I now consider the objectionable
contrary things which are substituted for this path (i.e., the path of
separation and Assembly truth) in the "helps" referred to in the
Scofield Reference Bible.

 

First and foremost, observe the
endorsement of the sectarian, interdenominational and independent realms and
activities, repeatedly brought before us.

 

In the "Introduction,"
paragraph V., the "definitions" carry the approval of many leading
"students and teachers of all the evangelical bodies." What is that?
"All the evangelical bodies." How many bodies of Christ are there (1
Cor. 1:13)? Which part of "the whole teaming of Scripture” about the
Assembly provides for "evangelical bodies"? Does their endorsement of
these "definitions" serve to deliver them from the sects and unto
Scripture ground? Not at all; they remain in their various "evangelical
bodies."

 

The conclusion, then, is that
when we want "definitions" for the "great words" of the
Bible, we should go to the "evangelical bodies" for them; when they
have been defined, the evangelical bodies still exist, and the definers remain
in them. Nothing in the great words of Scripture serves to draw them to
anything that expresses unity:for they are "bodies"—not one body.

 

A few paragraphs farther on we
read of "the results of the study of God’s Word by learned and spiritual
men in every division of the church," etc. These results the editor
summarizes in the "helps." But he appears without exercise over the
tragedy of "every division of the church." What did these learned and
spiritual men find in their Bible study about divisions of the church under the
apostles? What authority did they find in that Bible for continuing in their
"every division"? The statement is unaccompanied by any expression of
agony that such divisions exist, any acknowledgment that the Word should act
upon the consciences of learned and spiritual men so as to promote unity, any
indication that these men or the editor yearned to see those who studied their
writings delivered from human systems and brought together outside the camp
according to God.

 

Not with such unconcern does
William Kelly, for instance, write on Luke 11:23, to cite one of many:

 

“A man might himself; be really
with Christ, but yet in his labors he might build or prop up what is of the
world. Such a person, no matter what the apparent effects may be, may become
the most popular of preachers and produce wide-spread effects, philanthropic
and religious; but "he that gathereth not with Me scattereth," says
the Lord. There is no scattering so real in the sight of God as the gathering
of Christians on false principles. It is worse than if they were not gathered
at all. There is a deeper hindrance to the truth, because there is a spirit of
party and denomination that is necessarily hostile to Christ. A false
gathering-point substitutes another center for Christ and consequently makes
greater confusion. "He that gathereth not with Me scattereth."

 

In the Scofield introductory
notes to the Third Epistle of John, page 1327, we are told, "Historically,
this letter marks the beginning of that clerical and priestly assumption over
the churches in which the primitive church order disappeared." Mark
that—"the primitive church order disappeared." Well, are we to settle
down to that, accept the substitute, be content? Who can settle such a matter?
On the preceding page, we are told, "The Bible, as the only authority for
doctrine and life, is the believer’s resource in a time of declension and
apostasy."

 

Does not John, in his first
epistle, chapter two, press upon us "that which ye have heard from the
beginning"? The Scriptures— "the believer’s resource," even when
the primitive church order has disappeared — keep before us that which was from
the beginning, that which God set up. Are we to conclude, then, that He will
give His help and blessing to efforts that aim at the "intelligent use of
the Bible" according to an order that represents something other than
"the primitive church order," but would not do so if we sought that
which was from the beginning.

 

In the same note (page 1327) we
have presented to us the idea, of the believer as a member of the local
church." Had the editor given better attention to the some 100,000 pages
or more of "brethren’s" writings which had been circulated before his
Reference Bible was issued, he would have found that there are those who disown
membership in the local church and claim that the only membership known to
Scripture is membership in the body of Christ. This note, for example, does not
represent any "summarizing, arranging, and condensing" of their
important contribution to the "mass of material" produced during the
latter half of the nineteenth century — but rather a refusal of it in favor of
that which has taken the place of "the primitive church order."

 

It might be said that we should
not make a man an offender for a word; that we should understand his use of
word ”member" as simply meaning that one was in the character of local
responsibility. But that is not the way the word is habitually used and
understood in the sphere in which Mr. Scofield spent his life. One is not a
member of those societies until he joins specifically; when one so joins one of
"the evangelical bodies," he is thereby absolutely not a member of
any other "division of the church." We must understand his use of the
word "member" according to the way it was and is understood where
"the primitive church order" has disappeared.

 

In the note at the bottom of
page 1257 we find that a local church should be "perfected in
organization." Mr. Ridout’s book on The Church does not agree very well
with that language. And where does Scripture agree?

 

I quote the whole sentence from
Mr. Scofield:"When perfected in organization, a local church, consists of
‘saints, with the bishops [elders] and deacons.’”  These last words are drawn
from Phil. 1:1.

 

A few observations are in order.
First, the words "organize," "organization," etc., are not
in Scripture. No form of the word "organize" do I find in the
concordance.

 

Second, "perfected in
organization" is an expression strongly suggestive of human activity
looking towards such a result. The inference is that some local churches may
not be "perfected in organization." Unless God acts directly to
"perfect" its organization, there being no apostles to establish
elders today, what remains—if official elders are to be had— but for the local
church to take things into its own hands and appoint them? And this is
precisely what is done habitually in the realm where the Scofield Bible editors
moved. A business meeting is held; balloting takes place; the person or persons
receiving the required number of votes is (or are) elected; thereafter such are
considered to be what the Bible calls "elders." Not that there is
uniformity, however, among "all the evangelical bodies,"
representative leaders from among which approved the "definitions." A
Methodist "bishop" is over many churches; while an "elder"
is the so-called pastor of a local church. The Scofield "helps,"
however, provide for this action of the local church in "perfecting"
its organization. The note on page 1285 advises that "in Titus and 1
Timothy the qualifications of an elder become part of the Scriptures for the
guidance of the churches in such appointment" (1 Tim. 3:7).

 

Thus Scripture is read into the
organization arrangement of our day in the midst of which these editors moved;
consciences are quieted which might become concerned about the confusion that
exists over this matter as well as others.

 

The fact of the matter is that
it is now impossible to establish official elders as a very interesting series
of papers, found in volume No. 4 of Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, makes
clear. The impossibility consists in the fact that no authority now exists
which is competent to constitute them official. It remains, however, that the
unselfish labors of spiritual men who have "elders’" hearts may be,
ought to be, and are found to be, apart from any claim or desire, thought of as
"official" elders in scriptural gatherings. I pray daily for such.

 

I would add that this
"organization" idea is by no means confined to that which
"perfects" it, according to the Scofield note, in the societies with
which these editors identified themselves. Organized bodies of various kinds
abound among them. And Scripture is appealed to in the expectation of divine
blessing upon them all.

 

If we endorse the Scofield
Reference Bible, I suppose we could scarcely reject its idea that it presents
"the whole teaching of Scripture" on the Church. That teaching,
accordingly, brings "organization" into the local gathering. We had
thought the Holy Spirit was sufficient.

 

If we endorse this treatment, we
ought to take it seriously, and let it have its effect upon our consciences. It
might be difficult, indeed, to find an "intelligent use" for
"the whole teaching of Scripture" about the Assembly in a time long
after "the primitive church order disappeared"—especially if that
primitive church order was also according to the teaching of Scripture; but
surely, we ought to "organize"!

 

Then we must unlearn the things
that have put us where we are. We must build again the things we have
destroyed. We must go back to "the camp." The "helps" seem
to be lacking at Hebrews 13:13 and 2 Timothy 2:22. (To be continued.)

 

FRAGMENT You may be separated
from loved ones by distance; oceans may roll between you and someone whom you
love much. You wonder whether they are in spiritual, mental, and physical
health. "Is it well with them?" your heart asks. "Let not your
heart be troubled." Remember the words of David in Psalm 139:8-10:
"If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there …. If I take the wings of
the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; even there shall Thy
hand lead me, and Thy right hand shall hold me." The omnipresent God is
where your loved ones are, and He is a very present help in trouble.