Perhaps no other question needs more to be answered in the controversy that has arisen over matters of prophecy than this, so often raised, "Are these things essential?" Some say they are not, and ought therefore not be taught at all if the teaching of them should cause trouble. Some base their whole opposition to the prophetic teaching on the contention that "these things are not necessary to salvation anyhow." Some, though considering the prophecies (especially the unfulfilled) as non-essential, yet would disfellowship brethren for teaching them, on the ground that they are introducing unnecessary things to the troubling of the churches. It seems therefore that a faithful inquiry into the question of the essentiality of non-essentiality of the prophetic teaching may help to clear our minds and promote peace and good understanding among brethren. [1]

      Are these prophetic teachings--such as questions connected with the coming of Christ: the kingdom and millennial reign, etc., essential? They are not essential in the same sense as faith, repentance, and baptism. No one would claim, I think, that an understanding of the prophecies is a condition and prerequisite to entering the "Ark of Safety," of getting "into Christ."

      But are those teachings essential to a continuance in Christ? Not so as to interfere with the fellowship of the saints. I should certainly fellowship my brother in Christ regardless of his view on prophetic matters. It is further to be noted that an agreement or disagreement on the prophetic teaching under consideration would not outwardly affect any act of worship or service toward God. There is nothing in this teaching that would cause any man to omit any act of obedience, or to do anything God has commanded in a wrong or different manner, or to add any new thing to the prescribed way of obedience. It is therefore clearly not fundamental and essential in the absolute sense of the word.

      At this point, however, it is necessary to guard against a very natural but unwarranted conclusion. As soon as it is said that certain things are not essential, we are apt to say, "Very well then, they are unimportant things and matters of indifference." But that does not follow at all. There are many [2] things important, necessary even, and relatively indispensable, which are not absolutely essential. No man would think that he could afford to do without his eyes, for example; yet we know that the eyes are not essential to life, nor even necessary to welfare. A ship has been known to get through without anchor; and a soldier may conceivably put up a valiant and victorious fight without a helmet. But who would say that these things are therefore superfluous and indifferent?

      The prophetic teachings of the word of God are not essential in the absolute sense of the word. But they are important, and may, in special cases be of vital moment. First of all, Every scripture, prophecy not excepted, is profitable. This much we know. It is further evident that any part of scripture, and any scriptural theme, is fit theme for investigation and brotherly discussion, that we may all learn and be edified. While nothing should be made a hobby of, nothing should be excluded for fear of misunderstanding or abuse. Those who contend that Daniel 2:44 was fulfilled on Pentecost would hardly claim that their position is "essential," would they? Yet they manifestly place some weight on their position, and count it worthy of investigation and vigorous defense. And I would have none keep their conviction to themselves on the ground that it pertains to a non-essential.

      The exceptionable point about all this is that a division could be occasioned among us over such [3] things. Slender indeed must be "the tie that binds" if it can not bear the strain of differences on such a matter among brethren, and when disagreements that should cause nothing more than renewed, eager and earnest investigation lead to strife and division. It is altogether a fault if such were the state of mind among brethren. And if it should become mandatory to keep still on all but the most essential matters and to discuss nothing but what we are already agreed on, then we may bid farewell to all growth and advancement in the word of truth, and likewise to the freedom and the independence of creed which marks the distinction between a Christian and a sectarian. But it has not been so among us always, and I trust will not be. Brother David Lipscomb's position on the Christian's relation to the Civil Government, for example, is admittedly not one of the essentials. Many brethren agreed and many disagreed with this position. The matter has been freely discussed pro and con; and no harm has resulted, nor has a word been said about "division." This is as it should be; and it was in itself a triumph of the principle of unity for which the church of Christ contends.

      In regard to the position which I have advanced on the lines of unfulfilled prophecies, my friends, perhaps even my opposers, will bear me record that I have not been dogmatic and peremptory. In my classes and elsewhere I have ever aimed at establishing correct principles of interpretation, and letting every man draw his own conclusions; I have [4] never forced my conclusions upon others, always preferring that a man should go to the word of God to work things out for himself in God's sight, rather than that he should simply take over any man's convictions on any matter. For I claim no authority of my own, and no infallibility. In everything and in all things I am ready to say with the true and beloved Brother Larimore, "I am not right, but the Bible is right." The things which I hold and present I certainly believe to be true and right; but they are not presented for blind acceptance, but to point out the teaching of God's word, and to lead to comparison and investigation, and a consequent better understanding. I subject the teaching of the brethren to such treatment; and ask nothing more for what I say and teach.

      It is bound upon the Christian to "Preach the Word." Yet no one understands by that that the preacher is to recite scripture--merely that and nothing else; nor yet that he should merely paraphrase the scriptures; but it is his to apply scripture; to illustrate, elucidate, to reason and explain and quote, selecting from this and that context passages that bear on his theme, pointing out the import of each passage. And though, on the whole, his teaching be true and correct, nevertheless he is liable now and then to mistake in his apprehension and application of the scriptures and in the presentation of the teaching. Every true preacher is conscious of this liability; and while in no wise compromising his [5] convictions, that very fact leads him to make much of the word of God, and to disparage any undue reliance on the teaching of men, whether his own or that of others. He will endeavor to throw every man upon his own responsibility by bringing him face to face with the word of God in the sight of God. The man who would claim inerrancy for his presentation of God's word, or who would allow himself to think that he has the whole truth, would of necessity be a sectarian, his own conception of God's truth being his creed and standard, and all avenues for growth in the Word being barred to him.

      There is altogether too much tendency in the religious world to regard the utterances of uninspired teachers of God's word as authoritative in themselves. Now indeed every faithful preacher should endeavor to speak with authority--yet making it clear that the authority is not his, but is borrowed from God's word, and that the final appeal is to that word. As someone has said, "The message must commend the preacher, not the preacher the message." On a very common evil, that of "passive hearing," James Denney, speaking on 1 Thess. 5:21 ("prove all things, hold fast that which is good") makes the following pertinent remarks:

      "This injunction forbids all passive listening to the word. Many people prefer this. They come to church, not to be taught, not to exercise any faculty of discernment or testing at all, but to be impressed. They like to be played upon and to have their [6] feelings moved by a tender or vehement address; it is an easy way of coming into apparent contact with good. But the apostle here counsels a different attitude: we are to put to the proof all that the preacher says..  . . He is speaking expressly to the Thessalonians who were Christian men. A heathen was no judge of Christian truth; neither is a man with a bad conscience, or who loves sin in his heart, neither is a flippant man who has never been awed by the majestic holiness and love of Jesus Christ--all these are simply out of court. But the Christian preacher who stands up in the presence of his brethren knows, and rejoices that he is in the presence of those who can put what he says to the proof..  . . Their power to prove his words is a safeguard both to them and to him, And it is necessary that they should prove them. No man is perfect, not the most devout and enthusiastic of Christians. In his most spiritual utterances something of himself will naturally mingle; there will be chaff among the wheat..  . . That is not a reason for refusing to listen; it is a reason for listening earnestly, conscientiously, and with much forbearance. There is a responsibility laid upon the Christian conscience of every congregation, and of the church at large, to put prophesyings to the proof. .  . . . No man with any idea of modesty, to say nothing of humility, could wish it otherwise..  . . The preacher has as much need of the word as his hearers; if there is a service which God enables him to do for them, in enlightening their minds and fortifying their wills, there is corresponding service which [7] they can do for him. An open meeting, a liberty of prophesying.  . . is one of the crying needs of the modern church."

      Unfulfilled prophecy is important--if only because it is a part of God's word. It is important because it holds the key to much of the motive-power of the Christian life, and to intelligent co-operation with the plans of God so far as he has revealed them to us. As often as the preacher of the word refers to the hereafter, to judgment, to heaven, to hell, he makes use of unfulfilled prophecy. We could not do without it, even if we could see no practical bearing in it. It is not a question whether it is essential, but whether we shall be faithful; not whether we can be saved without it, but whether God gave it to be believed and taught; to the end that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work. The man who leaves God's word to speculate is in the wrong; and the man who Would shut out the serious study and discussion of any part of God's word on any ground is in the wrong. It is a time for mutual helpfulness in patient examination and re-examination of the scriptures; not for clamor and recrimination and hasty judgment, nor for blind defending of our own conceptions of these things. And what is needed, beside the faith that exalts the word of God, is the love that makes us humble, forbearing and eager to help and bless--the love by which all men may know that we are His disciples. [8]

[IPTE 1-8]

      The electronic version of R. H. Boll's Is Prophetic Teaching Essential? (Louisville, KY: [Word and Work], 1951) has been produced from a copy of the tract in a contributor's collection. It was first published in The Word and Work 45 (August 1951): 201-204.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained.

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 5 February 2002.
Updated 20 June 2003.