transgression” (Gal. 3:19). It came in by the way. It NEVER gave life to anyone. Paul says that it slew him (Rom. 7:11). “ The law entered, that the offence might abound” (Rom. 5:20). There was sin before the law was given, but the giving of the law made it worse, for it then became a transgression. 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 over-abounded, not merely where there was the offence, for then grace would have been limited to Israelitish law breakers. Dr. Bass asserts that, “ the presupposition of the differ ence 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. Obvious ly 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 14:7). 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 indis tinctly; 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 acknowl edged Him. Now lest any misunderstand our point, we say, every one who is saved owes all to the death of Christ; but be fore 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 Romans 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 pro pitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His right eousness for the remission of sins that are past.” v. 25. God did not raise the issue with the poor bankrupt sin ner, 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 Him self 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 glori fied 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 premillennialism 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 dur ation, divided into two equal parts — the latter half be ing 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. THE KING'S BUSINESS
chatology 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 Christianity? 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 rule of Christ, but the earth will be a burned-out cinder, with the devil the only inhabitant? Dr. Bas’s frequently attacks what he calls “the dichot omy 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 di chotomy of the system1—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. W ill 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 call ing, our hope, and our citizenship are all heavenly. This elevated position was never true of Israel, nor is it prom ised to them in the future. Dr. Bass’s battle is with Mr. J. N. Darby (1800-1882) 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 dispen- sationalism.” p. 128. On another page Dr. Bass says, “ Dar by’s eschatology grows out of two basic principles: his doctrine of the church, which is itself rooted in his dis pensational dichotomy between Israel and the church; and a hermeneutical application of rigid literalism, par ticularly to prophetic Scripture.” p. 129. This rouses Dr. Bass’s ire. He want to merge Israel and the Church. But let him aver that Israel was ever called to heaven, or with a heavenly calling. Israel was under the law, under a schoolmaster; are we? But Dr. Bass 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 Ezekiel 36); and they will all know God from the least to the greatest (Jer. 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 kept His promises?” Is it not presumption to question God’s faithfulness to His pledged word? Dr. Bass says, “dispensationalism has constructed a system in which law and grace work against each other, not conjointly.” W ill he prove his point that grace and law are adjuncts? “ The law . . . was added because of 22
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter