but there are some who "spiritualize" and put all 22 chapters of Revelation back in the past of the first century.

(2) Historicist interpretation. This interpretation stretches out the images of Revelation to refer to the history of the Western church. For example, the "fifth trumpet" has been interpreted as the Mohammedans in the 7th century; the "sixth trumpet" has been viewed as the invasion of the Turks. Chapter 10 allegedly refers to the "strong angel" who announces the Reformation when the "little book" was found, i.e. the Bible. The "seven thunders" are against the Pope. Revelation 11 and the measuring of the temple is interpreted as the Reformation determination of the true church, and the two witnesses have been interpreted as Luther and Calvin against Rome. The ultimate victory is the overthrow of the Roman papacy.

(3) Futurist interpretation. Revelation 1-3 is recognized to be in the past, but 4-22 are regarded as the record of future events in the seven-year tribulation, leading to the second coming and the millennium. Ryrie, for example, takes 1:19 as the structural "key" for Revelation: (1) "things seen" - 1:9-20 (2) "things which are" - 2:1-3:22 (3) "things which shall take place" (4:1-19:21 in the tribulation; 20:1-15 in the millennium, etc.)

(4) Triumphalist interpretation. Sometimes called the idealist or symbolic interpretation. This interpretation usually sees the images of Revelation as explaining the conflict of good and evil, God and Satan, throughout all of time.

sermonindex Mar 26, 2016

Being a Lawyer allowed Mauro to be very effective in his doublespeak.
One sentence this, another the complete opposite when speaking to
same topic.

"Mr. Mauro's system of dispensational teaching can only produce confusion and reduce the Word of God to chaos in the minds of his readers. In the following quotation he throws overboard the whole teaching of Scripture as to our Lord being specially the King of the Jews. He says: "Specially is it to be remembered that the true Israel was never at any time, in the purpose of God, an earthly nation or kingdom.
This being recognized, it will be clearly perceived without any further help from the Scriptures, that the whole rabbinical doctrine of an earthly Kingdom over which the Messiah,' the son of David, was to reign and, to which all the nations of the world were to be tributory, was from top to bottom a work of their carnal imaginations" (The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 123). Here we are told that the idea that the Lord shall be King over Israel is simply a rabbinical idea, that it is not taken from Scripture in any shape or form. We are aghast at such a contradiction of Scripture.

Let us quote a few scriptures to prove this.
When the angel came to Mary with the news of the high honor that was to be put upon her, he said to her: "Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever: and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:30-33).
Surely this is explicit enough for anyone. Christ is to sit on David's throne, and reign over the house of Jacob. Mr. Mauro says this is a rabbinical conception, from top to bottom.

If this is so, how was it that the wise men of the east came to Jerusalem, asking, Where is He that is born King of the Jews? They had seen His star in the east, and had come to worship Him. When Herod heard of this he was troubled, and called the chief priests and scribes and demanded to know where Christ should be born. How did they reply? Was it rabbinical conception, or did they appeal to Scripture? They appealed to Scripture, and there is no appeal from this surely. They quoted from Mic. 5:2: "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be RULER in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Here our Lord is to be RULER in Israel. It could not be more explicit.

Take another scripture from Isa. 9:6, 7: "For unto us is born a Child, unto us a Son is given: and the GOVERNMENT shall be on His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, UPON THE THRONE OF DAVID, AND UPON HIS KINGDOM TO ORDER IT, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever." Surely this is as plain as possible.
We all remember the wonderful entry of our Lord into Jerusalem, riding on the colt of an ass in fulfillment of the prophecy: "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, THY KING cometh unto thee: He is just and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass" (Zech. 9:9). Other Scriptures might be adduced to prove that Christ is the King of the Jews. He Himself acknowledged to Pilate that He was King. His cross bore the superscription, "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matt. 27:37).
Enough has been given in the way of proof texts.

We ask then, Has Christ sat on the throne of His father, David, in Jerusalem and reigned in righteousness and peace? We know this has not taken place as yet. Scripture awaits its fulfillment. Christ is to be King over Israel yet.

One more passage, however, we quote to show how the King is going to reign: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. "In His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is His name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
"Therefore the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt: but, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land" (Jer. 23:5-8).
Two or three things are prominent in this passage. First, a King is to be raised up unto David. Second, that the King is JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, identifying Him with our blessed Lord Jesus Christ. Thirdly, the children of Israel are to be gathered from the north country whither the Lord has driven them, and they are to dwell in their own land. The teaching that the Jews are to be gathered to their own land in unbelief, that according to Zechariah the spirit of grace and of supplications will be granted to them, and they shall look upon their Messiah whom they have pierced, and mourn for Him as a man mourns for his only son, falls into line with the whole scheme of prophecy concerning Israel. It cannot be said that anything like this has ever taken place.
To try, as Mr. Mauro attempts, to prove that this was fulfilled when a matter of scarcely 50,000 Jews returned from Babylon in the times of Ezra and Nehemiah is simply the despair of exegesis. That was "a trickling stream" compared to what is happening at this present time.
That the Jews will go back in unbelief is clear from Scripture. It was the believing Jews that went back to Jerusalem in the days of Ezra, men whose spirit God had raised to go up to build the house of God at Jerusalem, as we read in Ezra 1:5. Scripture, however, clearly shows that in the future the Jews will return to their own land in unbelief: "I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. THEN [not before] will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean... a new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you.... I will put My Spirit within you.... Ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers.... I will also cause you to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded... the heathen that are left round about shall know that I the Lord built the ruined places, and plant that that was desolate: I the Lord have spoken it and I will do it" (Ezek. 36:24-36).
Surely it speaks of blindness as to what is happening under our very eyes, to question what is developing at the present time. The Jews ARE going back in unbelief, but in no "trickling stream." The wastes ARE being builded. Tel Aviv, for instance, is built on the desolate sand-dunes of a few brief years ago. "

sermonindex Mar 26, 2016

One thing that I liked about Jim Fowler's study on Revelation is the following:

"These varying interpretations are not issues to fight over. There is value in each of them. From the preterist we can learn that Christianity is contextually rooted in the past, and so is the Revelation. From the historicist we can learn that Christianity is continually timely, and so is the Revelation. From the Futurist we can learn that Christianity is confidently hopeful for the future, and so is the Revelation. From the Triumphalist we can learn that Christianity is constantly recognizing Christ's victory, and the book of Revelation certainly reveals such.

Regardless of which interpretive method one employs, one has to admit that there is symbolism in Revelation that pictures the triumph of Christ; the letter was first written to historical churches in Asia in the past, back in the first century; it is a revelation that has had some message for Christians throughout history; and Revelation does speak of the ultimate victory of Christ at the end of time in the future.

In this study we will employ a Christocentic or Christological interpretation that would probably be a sub-category of the Triumphalist or Symbolic interpretation.

The reason I employ the Christocentric-Triumphalist interpretation of Revelation is because it seems to me to provide the best consistency with the interpretation of the rest of the Scriptures. The Bible is consistent in its message from beginning to end, and the Bible is the best commentary on the Bible. The consistency of this interpretation is seen from its:"

sermonindex Mar 26, 2016

"The reason I employ the Christocentric-Triumphalist interpretation of Revelation is because it seems to me to provide the best consistency with the interpretation of the rest of the Scriptures. The Bible is consistent in its message from beginning to end, and the Bible is the best commentary on the Bible. The consistency of this interpretation is seen from its:"

When will Jim Fowler begin to interpret the Bible this way?

And why do you, Julius keep pretending that you are not a preterist when you continually betray yourself by your words and the authors you continually quote?

What is your agenda to continually bombard this place with this heretical nonsense?

sermonindex Mar 27, 2016

Brothers I Marvel at the complexities of theology. And what men will employ to convince us of doctrines that are simply not taught in the New Testament.

Our Presbyterian brethren develop a complicated theology called The Covenant of Grace to justify the baptism of infants.

The cessionists develop a strange theology based on the canonization of scripture at the end of the first century. They do this to say that spiritual gifts are no longer in operation in this day in age. That is the same gifts of the prophetic gifts.

Others will come along to distort the scriptures to say that hell is not eternal.

And they're at those that are distorting the scriptures that seek to justify same-sex marriage.

And the praeterist comes along and develops a complicated theokigy to say that all prophetic events were fulfilled in 70 AD.

It's interesting in the doctrines above that one must appeal to a complicated theology to prove these doctrines true.

A simple reading of the New Testament will show that only believers in Christ are baptized.

A simple reading of the New Testament will show that the sign gifts are still in operation and have never ceased.

A simple reading of the New Testament was show that hell is eternal.

A simple reading of the New Testament will show that marriage is between a man and a woman.

A simple reading of the New Testament will show that Christ has yet to return.

William Tyndale who gave us the English Bible had only one goal in mind. He wanted to give a Bible where the ploughboy and the milkmaid could get truth directly from God and not from the priest of the Roman Catholic Church. Or any other ecclesiastical authority or theologian.

We have the Holy Spirit and the word of God today. I don't need to read a complicated theology book to see their preatetism is lacking. As a matter of fact praetetism is simply not taught in the scriptures. And that Christ is yet to return.

My thoughts.

Brother Blaine


sermonindex Mar 27, 2016

Thank you for your thoughts, as always Bearmaster. No one is shouting you down or preventing you from having a conversation.

If we have the truth, what is there to fear? The Bereans were good listeners and also had a teachable heart, yet, searched the scriptures diligently to see if the things Paul told them were true. So many things that Paul said are being rejected, today.

Blessing to you, dear brother.

sermonindex Mar 27, 2016

Bro don't feel like I'm being shouted down. Having a conversation. Have searched the scriptures. Don't find praeterism to be true. As well as the other doctrines I mentioned in my previous post.

Respectfully.

Bro Blaine

sermonindex Mar 27, 2016

Well said Blaine.

There's no fear Julius. I have listened to the arguments & they just don't "smell right" (discern something not quite right). Even some of the pre-tribbers (the real dispensationalists) can make a decent argument if you follow the rabbit trail with tunnel vision glasses on. But if you know the whole/full counsel of scripture, you know it ain't the truth. Preterism is like that too. I have Sam Storms' book called "Kingdom Come" & in fairness plan on reading it after I finish reading Joel Richardson's book I'm reading now, "When a Jew Rules the World". But I know the scriptures & I don't think you should need a preterist teacher with charts & prethought specific usages of scriptures to explain God's intent on so great a subject. And really, as I have said before, what jumped off the page to me was in Acts where before Christ's ascension the disciples asked, "when will come to restore the kingdom to Israel" & he just said, "it is not for you to know the times or seasons, only my father." Jesus in many other places corrected wrong understanding in the disciples' statements. If Preterism is true & there is no coming restoration of Israel where all Israel will be saved, why didn't he correct their ignorance? Or as preterists like to say, "was God trying to just confuse them?" (When twisting scripture references to make their point).

Anyways, I have heard & read the arguments, & I don't fear them. I just don't buy them. Sorry.

sermonindex Mar 27, 2016

Hey Blane, I don't find preterism to be true either.

P
proudpapa Mar 27, 2016

The excerpt that Rev__Enue posted was written by Algernon J. Pollock 1864-1957. A Plymouth Brethren * minister. and a dispensationalist.
The entire critique can be found at : http://bibletruthpublishers.com/a-brief-examination-of-mr-philip-mauros-later-views-on-dispensational-truth/a-j-pollock/lbd15072

another excerpt from the same artical Algernon J. Pollock writes :

"Mr. Mauro weakens his whole position by the virulence of his attack on the well-known Scofield Bible. In his introduction to his volume, "The Gospel of the Kingdom," he writes: "Through an incident of recent occurrence I was made aware of the extent-far greater than I had imagined-to which the modern system of dispensationalism* has found acceptance among orthodox christians; and also of the extent-correspondingly great-to which the recently published 'Scofield' Bible (which is the main vehicle of the new system of doctrine referred to) has usurped the place of authority that belongs to God's Bible alone" (p. 5). Now this seems to us to be a really bitter and virulent attack. We are not able to subscribe to every note in the Scofield Bible, but we are bound to admit that Dr. Scofield has got together a large number of very helpful notes, explanatory of the text of Scripture, and remarkable in their combination of clarity, conciseness and general correctness.
(*Throughout this pamphlet we reproduce extracts from Mr. Mauro's works exactly as they are. Italics and capitals in every case are his.)
In this note Mr. Mauro charges Dr. Scofield with usurping the place of authority which belongs to God's Word alone. Can he substantiate this charge? Does not Dr. Scofield print in the Bible which bears his name, the authorized text from Genesis to Revelation without the alteration of a single word? Dr. Scofield's notes are distinct from the text. They are explanatory and helpful. They do not claim to be inspired.
His notes are on a par with a servant of the Lord who stands up, reads a portion of Scripture, and then seeks to expound it to his hearers to the best of his ability. The one does it by word of mouth; Dr. Scofield does it by writing. How unjust it would be to denounce every servant of the Lord who stands up to give an exegetical address, as usurping the place that belongs to God's Bible alone! The so-called Scofield Bible is GOD'S Bible, whatever Mr. Mauro may say. It is within his province to express his opinion as to the wisdom of the explanatory notes or otherwise, but he has clearly gone beyond the bounds of fair criticism in this case.
Mr. Mauro returns to the attack: "It is a matter of grief to me that a book should exist wherein the corrupt words of mortal man are printed on the same page with the holy Words of the living God; this mixture of the precious and the vile being made an article of sale, entitled a 'Bible,' and distinguished by a man's name" (The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 6). To write off the notes in the Scofield Bible in this sweeping fashion as "corrupt" and "vile" is going far too far. One's moral sense is shocked by such utterly unfair treatment.
It is true that Mr. Mauro makes a frank acknowledgment of a very unchristian state of mind that marked him when he held the views he now attacks. He says: "It is mortifying to remember that I not only held and taught these novelties myself, but that I even enjoyed a complacent sense of superiority because thereof, and regarded with feelings of pity and contempt those who had not received the 'new light,' and were unacquainted with this up-to-date method of 'rightly dividing the word of truth.'... Yet I was among those who eagerly embraced it (upon human authority solely for there is none other), and who earnestly pressed it upon my fellow-Christians" (The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 6.).
All honor to Mr. Mauro for this frank acknowledgment. It would have been out of good taste to have referred to it in this pamphlet, if it had not been that he is committing the same fault in the book we are reviewing. Proverbs tells us, "Whoso confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall have mercy." We may well ask in the light of the extracts we have just given, Has Mr. Mauro forsaken, as well as confessed, the wrong attitude he took towards those he differed from? It does not look like it. The virulence of his attack on the Scofield Bible, the recklessness of his accusations, are surprising in a lawyer, and above all in a Christian teacher. We wonder if he does not even now view with "pity" and "contempt" those who hold the views he once held and pressed, but which he has now renounced.
Here is a statement, referring to the Scofield Bible, that far exceeds the bounds of common fairness: "There is no doubt whatever that it is mainly to this cleverly executed work that dispensationalism owes its present vogue. For without that aid it doubtless would be clearly seen by all who give close attention to this doctrine, that it is a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible, and not a scheme of doctrine derived from it" (The Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 21).
Mr. Mauro cannot complain of these extracts being reproduced, seeing he has written them himself, and wishes for their widest circulation. It is only just and right to take account of the way he treats the notes in the Scofield Bible and its Editor. Dr. Scofield's editorship refers solely to the notes and comments on the Bible that bears his name, and not to the Bible itself.
Back to top
Dispensation or Era
Mr. Mauro sets off by describing the dispensational teaching presented in the notes in the Scofield Bible as Modernism, ancient Rabbinism, and even akin to Russell-ism. And yet he once firmly believed it, and found support in the Word of God for it, but now has no terms too strong in which to denounce it.
What is meant by the dispensational teaching that is particularly engaging our attention? Briefly, it began with the preaching of John the Baptist, that the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand, followed up by our Lord and His apostles proclaiming the same truth. That consequent on the rejection of our Lord by the Jews, the Kingdom of Heaven is in mystery; that is, it is not in display; that when the present Church period is closed by the rapture, the Jews, gathered to their own land in unbelief, will pass through unparalleled judgments, culminating in the Great Tribulation, as foretold by our
Lord, followed by His coming as the Messiah to reign over His ancient people and over the world as King of kings and Lord of lords, the Kingdom lasting for 1,000 years, commonly called the Millennium, the Kingdom in manifestation in all its splendor, no longer in mystery. Then "the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea" (Hab. 2:14).
This dispensational teaching was in vogue on both sides of the Atlantic long years before the Scofield Bible saw the light. It was taught by such spiritual giants' as J. N. Darby, W. Kelly, C. E. Stuart, C. H. Mackintosh, W. Trotter, F. W. Grant, Walter Scott, etc., and cannot be rightly described as "a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible."

sermonindex Mar 27, 2016

Amazing! proudpapa, believe it or not, my first Bible when I got saved overseas was the Scofield bible. From that time as a young man in my early 20's, I grew up in the Lord on the KJV and I memorized scripture without even thinking about it. I used to read all of Scofield's notes convinced that if they were in the Bible they were accurate. After awhile, devouring the Word and tuning my spiritual ears to the voice behind the Word, I realized that Scofield's notes were another voice and "another voice His sheep will not follow". At that time I knew nothing about nothing, just knew that Scofield's notes were not jiving with what I was reading in God's word. So, I got the Thompson Chain Reference and have had that one ever since. I felt no animosity towards Scofield, it was the beginning of my education where I was to learn that even author's of Bibles, Lexicons and study aids can be wrong. And no one, has all the truth. I go back to what Jim Fowler said about something can be learned from all the eschatological positions.

And this was a transition for me out of dispensationalism of Scofield, that took a long time because in my early days in the Lord, I was much too busy as an evangelist and did not get into serious study of Revelation until later. Like Philip Mauro, I have sympathy for others who line up with Scofield. How could I not? I like what you said about "light" in your piece about Mauro and Thomas Edison. Light does not force it's way in, it waits for an opening and then it cannot help but come in. I have found that to be true in my own life.

This discussion is locked.

Archived
1 of 112 posts