Dr. Bass says: “ The basis for teaching such a tribula tion 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’s premise is wrong, all his deductions are likewise wrong. Anti-dispensationalists refuse to see that in I Thes- salonians 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 re jects the word in I Thessalonian 4 without apology, but merely says it does not mean what dispensationalists take it to mean. 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 dispensa- tional 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” at titude, and regard the imminence of the hope of the Lord’s coming — that blessed hope — as merely a re treat 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 injus tice, disharmony, arrogance, greed, pride, unbrotherli- ness, 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.” Irf 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 its allegiance. This may be denied, but a check will prove our statement to be correct. 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. 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. 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 doc trine divisive in character, and says that those who still hold this truth are practicing the spirit of division. But JULY, 1962
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? We will quote a few more lines from Dr. Bass to re inforce 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.” 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 modem criticism is almost incredible. And fatal upsetting of vital doctrines condemns the work al together 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 prepositions — do not surprise us.” p. 59. After quoting this crude and untrue criticism, he ad mits 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 translattion] is for him.” p. 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 Man chester . . . 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 ver sion) 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 Re vised 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 evi dence 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 through out Christendom have been helped by the J.N.D. New Translation, but its true defense will have to wait the judgment seat of Christ, where its opponents (if Chris tians) will also appear^ 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 in stances of this, perhaps unintentional, misrepresentation. (Continued on next page) 23
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter