In some issues of Christian Truth during 1958 we dealt with the subject of dispensational truth which was then under attack from men who had been more or less connected with so-called fundamentalist circles where dispensationalism was valued and taught. We now feel obliged to refer to the same subject because the attacks continue, and departure from this precious God-given heritage is accelerating. We have no expectation of helping those men who have for various reasons given up this truth, but we write for those who may be misled by them.
A recent publication against the precious expectancy of the coming of the Lord to take His blood-bought, heavenly people home to he with Himself is a book entitled Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, which was written by Clarence B. Bass. He has degrees in theology, and a Ph.D. degree from the University of Edinburgh. He is one of that class who was originally brought up in dispensational truth, but who has departed from it.
Dr. Bass has not brought forth anything new as an answer to dispensational truth, nor are his arguments more convincing than those which have previously been advanced by others. There seems to be the same underlying will to reject that which for some reason seems to cut across a predetermined course. People often reject that which they are unwilling to accept, things which would he quite obvious to those with an open mind, or, in the case of God's Word, to those seeking to know the mind of God.
One of the most frequently recurring' phrases in Dr. Bass's hook is "historic faith." He seems to feel that because there is no record of the hope of the Lord's coming, to call His redeemed ones to Himself, to be found in the writings of the so-called church fathers, it cannot he true. But this is illogical on the face of it; for a search of the writings of the church fathers will not prove anything, but that they were almost without exception in error. Some of them were not even sound on the deity of Christ, and it is vain to rely on the church fathers for any truth. Departure and declension were coming in rapidly before the apostles left the scene. How good it is for us that God aid not cast us on them, or on any pretended successors to the apostles, for the truth of God. In view of his departure Paul committed the saints to God and to the Word of His grace (Acts 20), and cast Timothy on the truth he had taught him, and on the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14-1714But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:14‑17)). John, in view of the apostasy, took the saints back to that "which was from the beginning," not to church fathers. Peter likewise did not refer to successors, but sought to have the saints keep in remembrance that which they had received.
And if we go back to Scripture and refer to the parable of the ten virgins in Matt. 25, we find that from the beginning these professors (some real and some false) took their lamps (symbols of profession) and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Here, in unmistakable clarity, these professors at the beginning started out expecting the immediate coming of the bridegroom. That this was true in early Christianity is abundantly clear from many scriptures. The Thessalonians turned to God from idols "to wait" for His Son from heaven. There was no disposition to reject the imminence of the Lord's coming in those days. But we read of an "evil servant" who said in his heart, "My lord delayeth his coming" (Matt. 24:4848But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; (Matthew 24:48)). The basic fault was "in his heart"; he preferred to put it off because he did not desire to meet him. Perhaps this same evil is at work today.
The ten virgins were not at fault in this way, but they ALL went to sleep; that is, they forgot to wait and watch for their coming bridegroom. They at first wearied and became drowsy and then lost the hope of the Lord's return. They settled down in the world to live with and as the world. This continued for a long time, for they required an arousing call "at midnight" to awaken them. In view of our Lord's own parable to describe things after He left them, is it surprising that religious writers for century after century made no mention of the hope of the Lord's coming to claim His redeemed ones? The lack of such statements from the church fathers, and from all theological writers until the early part of the 19th century, is merely proof of the accuracy of our Lord's parable. It was necessary that the hope be lost and then finally revived to fulfill the scriptures. Thus, the evidence cited by Dr. Bass and others to prove that the Lord's coming cannot be truth because it was so long not mentioned, is but proof of its truth and verity.
Thank God that the parable does not say that they ever all went to sleep again; therefore His coming MUST be close at hand, for it is being given up on every side. It is coming under attack and would soon be lost, but before that can happen He will shout that shout and call us home. He will even take those real Christians who are rejecting it and opposing it—not to their disappointment at that moment, however; but how will they feel when they see His face and learn that they were really fighting against His truth?
Dr. Bass's search for supporters of his rejection of the truth of the Lord's coming for His Church leads him into some strange territory, for he makes common cause with a foremost Seventh-day Adventist writer. He not only quotes from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by LeRoy Froom, but lauds his work; he writes thus: "LeRoy Froom's masterful survey of the history of eschatology clearly demonstrates that until the nineteenth century the church viewed Israel as having a place in the millennium, but not as a separate entity, a different kingdom, as dispensational literalism contends. Rather, Israel was viewed as a part of the continual reign of Christ instituted in the church." p. 24. Could he expect soundness of doctrine from a Seventh-day Adventist source? How could such a writer distinguish between Israel and the Church when their whole scheme is a conglomeration of Judaism with some Christianity added? And how about Dr. Bass's respect for anything an Adventist could say about the Millennium when to them it will not be a time of blessing under the beneficent and righteous rule of Christ, but the earth will be a burned out cinder, with the devil the only inhabitant?
Could it be that the late Dr. Barnhouse was actuated by a similar motive when he sought to foist the Seventh-day Adventists on faithful Christians? For he also disclaimed dispensationalism, and said that he never preached on the Lord's coming.
As most of our readers are aware, dispensationalism is the understanding of the truth of the Word of God as it relates to mankind at different times. God has dealt in various ways with men and revealed Himself as He chose in each dispensation. He revealed Himself as the Almighty to Abraham when He was making promises to him—the One who promised was fully able to perform all that He promised. When He made a covenant with Israel, He revealed Himself as Jehovah—the unchanging One who would be faithful to all His covenant. After the death and resurrection of Christ, He was revealed to believers as their Father—the Son said in resurrection, "My Father, and your Father; My God, and your God." To mix such titles all up together is monstrous. To see no difference between Israel and the Church, between God's purposes and plans for them in their respective places, is to compound confusion. In such a case the language of the Psalms, crying for vengeance on enemies, would be put into the mouths of Christians—how utterly unbecoming! And while Christians have benefited from the Psalms, they are not the language of Christians; nor is God as Father known in them. This is only one small sample of the confusion which results from being unacquainted with dispensational truth. No one will ever understand the Bible apart from seeing that God has one purpose concerning Israel and the earth, and another concerning the Church and a heavenly people.
Dr. Bass frequently attacks what he calls "the dichotomy of the church-Israel relation." He sets himself in bold opposition to a distinction between the two. In one place he says, "This summary reflects again the dichotomy of the system—that there is a different hope for the church and for Israel. The hope of the church is that it will share in Christ's glory, both earthly and heavenly. The hope for Israel is the kingdom on earth with Christ seated on the throne of David." p. 132. Will Dr. Bass dare to say that Christ will not yet gather together "all things in... [Himself], both which are in heaven, and which are on earth"? And does not the next verse say to the church at Ephesus (and so to the Church at large) in whom we also have obtained an inheritance? We, the Church, are His coheirs. Our calling, our hope, and our citizenship are all heavenly. This elevated position was never true of Israel, nor is it promised to them in the future. On the basis of obedience, they were promised blessing in "basket and store"; we are blessed with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places.
Dr. Bass's battle is with Mr. J. N. Darby all through, whom he prefers to see as an adamant leader who acted independently of the scholarship of the past (we ask, If this scholarship was in error on the truth of the Lord's coming and the heavenly calling of the Church, why should he give heed to it?). He claims that "the basic elements, and hermeneutical pattern, of Darby's eschatology persist unchanged in contemporary dispensationalism." p. 128. On another page Dr. Bass says, "Darby's eschatology grows out of two basic principles: his doctrine of the church, which is itself rooted in his dispensational dichotomy between Israel and the church; and a hermeneutical application of rigid literalism, particularly to prophetic Scripture." p. 129. This rouses Dr. Bass's ire. He wants to merge Israel and the Church. But let him aver that Israel was ever called to heaven, or with a heavenly calling. And if the Church is merely a prolongation of Israel, why does he not keep the Sabbath and offer sacrifices? Israel was under the law, under a schoolmaster; are we?
The doctor's charge of "rigid literalism" is made because Mr. Darby and all Spirit-taught dispensationalists make the word "Israel" apply to Israel. And why not? Dr. Bass also attacks the late A. C. Gaebelein, saying, "Adhering to its rigid literalism and unconditional covenant, dispensationalism, however, insists that the church in no wise assumes any of Israel's relation to God; there can be no 'spiritual Israel'; and that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are still inviolate." Then he quotes from A. C. Gaebelein in his charges, and says, "Gaebelein apparently overlooked 1 Peter 2:99But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (1 Peter 2:9) where the church is called a 'holy nation'." Here the ignorance of a proponent of the so-called historic faith becomes evident. Did this gentleman never read Peter's address in the first verse of the first chapter? Peter wrote to believing Jews of the dispersion. They had lost everything for the time by identifying themselves with a rejected Christ, and he merely quotes from Ex. 19:66And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exodus 19:6) where God had promised Israel certain blessings on the basis of obedience (which they forfeited by disobedience), and now says to the suffering and believing Jews, You have come into blessing before the nation will. They came into these blessings in a higher and better way, far in advance of the nation. What a cheer this must have been to these oppressed Christians who had been Jews. But Dr. Bass, as all of his group, eagerly grasps at any straw to "prove" that the Christian is only an Israelite after all. Let us say firmly, that the name Israel in the New Testament never means the Church. There is no such thing as a spiritual Israel in this day. When the nation of Israel is finally blessed when Christ sets up His earthly kingdom, and Jerusalem becomes the center of God's government for the earth, Israel will be born again (see Ezek. 36); and they will all know God from the least to the greatest (Jer. 31:3434And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, 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)).
Dr. Bass rejects the truth that God will yet fulfill His promises made to Abraham to establish Israel on the earth. Let us paraphrase a question Paul asked of King Agrippa, Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should keep His promises? Is it not presumption to question God's faithfulness to His pledged word? How then does this opponent get around the difficulty he creates? Here is his answer: "The historic faith has held that the kingdom was not postponed, but fulfilled in the church, and will come to its consummation in the millennial reign." p. 33. This statement is absurd on the face of it. God had promised to send Elijah to recall Israel to their God preceding the coming kingdom (see the close of Malachi), and then John the Baptist came in that very manner; but they rejected him. The Lord Himself said, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." Matt. 11:1414And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. (Matthew 11:14). The Messiah's forerunner was rejected and so was the Messiah. The kingdom promised was offered by John and the Lord, but summarily rejected by the Jews. In Matt. 12, the Lord disclaimed relationship with Israel; and in chapter 13, He went out to the seaside and spoke of sowing something new. In this chapter the mysteries of the kingdom are mentioned, for the kingdom of heaven in this form is a sphere on earth where an absent and rejected king is supposedly owned; it is Christendom. If Christendom is the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, then God's work is a failure, speaking reverently. Dr. Bass's whole plan belittles God's purpose and promise, and lowers the Church from its heavenly calling to a mere earthly adjunct to Judaism.
This leads him to denounce the distinction between law and grace. On page 35, Dr. Bass says, "dispensationalism has constructed a system in which law and grace work against each other, not conjointly." Will he prove his point that grace and law are adjuncts? "The law... was added because of transgression.”
Gal. 3:1919Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19). It came in by the way. It NEVER gave life to anyone. Paul says that it slew him (Rom. 7:1111For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (Romans 7:11)). "The law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Rom. 5:2020Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: (Romans 5:20). There was sin before the law was given, but the giving of the law made it worse, for it then became an offense. God did not give the law that sin might abound—far be the thought—but that it would take on its awful character by one's breaking the law. But where sin abounded, grace overabounded, not merely where there was the offense, for then grace would have been limited to Israelitish law breakers—Gentiles were never under the Mosaic law. Is it not therefore clear that Dr. Bass and those of his school mutilate both law and grace? They are mutually opposed to each other. If you mix them, "grace is no more grace," and "work is no more work.”
Dr. Bass asserts that, "the presupposition of the difference between law and grace, between Israel and the church, between the different relations of God to men in the different dispensations, when carried to its logical conclusion will inevitably result in a multiple form of salvation—that men are not saved the same in all ages." p. 34. Here he goes into the bog. Let him first state his premise, and prove it by Scripture, that men are saved by law now, or that those before the death and resurrection of Christ were saved by the proclamation of salvation through His finished work on Calvary. Obviously the gospel of God concerning His Son was reserved until after His death and resurrection. God could then say, "Come; for all things are now ready." Luke 14:1717And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. (Luke 14:17). Could that message have gone out earlier? No! And was any Jew (under the law) ever saved by the law? Never. If there is one principle on which all men are saved, it is faith. "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice." He may only have seen vaguely and indistinctly; but he had faith in God, and by his offering acknowledged that he could only be accepted by God on the basis of an acceptable sacrifice. All through the Old Testament times, God looked for faith that acknowledged Him. Some people have said that men were saved in those days by the efficacy of a sacrifice, but it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take sins away (Heb. 10:44For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. (Hebrews 10:4)). David, after his heinous sin, desired God to cleanse him; but he added, "Thou desiredst not sacrifice; else I would give it." Psa. 51:1616For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. (Psalm 51:16).
Now lest any misunderstand our point, we say, everyone who is saved owes all to the death of Christ; but before it was accomplished such a proclamation could not have been made. God looked at a man's faith, and did not raise the question of soul salvation at the time. There is one verse in Rom. 3 which solves the riddle of God's forbearance with men of faith who lived before the death of Christ: "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past." v. 25. God did not raise the issue with the poor bankrupt sinner, but passed by the sins of those who had faith; for He waited until the death of Christ, which would fully glorify Him in the matter of sins, would vindicate Himself in such passing over the sins that had taken place before. The atoning death of Christ is the basis of every blessing for the sinner, and also that which has glorified God. Some dispensationalists may have been faulty in answering the charges of the non-dispensational school about our having a multiple basis of salvation. But it is the anti-dispensationalists who err and create confusion. When once the dispensational dealings of God with men are overlooked, or rejected, the whole of the Bible is thrown into confusion for those who do so.
Another note from the book we have reviewed is the author's rejection of the period of the great tribulation. He says, "Historic premillenialism knows nothing of the Great Tribulation, which according to dispensationalism has a special purpose relating to the Jewish kingdom." p. 41. And yet the Lord spoke clearly about that time of trouble which is to come which will be unparalleled in the world's history. This period will be seven years in duration, divided into two equal parts—the latter half being more strictly the great tribulation. At this point Dr. Bass also assails Dr. John Walvoord and the Scofield Bible for following Mr. Darby's dispensationalism.
Dr. Bass says: "The basis for teaching such a tribulation is the over-all system of dispensationalism, rooted in the ever present distinction between Israel and the church. The pre-tribulation rapture [of the church] grows out of this concept, since the church must be removed before the remnant of Israel is gathered. The dichotomy between law and grace as multiple ways of divine dealing with man also lies behind this concept." p. 42. Therefore, we reply, if that writer is wrong ( as we know that he is) by trying to blend Israel and the church, and law and grace, then his whole attack on the tribulation and our being first gathered to be with Christ is extreme folly. If his premise is wrong, all his deductions are likewise wrong.
Anti-dispensationalists refuse to see that in 1 Thess. 4 we have the Apostle giving assurance to those dear saints that those of their number who died will not lose out by not being present when He comes in His glory, for He will bring all His saints with Him. (This was foretold in the Old Testament.) Then in chapter 4:15-18 we are given a parenthesis which tells how the saints get to be with Him in order to come back with Him. He is coming for us Himself. This is in perfect accord with the Lord's own promise: "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." John 14:2, 3. Dr. Bass rejects the word in 1 Thess. 4 without apology, but merely says it does not mean what dispensationalists take it to mean, or to be more exact, it does not mean what it says. Regarding John 14, let us ask, What does it mean? Are we to wait here for Him to come and join Israel and the Church, and to give them an earthly glory? No, definitely no; for He says plainly, I will come for you so you can be with Me where I am. Is He not to head up all things in heaven and on earth? Emphatically so! And to reject His own word that He is coming for us, is to be devoid of a suited response to His promise. The Bible closes with the assurance to His Church that He Himself is coming for her, and the Spirit and the bride respond with a call for Him to come.
Dr. Bass's frequently recurring phrase, "the historic faith," as though anything that broke with the vagaries and mistakes of the so-called church fathers, and their legion of successors, would be bound to be wrong, brings to mind the great revolution which was wrought in Martin Luther, and which by God's grace was wrought in the professing church. He was vainly following the course of the ages, and the follies and superstitions of men, until God brought him back suddenly to the truth of the Word of God which had long lain dormant in the church.
On three different occasions he was struck with that verse: "The just shall live by faith." On the third occasion, Luther was ascending "what is called Pilate's staircase" on his knees in penitential folly, when the Lord spoke loudly to his soul by that one verse. J. H. Merle D'Aubigne, the great historian of the Reformation, wrote: "It was by means of that word that God then said: 'Let there be light, and there was light'." p. 171 of the 15th edition. The great historian adds: "It was thus that Luther discovered what hitherto even the most illustrious teachers and reformers had overlooked. It was in Rome that God gave him this clear view of the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. He had come to seek in that city of the Pontiffs, the solution of some difficulties concerning a monastic order; he brought back in his heart, that which was to emancipate the Church." p. 173.
Surely this upset tradition and entrenched church dictums, but was it not the truth of God which was shown to Martin Luther? And when God later brought forth the "midnight" cry to arouse the saints of God to the long-forgotten and equally neglected truth of the Lord's coming, and the heavenly calling of the Church, Dr. Bass cries in substance, Heresy, because it had been so long lost. Is there not a parallel?
Twenty-eight pages of Dr. Bass's book are devoted to Darby's Doctrine of the Church. This, needless to say, he challenged; for he believes that Mr. Darby's dispensational doctrine has its roots in his doctrine of the Church. The truth of the heavenly calling and character of the Church do not seem to be agreeable to the opponent. But a worldly church which meddles in the affairs of the world has ever been the bane of the Church, and is the devil's artifice. Men want a church that is relevant to the world's space age problems; they want a socially conscious church which aims to improve the world. They look with disgust on what they call "other-worldly" attitude, and regard the imminence of the hope of the Lord's coming—that blessed hope—as merely a retreat into a storm cellar. Dr. Bass says: "The world awaits Christ's community, the church. It awaits with its frustrations, fears, complexities, and doubts. The church exists to stand in prophetic judgment against the injustice, disharmony, arrogance, greed pride, unbrotherliness, and sin of the world. Any theological system which causes a part of the church to withdraw from the larger fellowship in Christ and, by isolationism and separatism, to default its role, is wrong.”
In other words, Dr. Bass wants the whole church to be active in improving the world. Did not Christ say, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world"? But the whole system of anti-dispensationalism lowers the Church to the level of the world, both as to its character, its aims, its hopes, and it allegiance. This may be denied, but a check will prove our statement to be correct. May we also add, we believe that this attitude is what is causing many to attack dispensationalism, and many to give it up. But the world is heading for divine judgment, and well meaning attempts will not avail any more than Lot's did to clean up Sodom before its doom.
This book also attacks Mr. Darby's statement that the "church is in ruins." But any Christian willing to face the facts will have to admit that this is true. Look where you will, and apostasy is rampant. Many are becoming blind leaders of the blind in saying, "I do not believe that the church is in ruins." This is but to deceive. But those who are willing to go along with the great ecumenical drive must reject the truth. God has plainly told us what the last days would be. Reader, the only hope for the true believer is the coming of the Lord. Conditions in the world and in the professing church are bad, and are getting worse. Our only way out is up to be with Christ before the judgments fall.
Another secret of these attacks against the present hope of the coming of the Lord is to be found in Dr. Bass's book. He accuses Mr. Darby of promoting a doctrine divisive in character, and says that those who still hold this truth are practicing the spirit of division. But did not the Lord Himself say that He had come to bring division? (Luke 12:5151Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: (Luke 12:51)). Are we to go on with the evil which abounds in Christendom and call it charity? Mr. Darby is attacked for saying that separation from evil is God's principle of unity. But does not God call on those who would be faithful to come out from among the unclean and be separate?
We will quote a few more lines from Dr. Bass to reinforce our statement and judgment: "The 'heavenly church' idea in dispensationalism comes from several sources. These include an exegesis of passages concerning the church, particularly the Ephesian references, which contrast the church with the earthly Israel; Darby's church-in-ruins concept, which led him to teach that Christendom is apostate; and a strong emphasis on the doctrine that the church is in the world, but not of the world." p. 144. He is evidently ready to reject the fact that the Church is heavenly, and not of the world. Then speaking against the statement that the church is in ruin, this man says: "Almost every scholar of repute would not only deny the charge, but vigorously contend that the church is militant, though at times showing evidence of the influence of worldliness, and is proceeding in the plan of God, earnestly awaiting the completion of His purposes in her.... The separatist spirit and exclusivist attitude toward truth is one of the tragic aspects of the development of Darby's doctrine of the church.... What ever evaluation history may make of this movement [how about God's evaluation?], it will attest that dispensationalism is rooted in Darby's concept of the church—a concept that sharply distinguishes the church from Israel,... gives the church a heavenly title and futuristic character,... and maintains unity through separation from evil." p. 127.
The jacket on Dr. Bass's book says, "At all times he [Dr. Bass] makes an effort to deal fairly and objectively with the ideas and events that come into view." Our judgment is that his effort often signally failed, and his personal animus appeared. He is a special pleader for his cause.
Dr. Bass's willingness to quote unsavory remarks against Mr. J. N. Darby's translation of the Bible brings him into an awkward position, to say the least. Of this excellent translation he quotes from The Sword and Trowel: "Suffice it to say, that some renderings are good, and some of the notes are good; but, taken as a whole, with a great display of learning, the ignorance of the results of modern criticism is almost incredible. And fatal upsetting of vital doctrines condemns the work altogether as more calculated to promote skepticism than true religion—the most sacred subjects being handled with irreverent familiarity." Also, "Endless blunders, errors, mistranslations, confounding of moods, tenses and preposition—do not surprise us." p. 59.
After quoting this crude and untrue criticism, he admits that "such criticism is extremely harsh, and it is certain that the author is as passionately prejudiced against Darby as Turner [one who wrote approvingly of the translation] is for him." pp. 59, 60. But if Dr. Bass had not wanted to bring the J. N. D. translation into disrepute and disfavor, he would not have quoted such extreme vituperative slurs. But let us check another facet of Dr. Bass's one-sidedness.
In his introduction he says: "I wish to express my appreciation to Professor F. F. Bruce, Rylands Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, University of Manchester... for very valuable aid in obtaining primary materials." p. 10. Now let us quote from a book by Professor F. F. Bruce on The English Bible: "Another private version which embodies the results of the new textual knowledge available in the second half of the nineteenth century is John Nelson Darby's New Translation (New Testament, second and revised edition, 1871; Old Testament, 1890). Darby, one of the leaders of the Brethren movement, translated the Bible into German (the Elberfeld version) and French (the Pau version) before his English version appeared; indeed, his English version was left incomplete when he died in 1882 and was completed on the basis of his German and French versions. In the New Testament especially it is based on a sound critical appraisal of the evidence, and was consulted by the company which prepared the Revised New Testament of 1881. The version was equipped with a full critical apparatus at the foot of each column of the New Testament which set forth in detail the evidence on which particular readings and renderings were adopted. This version, however, falls short in regard to English style—which would surprise no one acquainted with Darby's voluminous prose writings." (italics ours)—The English Bible, pp. 131, 132.
Perhaps Dr. Bass forgot to discuss this translation with Professor Bruce. Many dear Christians scattered throughout Christendom have been helped by the J.N.D. New Translation, but its true defense will have to await the judgment seat of Christ, where its opponents (if Christians) will also appear.
Richard Francis Weymouth, M.A. D.Lit., whose work produced one of the earliest modern English versions, The New Testament in Modern Speech, said in his preface (1906 edition) that if one is bent on getting a literal translation of the original texts, he could find such "in the Revised Version, or (often a better one) in Darby's New Testament" (italics ours). P. XI. What a different attitude toward Mr. Darby's translation than that expressed by Dr. Bass! And surely Dr. Weymouth had no ax to grind that caused him to write favorably of the J.N.D. Translation, even to the extent of favoring it above the Revised Version; for Dr. Weymouth was not a dispensationalist, as his expository notes plainly indicate. Mr. Darby's translation preceded the Revised Version, and according to Professor F. F. Bruce it was consulted by the company which prepared the Revised Version.
Another one who paid respectful reference to Mr. Darby's New Translation was F. H. Scrivener, M.A., L. L. D.—1813-1891. He was Rector of St. Gerrans, Cornwall, England. He was a conservative member of the New Testament Revision Committee of 1870. He gave six lectures, on the text of the New Testament, which were compiled in book form in 1875. This noted man said that he gave thirty years of happy devotion to these studies. In one of his lectures he made the following reference to Mr. Darby and his translation: “Nor am I much encouraged by the representations of a pious and learned person, who has recently labored, not quite unsuccessfully, over a new version of the inspired writings, and who frankly uses the following language in describing his own impressions respecting this kind of work: 'In the translation I could feel delight—it gave me the word and mind of God more accurately; in the critical details there is much labor and little food'." [This is found in the preface to the J. N. D. New Testament.]
Dr. Scrivener continues: "Much labor and little fruit is no cheering prospect for anyone, and I should utterly despair of gaining the attention of my hearers after so plain an intimation of what they have to expect, unless the experience of a lifetime had assured me that this good man's opinion is the very reverse of the truth." It seems to us that Dr. Scrivener misunderstood Mr. Darby's remarks and mistook his not finding food for his soul in the critical work for his not finding fruit for his technical labors. There is a difference; one can nourish the soul while the other leaves it comparatively barren.
As for Dr. Bass's question of whether Mr. Darby's dispensational teaching came first, or the New Translation preceded it, we can answer that. The doctrine came from a spiritual insight into the Holy Scriptures, and the translations into German, French, and English came later, as the need for better translations became more apparent.
Dr. Bass summarizes and paraphrases the teachings of the early brethren, but in doing so he discloses his lack of understanding of the points covered. We have neither the time nor the space to take up the many instances of this, perhaps unintentional, misrepresentation. It is well-nigh impossible for one to grasp another's meaning well enough to paraphrase it and convey the thought accurately, especially when the one doing it is thoroughly predisposed against the thoughts presented.
Here is one example of Dr. Bass's carelessness in presenting what he claims is Mr. Darby's teaching; this is about the church: "The church is heavenly, not earthly: the individual believer is not baptized into a church here on earth, but into a heavenly relation with Christ." p. 46. Now note what Mr. Darby did write and teach concerning baptism and the individual's entrance into something: "Baptism presents the doctrine that I, a living sinner, die to sin, and arise again to be accepted in Christ's name, as alive unto God in the power of His resurrection.... Hence by it we are received into the assembly on earth [italics, Mr. Darby's]—the house builded on earth for a habitation of God—not into the body. In this [the body] we are looked at in scripture as seated in heavenly places in Him the Head.... Baptism receives into the house.... We enter into the outward visible body by that ordinance, which signifies our dying and rising again.... Baptism has, even as a sign, nothing to do with the unity of the body. 'By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body'—not by water."—Letters of J.N.D. (Stow-Hill), pp. 277-282. Could Dr. Bass's charge be further from the truth? Mr. Darby unequivocally states that baptism brings into the house on earth, not into the body; and that in the body aspect we are looked at as in Christ in heavenly places. This seems like a plain case of irresponsible reporting.
On page 112 of Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, confusion is everywhere. Think of Mr. Darby's being made to say of a Christian, "he is the body of Christ" (italics, Dr. Bass's). Does Scripture so speak? Would Mr. Darby use such an obviously wrong statement? We have searched for any such slip and have not found it. We do find where Mr. Darby uses, "Ye [plural] are the body of Christ." He adds, "The assembly at Corinth represented at Corinth that one and only unity, that of all individuals united to Christ in one body by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Everything had a connection with the one body, composed of all the members of Christ. There was no action which did not relate to the whole body." In this article, What is the Unity of the Church?, found in Mr. Darby's Collected Writings, vol. 20 (Stow-Hill), pp. 296-306, Mr. Darby was answering a Mr. F. Olivier, a Frenchman, who was attacking the principles of those gathered to the name of the Lord Jesus. A reviewer of such an article should recognize that in this type of writing one may refer to something the other man has said, without any approval whatsoever. And so on page 113, Dr. Bass says: "Darby does not refer to the assembly as a formal organization." (Compare this with quotation of J.N.D. earlier in this paragraph.) Such statements are misleading, but are found abundantly in Dr. Bass's book. It is confusion heaped on confusion. But it would be impossible to pin down all of the inconsistencies, because one would have to search all of Mr. Darby's 34 volumes of Collected Writings, 3 volumes of Letters, 5 volumes of Synopsis of the Bible, and much more to prove that he did not make little statements attributed to him. But we challenge Dr. Bass's book for inaccuracy of reporting and for bias and prejudice in the conclusions reached. He seems determined to destroy, if he can, the image of the man J. N. Darby in an effort to bring ridicule on his able expository works, defining the heavenly character of the true Church of God—by that we mean of all believers according to God's plan—for the purpose of making the professing church earthly-minded, not looking for her Lord, but trying to improve the world just as doom is about to overtake her and the world which she loves all too well.
Dr. Bass's unsubstantiated charges that "John Darby was subjected to the temptations common to all religious innovators—that of continually advancing new 'revelations' of 'spiritual' truths to attract and maintain his following" (p. 98) is absolutely without foundation, and not one shred of evidence can be adduced to support it. It is as vicious as it is untrue. The burden of proof falls upon the man who makes the charge, but on one who is ill-prepared to understand, much less to delineate, the position of those who are rooted and grounded in the truth of dispensationalism.
The uncharitable doctor seizes on every controversy among brethren to discredit the whole movement, and he advances many arguments which were set forth by opponents. He would whitewash the gross error of a B. W. Newton, and in the end advocate a going on with just about anything. He flings the charge of "separatist" at Christians who, seeking to do the will of God, withdraw from iniquity. Separation, it appears, is an anathema to him.
We would mention that Dr. Bass assails brethren as though "new birth, the historicity of the resurrection, the validity of the virgin birth, or any other cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith" were disregarded (p. 99), while points of ecclesiastical doctrine became the test. Mr. Darby wrote one large volume against F. W. Newman's Phases of Faith, or more correctly, Phases of Infidelity. Mr. Darby did a great work for the Church of God by his careful analysis of Newman's infidelity, entitled, The Irrationalism of Infidelity. His counter attack covers 598 pages (Morrish edition) of volume 6 of his writings. Newman had attacked the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. Specifically, Newman attacked 21 Old Testament and 15 New Testament books. He had imbibed German "Higher Criticism"; he ridiculed the miracles, and held the virgin birth up to scorn. Will Dr. Bass dare to assume that such vital truths were sidetracked? Were they not maintained with vigor? Where will he find in all Christendom more able and energetic defense of truth against error than in the writings of J.N. Darby, William Kelly, and others of their persuasion?
In spite of Mr. Newman's infidelity which caused his old friend J. N. Darby to attack his writings, Dr. Bass felt free to use the following criticism by Mr. Newman: "Over the general results of his action I have long deeply mourned, as blunting his natural tenderness and sacrificing his wisdom to the Letter, dwarfing men's understandings, contracting their hearts, crushing their moral sensibilities, and setting those at variance who ought to love: yet oh! how specious it was in the beginning! he only wanted men 'to submit their understanding to God,' that is to the Bible, that is, to his interpretation" (italics by Dr. Bass). p. 58. Now we ask, in all fairness, Would such a man, who turned away from God and His Word and sought to make infidels out of people, be a credible character witness against a man of God who withstood him and his infidelity? Evidently, Dr. Bass thinks so, and he is willing to emphasize his charges against Mr. Darby (because it suits his purpose) even to the point of adding emphasis to what Mr. Newman wrote. We believe that Dr. Bass displays himself in his hook, not to his credit, but to the opening of the eyes of the unbiased.
In contrast to all the unsavory things that Dr. Bass collected against Mr. J. N. Darby, we recently found a book published by Pickering and Inglis of England and Scotland, which, while giving a biography of Alfred H. Burton, B.A., M.D., happens to throw a little light on Mr. Darby. Dr. Burton edited the Advent Witness until 1934, and was chairman of the Prophecy Investigation Society. The book is authored by F. W. Pitt, a close friend and colleague of Dr. Burton's.
Mr. Pitt said, "I know that Mr. Darby is regarded by many as a sort of religious dictator, but Dr. Burton and others who knew him well have told me that he was the most courteous and humble of men, gracious and sympathizing, counting the fame and riches of the world as naught.... J. N. Darby died in 1882 holding Dr. Burton's hand." pp. 27, 28.
We are well aware that Mr. Darby would not wish us to attempt any defense of himself or his ways, for he would much prefer to leave it until the judgment seat of Christ, when all will be manifested in the light of Him who is "the righteous judge." But inasmuch as Dr. Bass chose to make an issue of the character, traits, and teachings of the venerable servant of Christ, in a hold attempt to bring the whole character of the Church of God down to the level of the world, and to undermine the blessed truth of the Lord's coming for His people before the tribulation, it seems incumbent on us to call our reader's attention to the basic plan of attack taken by this opponent of dispensational truth. The Apostle Paul loathed having to defend himself to the Corinthian saints in his second letter to them; But it became necessary, for an attack on him was an attack on what he taught. We recognize this fact, of course, that Paul was an apostle and spoke authoritatively. Mr. Darby was not and did not. There is this similarity, however, that Dr. Bass thought to bring the whole truth of the heavenly calling and hope of the Church into disfavor by attacking the man who was mightily used of God to recover lost truth. Instead of letting doctrine stand or fall on its own merit or demerit, and of judging all truths by the revealed Word of Truth, Dr. Bass's charges, aspersions, and at times almost ridicule, are used to becloud the issues and cast dust, into the air—air already cloudy enough with false doctrines of men "speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.”
Dr. Bass has gone to great pains to whitewash B. W. Newton; but that could be expected, since Mr. Newton was a confused man on the subject of prophecy, and held many things in common with Dr. Bass.
And now, reader, we have much more to say regarding Dr. Bass's book, but we close this section in order to avoid wearying you as it has wearied us. But, in closing, we will quote Dr. Bass's scheme and hope for the Church, a plan which we abhor and utterly reject as totally false. We quote: “Dispensationalists, who insist that the purpose of the church is to call out the 'heavenly body' from the world, and that this body will be ultimately raptured away from tribulation, have forgotten that the church was placed in the world so that through it Christ's message might come to the world." p. 148. This in itself misrepresents things, for it is God's purpose, not the Church's, to call out a heavenly people. Dr. Bass continues: “The church does have a responsibility to the culture in which it finds itself. This responsibility involves communicating the teachings of Jesus so that they will have an impact upon the moral and social problems of society. [Any rank modernist could concur in this.] The church is in the world for more than merely calling out a heavenly body: it has a mission to the world itself." Dr. Bass continues: “The mission of the church to the world is to reflect the ethics and ideals of Jesus, through personal salvation into the culture of society so that that culture may be changed [let this man produce one verse in its proper context that affirms this]. The principles of the Sermon on the Mount must be translated by the church into practical principles of Christian living. This is not to suggest that the church will ever ameliorate the sinful world to the extent that it becomes a perfect society, but it is to emphasize that the church cannot escape its mission by repeating that it is 'not of the world and not for the world.' Dispensationalism would withdraw the church from its impact on the world, contending, as does the Scofield Bible that... 'the Sermon on the Mount in its primary application gives neither the privilege nor the duty of the Church,' because it is a part of the gospel of the kingdom" (italics ours). Dr. Bass calls Mr. Darby "a tortured and confused man" (p. 98), but we would like to reverse the charge, and let it fall on the head of him who made it. He further continues his statement of what he believes concerning the earthly character of the Church: “Has not the evangelical church all too long defaulted the proclamation of the gospel to the 'world'? Does not God yearn for His church, which has the true gospel, to carry the message of this gospel to the problems of the culture in which it lives? Has not dispensationalism contributed largely to this default of the church's mission, and made it a detached, withdrawn, inclusively introverted group, waiting to be raptured away from this evil world?" Is the "true gospel" the "ethics and ideals" of Jesus? NO! That kind of gospel never saved anyone. It is as sterile as the sayings of Confucius.
“Is it too much to ask the evangelical church of today to stand in its world and let Christ minister through it to the world? The church needs to throw off the mantle of ‘in but not of’ detachment and apply itself vigorously to the spiritual and. social problems of its world." pp. 148, 149. Christ ministers to His Church, but nowhere is it suggested that He ministers to the world.
We make bold to say, that everything which Dr. Bass says on these two sorry pages could be said by an unconverted religious man. Not that we say he is not saved, but he surely puts himself in dubious company. Think of talking of the church's world! and of throwing off the "in but not of" the world. To do this would necessitate discarding John 17, where we have that memorable prayer of the Lord to His Father, as He was about to leave the world and His own in it. He said, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." Was that true or false?
The Lord said that He did not pray for the world, but for His own who were still in it. Reader, we prefer to believe Christ's words.
Think of being told to cease our worldly detachment and make an impact on the world. If every Christian lived the separated life that was seen in the early Christians, there would be an impact on the world. Christianity proper did not begin until the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2); but where oh where do you find the Church being told to apply itself to the problems of the wicked world of the old pagan Roman Empire! We do read, however, that the early Christians turned the world upside down (Acts 17:66And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; (Acts 17:6)). This they did, not by social contacts and a patronizing subservience to the world but by walking apart and far off from its customs and ways. They turned to God from idols and waited for the Lord to come back, and it got the whole world talking. 0 for Christians of that stamp today! Did Paul, John, or any apostle, or the Lord Himself, attempt to remove the plague of slavery? Did not Paul send a runaway slave back to his owner and offer to pay for any default by the slave? (See Philemon.) Did any apostle declaim the great moral depravity of the world, and so try to raise its moral standards, and improve society? Never once! But they did tell true believers in the Lord Jesus that those things belonged to their past, and that they were to live in holiness. The God to whom they had turned was holy; therefore, they were to be holy.
Dr. Bass's proposals on these pages of his book offer nothing but the same old "social gospel" that dragged down the whole professing church at the beginning of this century. Now he wants all Christians to give up their separation, and mingle and meddle with the world. May God keep the feet of His saints from such a slippery and wrong path. Titus 2 outlines practical Christianity and tells Christians how to live in this world-"soberly, righteously, and godly"—first, with ourselves; second, toward the world about; and third, toward God and before God. Then it is added "in this present world," while looking out of it for "that blessed hope" which is the coming of the Lord. The glorious appearing is another thing and will follow when He comes back with His saints.
We forthwith reject and despise such attempts as Dr. Bass's to pull the Church down to the level of the world. It is the same thing which took place in the days of Pergamos—Rev. 2—where the Church fell down to the level of the world, as did Eutychus in Acts 20, when he wearied and went to sleep while Paul was preaching. He fell three stories, to the level of the earth. And when the teaching given us by God, through Paul, of the heavenly calling, portion, and hope of the Church is given up, the Church will fall, or rather has fallen, to the level of the world, down from the third heaven, in principle, to the corrupt and corrupting world.
Courtesy of BibleTruthPublishers.com. Most likely this text has not been proofread. Any suggestions for spelling or punctuation corrections would be warmly received. Please email them to: BTPmail@bibletruthpublishers.com.