A news item in a Jewish weekly paper (B'nai B'rith, Los Angeles, October 28, 1958) concerning the death of Pope Pius XII is worthy of note: "Students of theology in Protestant and other seminaries, in appraising the last will and testament of Pope Pius XII, have expressed amazement at the fact that the late Pope never once referred to the founder of Christianity or mentioned any of his numerous titles. Instead, he opened his will with this Old Testament Davidic plea": "Miserere mei, Deus, secundum miseri-cordiam tuam." This is translated as "Have pity on me, God, according to thy mercy"—Time, October 20, 1958. Perhaps Psalm 51:11<<To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came unto him, after he had gone in to Bath-sheba.>> Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. (Psalm 51:1) is the verse that the quotation was from.
What a sad commentary on Christendom when the lofty ruler of the largest segment of the profession of Christianity should at such a time neglect any mention of the Lord Jesus Christ and revert to the dismal cry for mercy which is found in the Psalm before the great work of atonement for sins was accomplished! If the supreme head of that vast system dies in such darkness, what is there for the poor communicant? Another evidence of the darkness of the papal system was found in the action of Eugene Tisserant, dean of the College of Cardinals, who sprinkled "holy water" over the mortal remains of the late Pontiff and besought the Lord to grant peace to his soul. The simplest believer is entitled to have now and ever "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." A prayer that a dead man might have it in death is a denial of the whole fabric of Christianity as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
When the new Pope was elected by the cardinals, Nicola Cardinal Canali, prodean of the college, made a public announcement to the assembled throng, "I announce to you tidings of great joy. We have a Pope." Is this a paraphrase of those "tidings of great joy" which were announced to the shepherds on that night long ago in the plains of Judea? If so, there is no comparison, but a desecration of that which by right belongs to One only—the Son of God who came into this world.
The confusion regarding the line of popes (as mentioned last month) was emphasized when various publications referred to the new Pope as the 262nd, and others the 263rd. No doubt it is hard to tell.
Then when Angelo Cardinal Roncali became Pope and assumed the title of John XXIII more confusion ensued. It was widely publicized that not since 1334 had the Catholic Church had a Pope John, but they did have another John XXIII; he was consecrated Pope in May 1410 and died in May 1415. Evidently the Roman hierarchy has recently decided he was not a legitimate Pope, so must have been an "antipope." But the Catholic Encyclopedia, available in public libraries in the United States, lists this John XXIII as the 207th Pope and gives the date of his reign from 1410 to 1415. This encyclopedia had for its "Imprimatur" John Cardinal Farley of New York, and for its censor, Remy Lafort, S.T.D. Other lists also give this Pope John XXIII as a legitimate Pope; and John Milner, a noted Roman ecclesiastic and historian (1752-1826), said of the 15th century, "The succession of popes continued through this century, though, among numerous difficulties and dissensions, in the following order: Innocent VII., Gregory XII., Alexander V., John XXIII., Martin V.," etc. So, is the present Pope the 23rd or 24th John? or what number?
Surely there is nothing more certain than that apostolic succession is not a fact, but the merest fable. There was no descent from Peter or any other apostle, nor was one ever needed. The fundamental claims of Roman Catholicism will not stand scrutiny. And when we read of all the pomp and ceremony of making a supposed successor to Peter, with three crowns on his head and people down in humble obeisance to a man, we are amazed at the departure from the Christianity of Peter, Paul, and John. What would they say to all this? It all savors of Judaism and not of the simple Christianity at the beginning. Is it any wonder if the peace and joy believers then knew is gone and the darkness of the day of Judaistic foreshadows prevalent?
For us, however, who know the Lord Jesus Christ as our own personal Savior and can say with Scripture, "We know," in answer to all matters of our eternal destiny, we should have much compassion on those who have not "peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." O that many may have their eyes opened to the finished work of the Lord Jesus and thus pass out of darkness into the full light of day! But how many there are who are blinded to eternal verities by the dazzle and splendor of religion! Was this not even so in Jerusalem in the days of the Lord Jesus? Religion had such a magnificent marble temple that even the disciples were awed by it. There was also impressive ritual in the religion of the day, while those few disciples in an upper room presented a striking contrast. So slow were even true Christians to appreciate a rejected Christ and forsake the earthly system that the Apostle Paul wrote by the Spirit,
"Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach." Heb. 13:1313Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. (Hebrews 13:13). May we not hanker after the glitter of religion, but "rejoice in Christ Jesus" who is now on the throne of God.
The article, beginning on page 313 of this issue, entitled, "Did Christ Build His Church Upon Peter?" is a further examination of the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. It will soon be available in tract form.
A continuation of our examination of dispensationalism from page 280 -October issue.
Utter confusion is indicated in Dr. Ladd's book when the subject of the "first resurrection" is mentioned. Its author will not allow that there are different parts to the first resurrection, that the first resurrection is one of character rather than of a single instance of time. But to begin with, the whole point of Christ's resurrection as the firstfruits is overlooked—"Christ the firstfruits." Did He not rise first, and then did not a sample of the saints come forth out of their graves as visible evidence of the power of His resurrection? This is entirely overlooked. Did not this also have to do with the first resurrection? Then the resurrection of the believers at His call from the air, according to 1 Cor. 15 and 1 Thess. 4, is surely the major portion of the first resurrection; but this is summarily rejected. In its place, Rev. 20:4-64And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (Revelation 20:4‑6) is brought forward as the one and only installment of the first resurrection. But let us examine this portion: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them." Who are these? Not those about to be raised! To understand who they are, we need to go back into the previous chapter; the ones mentioned there are the armies that follow the Son of Man out of heaven. These are now seen occupying thrones. In Dan. 7:99I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. (Daniel 7:9), the prophet saw the thrones placed, but not yet occupied. Here, the Apostle sees them occupied, and we know that the Lord will be the supreme center and will be the One to act in judgment; but when that time comes, the resurrected saints of all ages and the changed and translated saints of this age will reign with Him. The saints previously seen in heaven will have come forth with Him to judge.
But let us look at the next statement of the verse: "and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God." Now mark it clearly, John did not say he saw the souls that were beheaded, for that might mean that he saw the persons in their bodies; but he plainly states he saw "the souls of them that were beheaded." These are souls separate from the bodies. Compare this group with those mentioned in Rev. 6:99And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: (Revelation 6:9): "I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held." Here is the same group. Their bodies were in the graves, and their souls were in heaven; they had been martyred during the tribulation because of their testimony. These were most likely martyred by the false and oppressing church during the first 31/2 years—they were Jews, in all probability. They had the testimony of the book of Revelation—"The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
Now John also sees the souls of another martyr group—those who had "not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark." When John saw the souls under the altar, in chapter 6, they were told that they would have to wait a little season until their fellow servants and brethren should be killed. Now the second group of martyrs is revealed; their souls too are in heaven. The careful distinction between the two groups is lost in the King James Version, but the A.R.V. and J.N.D. translations, besides many others, make the matter plain by adding after the first group of martyrs are seen in the disembodied state, "and such as worshipped not the beast," etc. They are the ones mentioned in chapter 13:15, those who were put to death during the 31/2 years of the great tribulation for refusal to do homage to the image of the beast. Now the two groups of those martyred after the rapture are complete, and they are raised from the dead, and share in the reigning with Christ along with those who were already seated on judgment thrones, and to whom judgment was committed. Of these two martyr groups it is said, "And they lived," which might be translated, "and they were raised to life." They had not lost out on heavenly glory and reigning with Christ because their testimony during the fateful 7 years had been cut short by martyrdom; they will be raised and complement those raised at the rapture. Thus these very verses which Dr. Ladd uses to prove there is only one part to the first resurrection, destroy his whole plan when carefully considered and understood.
Even in the types, the distinction is maintained. In Lev. 23, the next thing after the feast of Pentecost (which prefigures the formation of the Church on earth) is the harvest, for which no time was specified—the ingathering of saints into the heavenly barn—then there follows an allowance for resurrected tribulation saints, as the grain left in the corners of the field for "the poor and the stranger." And this precedes the feast of trumpets which prefigures the calling back of Israel. But this notable chapter can only be understood in the light of dispensational truth.
The Old Testament closes with the earthly saints looking for Christ to rise as the sun shining in its strength, while the New Testament closes with the Church called to look for Him as the morning star. Why should we ignore this definite distinction? Is the morning star the same as the sun? Do they appear at the same instant? Of course not! Neither will the Lord come for the Church at the same time He appears with all the effulgence as the ruler of the day for the world. But anti-dispensationalism is maintained by its adherents at any cost. May God preserve many to hold fast His faithful promise, "Surely I come quickly," without any intervening event mentioned, so that we may in heart reply, "Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Nothing will compensate for the loss of expecting that we may see HIM today.
Dr. Ladd has missed the point of Rev. 3:1010Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth. (Revelation 3:10) altogether. The verse reads: "Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." It is a promise to the overcomer (in general, to all the Christians) to be kept out of the great tribulation which is coming. Dr. Ladd dwells on the Greek for the word "out" and connects it with the Lord's prayer in John 17:1515I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. (John 17:15), desiring that the Christians be kept out of evil. He then reasons that it does not involve a removal from the scene, but being kept from evil and the tribulation while in it. But his basic error is in not seeing that the Lord's promise is that of being kept from "the hour" of tribulation; that is, altogether from the time of it—not being preserved from danger during the time, but delivered from the time in which it will take place. The Greek word for hour is Nora and means an hour, a period, or a season. It is from the entire period of the tribulation that the Christians are to be delivered by the coming of the Lord to take them to Himself first—not by some special preservation in it.
Time and space will not permit an exhaustive review of all the errors of the book entitled, "The Blessed Hope"; but we feel there is at least one more point that should be mentioned. Dr. Ladd takes up the old cry that "the gospel of the kingdom," which according to Matt. 24:1414And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:14) must be preached "in all the world" before the end, is the same as the gospel of the grace of God. But as we have before noted, this statement in Matt. 2414And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:14) is connected with the Jews, Judea, and an idol in the holy place of the temple, and a sabbath day's journey, etc. Now how does it happen that he can bring this age and the gospel of the grace of God into such a Jewish setting? He says: "Christ is tarrying until the Church has completed its task. When Matt. 24:1414And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:14) has been fulfilled, then Christ will come." p. 148. The Apostle Paul did not believe this, for he taught the saints to expect the Lord in his day.
Dr. Ladd further says: "The world is nearly evangelized; any generation which is really dedicated to the task can complete the mission. The Lord can come in our own generation, in our life-time—if we stir ourselves and finish our task." (Italics his.) Our hearts would utterly sink if we believed this statement, for the fact is that there are more unevangelised people on earth today than there were last year, ten years ago, or further back. Christianity is losing the race with the explosive population growth, and with the spread of communistic ideology, and plain infidelity. Furthermore, a large percentage of the so-called missionaries in the world are not preaching either the gospel of the grace of God, or the gospel of the kingdom which John the Baptist preached. Dr. Ladd himself refers to the frightful anti-Christian heresy of a prominent missionary, Albert Schweitzer, to whom "Jesus... is an offense, not a Savior." No, there is, and there can be, only one explanation of Matt. 24:1414And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:14); it is a gospel that the King is coming back, which was first preached by John the Baptist, and will be resumed by a Jewish remnant whose hearts God will touch after the Church age has closed. To assume Dr. Ladd's premise would be to put off the Lord's coming ad infinitum.
This review of Dr. Ladd's book has not been undertaken out of any personal animus, but for the reason that he has placed himself out in the forefront of the challengers of dispensationalism and of the pretribulation coming of the Lord for His own. Furthermore, he is now in the position of leading others along the same course he has followed, which we consider will lead the saints of God to settle down and sleep like the wise virgins among the foolish. He has used the names of opponents of these truths with considerable skill, and used their arguments to bolster his position. He speaks of many who have given up the dispensational teaching, and of others who, while they have remained silent on the issue, simply do not believe it. But none of these things move us, nor do they prove anything more than the position of these individuals—not that they were right or wrong. We would also warn Christians who hold these truths dear not to relax and be unmindful of the attacks that are being made on them, lest we lose them by default. Let us "hold fast" the precious deposit that has been committed to us.
We have wondered why the growing tendency to discard that which has been such a hope and cheer to the saints of God. Perhaps the answer lies in a reported interview of Christian Life magazine with Dr. E. Schuyler English, who is him-self a dispensationalist and pretribulationist. He was asked: "You have already said that in your opinion many do not accept the dispensational interpretation of Scripture because they do not understand what dispensational means. Are there other reasons?" Dr. English replied: "There are several principal reasons, in my judgment, for the critical attitude that some evangelicals show toward dispensationalism. One of them is that it is not considered scholarly to follow the dispensational method of interpreting the Scriptures since modern dispensationalism stems, in part at least, from the writings of the so-called Plymouth Brethren."
Perhaps this is the underlying cause, for Dr. English states that "most theologians credit J. N. Darby... with first systematizing dispensational theology in the middle of the 19th century." And Dr. Ladd mentions Mr. J. N. Darby and "Darbyism" time and time again, as the root cause of this teaching, although in one place he says that "Darbyism in fact restored something precious which had long been lost." He indicated that in spite of what he considers errors of "Darbyism," it was helpful in awakening Christians to the reality of the Lord's coming (p. 43). How strange that what he calls error should be so beneficial spiritually! May spiritual perception be the guiding power in searching the Scriptures, rather than some assumption to superior scholarship.
We feel we must now notice a few remarks of Dr. Donald G. Barnhouse in his Eternity magazine. In the September, 1957, issue we read: "Before I go further, let me affirm that I believe firmly in the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, that He will overthrow the antichrist, and will establish His rule on earth. Premillennarian? yes; dispensationalist? no." But then he expresses the difference between one who says the Lord will come before the Millennium but after the tribulation, and one who is a dispensationalist and looks for the Lord at any moment before the tribulation. Thus: the premillennialist believes "that the Lord might not come for another century or another thousand years. The dispensationalist is forced into the awkward position (which is not biblical) of believing that we are now in the end of the end times" (italics his). He then misrepresents the truth held by most dispensationalists by saying that we are looking for the apostasy more than for the Lord. This is a sad misstatement of purpose and intent of those who hold the pretribulation coming of the Lord. This may be true in a few instances, but it is basically false. We are not acquainted with believers who are looking for the apostasy or the antichrist, rather than looking for Him whom our souls love. Perhaps spiritual lethargy has dimmed the hope in some Christians, but that is not the fault of dispensationalism. Many Christians have lost the joy of their salvation through worldly entanglements, but is salvation false because of that?
Dr. Barnhouse further states that the dispensationalist's hope causes him to turn away from "social service." Just what does he mean by this? Would he take what is left of true Christianity down the slippery road of the "social gospel" that ruined much of Christendom some years ago? We fear he would, for this can be a natural result of the giving up the hope of our Lord's imminent return. It was the loss of this hope that carried the early church down. The giving up of "the blessed hope" is helping to prepare the way for the ecumenicalist's dream of one world and one church -in other words, "BABYLON THE GREAT." But the drowsy Christian will be of no more help to this world than Lot was to Sodom. The only way for a Christian to be a help in the world is to live for Christ, in the constant expectation of His return, and witnessing for Him as God may give opportunity. He will have to walk in separation from its schemes, its aims, its hopes, its all. Abraham walking with God was of more value to Sodom than Lot who was probably seeking to do social service in it. Abraham's intercessions would have availed if the wicked city had not passed the point where immediate judgment was inevitable.
But social service, ecumenicalism, and worldly principles would be the natural product of putting off the Lord's coming for perhaps "another century or another thousand years." Is not this the principle of the unfaithful servant who said in his heart, "My lord delays his coming"? We were saddened to read such comments from the editor of Eternity, although we should not have been surprised; for he wrote in his May, 1950 issue, "I shall hope to publish a paper on why I am not a dispensationalist and never have been." In the same issue he added,
"Those who know my preaching well know that I seldom speak about the second coming of Christ." In this he differs from that venerable servant of the Lord, the Apostle Paul, for he connected his gospel preaching with telling his hearers of the Lord's coming back. He preached it to the unsaved, and did not hold it back from the youngest converts.
We earnestly hope that the Lord's soon return will prevent a wholesale departure from this separating and encouraging hope. While we are not looking for the apostasy or any world developments, we see them shaping very fast for the days to come after we are ushered home. Christians who cannot discern the character of these days must be spiritually blind.
"Lord Jesus, Come!
Thine absence here we mourn;
No joy we know apart from Thee,
No sorrow in Thy presence see.
Come, Jesus, Come.
"Lord Jesus, Come!
And claim us as Thine own;
With longing hearts the path we tread,
Which Thee on high to glory led.
Come, Savior, Come.
"Lord Jesus, Come!
And take Thy people home;
That all Thy flock, so scattered here,
With Thee in glory may appear.
Lord Jesus, Come!"