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 14:17. 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 hulls and goats could take sins away (Heb. 10:4). David, after his heinous sin, desired God to cleanse him; but he added, "Thou desiredst not sacrifice; else I would give it." 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 bath 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 pretribulation 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 4:1.5-18 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 he 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 he 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 12:51). 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. 277282. 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.