“ 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 com municating the teachings of Jesus so that they will have an impact upon the moral and social problems of so ciety.” Any rank modernist could concur in this. 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. 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.’ Dispensa tionalism 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 Has not dispensationalism con tributed largely to this default of the church’s mission, and made it a detached, withdrawn, inclusively intro verted group, waiting to be raptured away from this evil world?”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. We make bold to say, that everything which Dr. Bass says on pages 148 and 149 could be said by an un converted 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 necessi- I tate discarding John 17, where we have that memorable I prayer of the Lord to His Father. Was that true or false? I Think of being told to cease our worldly detachment I and make an impact on the world. If every Christian I lived the separated life that was seen in the early Chris- I tians, there would be an impact on the world.- Christian- I ity proper did not begin until the descent of the Holy I Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2 ); but where, oh I where, do you find the Church being told to apply itself I to the problems of the wicked world of the old pagan I Roman Empire! We do read, however, that the early j Christians turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). I This they did, not by social contacts and a patronizing I subservience to the world, but by walking apart and far 1 off from its customs and ways. They turned to God from I idols and waited for the Lord to come back, and it got the I whole world talking. 0 for Christians of that stamp today! I Dr. Bass’s proposals offer nothing but the same old I “ social gospel” that dragged down the whole professing I church at the beginning of this century. THE KING'S BUSINESS
It is will-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. Dr. Bass’s unsubstantiated charges that “ John Dar by was subjected to the temptations common to all re ligious 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 op ponents. He would white-wash gross errors of some and 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 doc trines 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. New man’s Phases of Faith, or more correctly, Phases of Infi delity. His counter attack covers 598 pages (Morrish edi tion) of volume 6 of his writings. Newman had attacked the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. Specifically, Newman attacked 21 Old Testament and 15 New Testa ment books. He had imbibed German “ Higher Criticism” ; he ridiculed the miracles, and held the virgin birth up to scorn. W ill Dr. Bass dare to assume that such yital truths were sidetracked? Were they not maintained with vigor? 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 bold attempt to bring the whole character of the Church of God down to the level of the world, and to under mine 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 neces sary, 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 heaven ly calling and hope of the Church into disfavor by at tacking the man who was mightily used of God to re cover 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, asper sions, 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.” In closing, we will quote Dr. Bass’s scheme and hope for the Church, a plan which we abhor and utterly re ject as totally false. We quote: 24
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter