I regret that there should have been any "irrelevant" matter in my negative; but if there was, it was because my respondent raised an issue that should not have been raised when he took the position that unfulfilled prophecy cannot be understood. In taking this ground, he went back on the proposition itself, according to his own definition of the words, "the Scriptures teach." He defines "the Scriptures" as the Old and New Testaments. But it developed that the Scriptures I present in proof of my propositions teach nothing whatever, because they cannot be interpreted and nobody can really know with any certainty what they mean. It is this arbitrary assumption on his part that demanded attention; for as long as my respondent can set aside whatever passage of Scripture I may present in proof of my proposition on the pretext that it is unfulfilled prophecy, and therefore cannot be understood, no intelligent and profitable discussion of these Bible themes is possible. My brother had no ground for saying that "Brother Boll seems to be dissatisfied with his efforts to prove his first proposition," for, as the reader may see, I mentioned nothing again that pertained to the subject of the first proposition. If I am taking up the issue which he raised in the course of the first proposition and touches upon again in this affirmative of the second proposition, whether unfulfilled prophecy can be understood, it is because that affects the entire debate fundamentally. Again, he is not accurate in stating that I am "unwilling to continue the discussion until this point is settled." I said the opposite; but I also pointed out that by all means this point ought to be discussed first and to a finish, else there would be little use of debating. And in my last article I said that this issue, if not discussed first, would continue to come up throughout the whole discussion, diverting space and attention from the specific points of the propositions in hand. [113]

      In a personal letter accompanying his last manuscript Bother Boles says:

      You will note in reading it that I give opportunity to stop the discussion on the present proposition and take up the new proposition. I think that it will mar the discussion to stop in the midst of the present one. If you wish to discuss this new issue before concluding your other negative, you may do so, but it seems to me that it will be better to let me get through with the affirmation of the present proposition and then you begin affirming the new issue which has been raised. However, I am willing to let your good judgment guide in this matter and will abide by your wishes.

      I appreciate this generous attitude and fully concur with Brother Boles that it is advisable to finish this proposition first, in any case, seeing we are now in the midst of it.

      But behold the proposition he offers me! Here it is:

      "The Scriptures teach that man, unaided by inspiration, can understand how and when unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled."

      Did Brother Boles actually think I would accept that? How and where did I claim that uninspired man can know exactly "how and when" unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled? I am sure that neither in this debate nor anywhere else did I say anything that would warrant such a conclusion. I claim to know nothing about any matter of prophecy except what God has said in his Book. If, in connection with any unfulfilled prophecy, God revealed the "when" and the details of circumstance under which the prophecy would be fulfilled, we can know that, too; if not, we cannot. The question is not one concerning the when or how, but the what of God's predictions. The proposition that requires our preliminary attention is that "unfulfilled prophecy can be understood on the same principles and in the same way as all the rest of God's word." Will Brother Boles deny this? If so, we [114] must discuss that above all else. If not, we can go on with the discussion.

      My respondent appears to have shifted his position when he says, "The question is not, Can we understand unfulfilled prophecies?" etc. I think that was exactly the question. But let that go. Does he now admit that we can understand unfulfilled prophecy? If so, all is well. All I contend for is that the Scriptures (including unfulfilled prophecies) are to be taken at their own fair meaning and can thus be understood.

      One point more needs to be noted on this. Just what does my respondent mean by "interpret?" And what does he mean by "private interpretation?" I want his definition of these terms which he uses so freely. I fail to get his meaning. I have repeatedly stated what I mean by "interpretation." I mean nothing more than to elicit the import of the language of a passage, be it prophecy or anything else. If I have ever failed of that (as, no doubt, I may often have) it was an error of the head, not of the heart. If Brother Boles assigns a different significance to the word "interpret" as used by me, he does so without right or warrant. In my last affirmative of the first proposition I said: "I depend on the simple, straightforward meaning of God's word on the prophecies for my faith as to these matters and for proof on these propositions." Again, I said: "If by 'private interpretation' Brother Boles means arbitrary, irresponsible, lawless imputations of meanings which the language does not warrant, I am opposed to that as much as he is, and with all my heart." Again, I said:

      Brother Boles must concede that unfulfilled prophecy can be understood according to the common standards that govern the interpretation of Scripture, and, indeed, of all language. I ask for no privilege of "private interpretation;" but I do insist upon an acceptance of God's word as testimony to the proposition, in accordance with the fair meaning of its statements. [115]

      When, in the light of these statements, Brother Boles charges me with all these years teaching "on the preassumption" that my interpretations of unfulfilled prophecy were infallible, he does me a grave injustice. Such charges have no place in this discussion. He ought to have informed himself sufficiently to know that this is not true. Perhaps it was this sort of attitude of unjust presumption on the part of my critics, rather than my teaching, that has been wrong these "twelve or fifteen years" he speaks of. All along I have been as far as possible from claiming to be an "infallible interpreter" of any part of Scripture. "We are not right--the Bible is right," has been my claim. And I neither consciously taught any "private interpretations" nor assumed nor claimed that in anything I was "infallibly correct." Why charge me with such things? A little examination of my teaching and my claims would have prevented such wrong judgment.

      At the close of my book on the "Kingdom of God," for instance (page 78), I wrote as follows:

      Having traced the great theme of the kingdom through the Scriptures as I was able, I now commend these studies to the reader, to examine and test them for himself in the light of the Holy Writ. These pages themselves will, I trust, bear witness that no attempt has been made to construct or set forth a theory, but that these studies represent only a simple, honest effort to bring out the teaching of the Bible on this worthy subject. If in any point I should be found at fault, may my reader generously grant me a credit for sincere endeavor; and may he be the stronger for having independently weighed and compared these words with the word of God. In conclusion, I can say nothing more fitting than the following words of Augustine:

      "Whoever reads these writings, wherein be is equally convinced, let him go on with me; wherein he finds himself in error, let him return to me; wherein he finds me in error, let him call me back to him. So let us go on together in the way of charity, pressing on toward Him of whom it is said, 'Seek ye his face evermore.'" [116]

      Is that the language of a man who teaches "on the preassumption that his interpretations of prophecy were infallible?" Or the following from the preface of my little book on Revelation:

      The writer's aim has been to be faithful to the Word, above all: just and true in his presentation, and undogmatic in his conclusions. His object was to point out facts and features, rather than to teach and dogmatize; and to direct the reader's eyes to what is actually said and written, more than to explain and comment. He says nothing upon his own authority, but has endeavored to place everything before the reader, that be may see, examine, and judge for himself. If the author should have failed of this aim in any point; if anywhere he has seemed to be trying to force an opinion or an unwarranted conclusion, it is not intentional, and he would beg the reader to overlook such lapse, and always, everywhere, to 'prove all things, and hold fast that which is good.'"

      Is that the same thing as claiming that my "'private interpretations' of unfulfilled prophecies are absolutely correct?" All through these "twelve or fifteen years" I have been trying to teach what God said in his word of prophecy, on the same principle as Brother Boles and I have been teaching other portions of the Scriptures, pointing men to the Bible as the only standard of truth.

      When his opposers say to Brother Boles that they do not accept his "interpretations" of the Bible, he points them to the Book. That is my principle exactly. With God's word alone I propose to stand or fall. Brother Boles says he believes all that God says, whether fulfilled or unfulfilled. So say I. But if Brother Boles goes on to assume that in unfulfilled prophecy God says one thing and means another, and that in unfulfilled prophecies he means something so obscure that one does not know what God means, I dissent from him; and that is the point on which the matter turns. But he seems to regard this idea he has concerning unfulfilled prophecy as "a fundamental truth," although it is but an [117] assumption unsupported by any evidence or proof whatever. When we are through with the present proposition, therefore, if Brother Boles will consent to take the negative, I will affirm the following proposition:

      "The Scriptures teach that unfulfilled prophecy can be understood on the same principles as the rest of God's word."

      The bulk of my respondent's argument, all that regards the establishment of the kingdom and its identity with the church, I concede.

      Brother Boles argues closely and forcefully upon his premises. I would not want to have to clash with him when he has the truth on his side. But he labors under a fundamental misapprehension of the point at issue and has not grasped the meaning of the proposition. His misunderstanding is inexplicable to me, especially since in the correspondence preceding the debate I called his especial attention to the specific point of our difference regarding Dan. 2:44. He takes up much space showing that God's kingdom began on Pentecost and in identifying church and kingdom. He should have known that I would not controvert that. He could find some of his arguments anticipated in my writings on the subject. But he even thinks I made a fatal admission when I stated: "We both believe in the one body, the church of our Lord Jesus Christ, established on the Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, which is God's kingdom on the earth to-day." Fatal or not, I believe that, and am glad to state it again. But I see no fatality in it.

      His total in is apprehension of the point at issue appears when he says that "if the kingdom of Dan. 2:44 and the kingdom established on Pentecost are not one and the same kingdom, then the God of heaven set up two kingdoms during the existence of the Roman Empire." And he even goes so far as to say that I seem to intimate that the kingdom which smote the image was not in existence [118] at the time, although I had said the opposite, and that is the very point I contend for. I quoted from my book, "The Kingdom of God," as follows:

      The statement that " Dan. 2:44 has not yet been fulfilled" does not deny that the Stone which smites the Image upon its feet already exists. Necessarily, the cutting out of the Stone "without hands" must precede its descent upon the Image. If it be contended that the words in Dan. 2:44, "In the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom," has reference to the first preparation of the Stone, in the establishment of the church on Pentecost, we have no objections to offer. It is in harmony with that conception that Christ, descending from heaven at the head of his saints (Rev. 19:11-21), destroys the last world power and takes possession of the earth. This is the Stone which has been forming throughout the present age and which in due time comes down to smite the Image and assume control of the earth. But it is the latter point--the establishment of the kingdom of God in the earth in open manifestation and supreme power--which the catastrophe of Dan. 2:44 has especially in view.

      To this note I called Brother Boles' particular attention in our correspondence before the debate. If he had examined it carefully, he would surely not have missed the point in discussion as badly as he has. How can he now say that I "seem to intimate that the kingdom which smote the image was not in existence at the time" (i. e., on Pentecost, when the church was established)? And how can he say: "If he admits that they are one and the same kingdom, then he is admitting all that I claim in my proposition?" I do admit that; and if that is all he claims, the matter is settled--would have been settled before we took it up, for I admitted that long ago. But Brother Boles' proposition calls for more than that. It says: "The Scriptures teach that the event signified by the smiting and destruction of the image in Dan. 2:35, 44, began to take place on the day of Pentecost." That the kingdom originated on Pentecost we both believe. That was the bringing into existence and the preparation of [119] the stone, the "cutting out" of it without hands. Brother Boles makes the establishment of the kingdom the same as the smiting of the image. I do not. They are neither simultaneous nor identical. Reason and Scripture combine to show that the two are not the same events. The preparation of the stone took place first, the descent of the stone upon the image and the utter destruction of the same was a subsequent step--a new action and manifestation in outward power of the stone previously brought into existence. I trust my respondent will see this point and address himself to it. I deny that such a thing has taken place, or begun to take place. I deny that Rome was ever smitten by the stone, broken up by it into atoms "like the chaff of the summer's threshing floor," and these carried away by the winds so that no place was found for them, after which the stone took possession of the whole earth. If it can be shown that this prophecy of Dan. 2:35, 44, was fulfilled by the event of Pentecost, then, indeed, language is at an end, and unfulfilled prophecy may, indeed, mean anything or everything or nothing, as the case may be; neither can it be recognized after its fulfillment. If this is my respondent's position, I do not wonder if be thinks that unfulfilled prophecy cannot be understood.

      He comes nearer the issue when he says:

      The image was in existence with all of its parts when it was smitten by the stone. . . . All of these kingdoms which compose the image (Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires) must be brought back into existence in order that the future kingdom (as Brother Boll teaches) may smite them. His interpretation would call for the reëstablisbment of the Babylonian government, the Medo-Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman, all at the same time, in order that a future kingdom may smite them and destroy them.

      He will admit, then, that if the fourfold image could be brought into existence again, a future smiting of the image might take place? Then, granting this were [120] possible, that kingdom (which was established on Pentecost, and the headquarters of which are until yet in heaven--Phil. 3:21) may yet descend with destructive force upon the kingdom of the world? Well, that would meet the demands of the prophecy of Dan. 2:35 and 44. It is not necessary, however, that all four world powers should be brought back. Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece were not in actual existence on Pentecost. They existed only as included in the fourth world power, yet, according to Brother Boles, the image "stood complete" on Pentecost, though only the fourth world power was actually in existence then. So all four do not have to be brought back into actual existence for the smiting: if the fourth comes back, that is sufficient.

      John, in Revelation, sees such a world power. He calls it "The Beast." It corresponds with the fourth beast of Daniel's prophecy in Dan. 7, which Brother Boles agrees is parallel with the prophecy in Dan. 2. The four beasts of Dan. 7 are world powers: the first like a lion, the second like a bear, the third like a leopard, the fourth a terrible ten-horned beast. During the existence of the latter the Son of man receives his dominion, as Brother Boles correctly points out. Now, John sees among things future (Rev. 4:1) a ten-horned beast coming up out of the sea. He is a universal world power. (Rev. 13:2-7.) As Brother Boles says, there cannot be a fifth one; he is, therefore, one of the four, the fourth one, come back. And, like the image, he embodies all the four: he has the lion's mouth, the bear's feet, the leopard's general appearance, and he himself is that fourth, ten-horned beast. And just like the fourth world power in the image which was smitten by the stone, and the fourth beast of Dan. 7, which was destroyed by judgment from on high, so the beast of John's vision, that final world empire, is destroyed by a judgment from on high, the descent upon him of Jesus Christ with his saints (Rev. 19:11-21), after which (like as in the case of the stone [121] that fills the earth in Dan. 2, and as in Dan. 7, where, following the fourth beast's destruction, the saints rule over all under the whole heaven) the reign of the Lord Jesus Christ with his saints ensues (Rev. 20:1-6). This answers to the prophecy of the smiting of the image in Dan. 2:35, 44, and answers to it fully and perfectly, as, a faithful fulfillment of God's word of prophecy.

      Now, if my respondent will produce proof that, not the beginning of the kingdom, but the smiting of the image, took place, or began to take place, on Pentecost, I shall be glad to examine his proof. [122]

[UP 113-122]