Brother Boll's remarks about his respondent's reply are not very complimentary. However, I am trying my best to please my reigning King, and I hope that Brother Boll will finally be pleased. I know that it is not very pleasant to him to have his theory exposed and have to face arguments which he cannot answer. It is not my desire to be unkind to him or even unpleasant in holding him to the issue "with generalities," but this is the task of the negative. His complaints show that he feels the pressure of the argument and the embarrassment which they gender.

      Almost one-half of his article deals with irrelevant matter. I wish that we could stay closer with the issue and argue only the proposition under discussion. He is in the lead, and I am supposed to follow him. However, much of the irrelevant matter I shall pass over--not that it cannot be answered, but that the issue may be kept clear, it is passed without notice. The reader is fully aware of the fact that he has not met the issue on the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy.

      Why does he not settle that point if he wants it settled? All that he has to do is to show that he is able to give an infallible interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy, and that would settle the matter. We are still wondering why he does not do that and quit talking so much about it. "Do it, and then talk about it," is a good motto, and applicable just here on this point. He must do this in order to prove his proposition. I think that he knows this now, and I am sure that the reader knows that this is his task. He has been in the lead all along on this point. No one has restrained him, but, rather, he has been urged to prove it; but so far he has failed. Propositions which express clearly the issue have been submitted, but he has only replied to these propositions with a counter proposition couched in ambiguous language and equivocal terms. [206]

      I have denied his proposition that "unfulfilled prophecies can be understood on the same principles and in the same way as all the rest of God's word." Fulfilled prophecy is a part of God's word. I have showed that "the fulfilled prophecy" cannot "be understood on the same principles and in the same way" as "unfulfilled prophecies," for the fulfilled prophecy has been pointed out by Christ and the Holy Spirit. We have been told the prophecy and the time and event of its fulfillment. This is not true of "unfulfilled prophecy." A number of examples were given from the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ's first advent, showing that they were not understood, nor indeed could be, until the event transpired and the Holy Spirit pointed out the prophecy which the event fulfilled. Brother Boll did not notice these.

      Again I must reiterate that I do not "discredit God's word of unfulfilled prophecy" (Brother Boll knows I do not), but I do "discredit" Brother Boll's interpretation and application of unfulfilled prophecy. May I inquire, When did his interpretation and application become God's word? I make a wide distinction between his interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy and "God's word of unfulfilled prophecy," and I think Brother Boll should discriminate between them.

      His little ruse about thinking my "position on this can prove the whole Roman Catholic contention" is too transparent to be taken seriously. He says it is "the common Roman Catholic argument." If it be so, why does he not meet it and answer it? Calling it bad names does not answer it. It is easier for Brother Boll to brand it "the common Roman Catholic argument" than it is to answer it. The proposition still stands unshaken: No proposition which, depends wholly upon the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy by uninspired man for its proof can be established.

      He seems not to know what I mean by "interpretation." I remind him again that I mean just what Peter meant [207] when he said: "No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation." (2 Pet. 1:20.) I mean just what Brother Boll meant by that word when he said: "Study Revelation also--there is a blessing in it (Rev. 1:3); but beware of the many so-called interpretations, wild theories, and imaginations men have spun around that book." ("How to Understand and Apply the Bible," by R. H. Boll, page 24.)

      The argument was made that prophecy does not prove an event, but events prove prophecy. Brother Boll attempts to reverse this order. Man, unaided by inspiration, cannot see the end of unfulfilled prophecy and tell how and when it will be fulfilled. This is no new doctrine. Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell frequently taught the same. Brother Lipscomb said: "I have very little confidence in human interpretations of unfulfilled prophecies." The Gospel Advocate has always occupied this position. It is the position of the present editors, Brethren Elam, Smith, and Srygley. I am in good company and on safe ground when I say that man, unaided by inspiration, cannot give an absolutely correct interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy. Jehovah said: "For the words are shut up and sealed till the time of the end." (Dan. 12:9.)

      Brother Boll's reference to Portland Avenue Church and his labors with it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of the interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy or the proposition under discussion. It is entirely irrelevant matter. I rejoice in all the good that Brother Boll and the church there have done and are doing. I pray the Lord to bless them in their abundant labors in his kingdom.

      Our brother did not quote enough from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown. If he had quoted a little further, he would have found this comment on verse 27:

      Jesus had refused to receive the kingdom without the cross at Satan's hands. He would receive it from none [208] but the Father, who had appointed the cross as the path to the crown. As the Father has given the authority to me over the heathen and uttermost parts of the earth, so I impart a share of it to my victorious disciples.

      This states that Jesus had already received the kingdom. Brother Boll not only did not quote enough from these authors, but he does not believe what he did quote, for in his quotation we have these words: "Beginning by destroying His antichristian foes, He shall reign in love over the rest." Now, Brother Boll has said that Christ will not reign "over the saints," but the saints "will reign conjointly with him" over"the race then living upon the earth." Now, if, when he comes, he destroys "his antichristian foes," or his enemies, and he does not reign over his saints, then pray tell whom he will reign over. Brother Boll has not made this clear.

      Again, he is confusing in his discussion on the difference between "a promise" and "a prophecy." In his second affirmative he said that his opponent failed in his attempt to make "a distinction between a promise and a prophecy. . . . There is no such distinction to be made. Every promise of God pertaining to the future and the hereafter is an instance of unfulfilled prophecy." I asked him if "the promise of the remission of sins" to one who believed and repented and was baptized was "an unfulfilled prophecy." He says now that "not all promises" are "unfulfilled prophecies;" that only the promises pertaining to the future and the hereafter" are "unfulfilled prophecies." Now, may I ask him if a promise can pertain to the past? Do not all promises it pertain to the future?" It will be interesting to observe Brother Boll's efforts in trying to find a promise which "pertains" to the past. His language implies that there are such promises. I think that he now sees that his statement was not correct when he attempted to make "a promise" and "a prophecy" synonymous, substituting the one for the other in an argument which he made. [209] This is an admission of his fallacy and, of course, invalidates the proof of his proposition.

      His quotation from Daniel Sommer is given as "a possible explanation." Yes, a "possible" one. But there is nothing definite in this little realm of possibilities, and Brother Boll is fair enough to offer it with doubt and uncertainty in calling it "a possible explanation." But the reader will wonder why he offered it at all.

      But the affirmative says that his respondent "knows how an unfulfilled prophecy can not be fulfilled." He said I should "remain neutral" on this point. I do not claim the honor which he offers me; but when I know that an interpretation of unfulfilled prophecy contradicts any plain, simple declaration of God's word, then I know that that interpretation is not the fulfillment of any of God's prophecies.

      Brother Boll comes to this Scripture again. He says "that this passage does not deal with apocalyptical symbols and figures." Well, what are these? "Rod of iron," "vessels of the potter," "broken to shivers," and "morning star." They are all in this Scripture; yet Brother Boll says that this Scripture "does not deal with apocalyptical symbols and figures." I wonder why he should make such a statement?

      Adam Clarke, in commenting on this Scripture, says:

      Every witness of Christ has power to confute and confound all the false doctrines and maxims of the nations of the world, for Christianity shall at last rule over all. .  . . This seems to refer to the heathen world; and perhaps Constantine the Great may be intended, who, when he overcame Licinius, became the instrument in God's hand of destroying idolatry over the whole Roman Empire.

      So this does not have reference to the millennium, but is in process of fulfillment now. It has no reference, according to Adam Clarke, to the time when Christ comes.

      Dean Alford, in commenting on this verse, says: [210]

      The authority here spoken of is that which shall be conferred on the saints when they shall inherit the earth and reign with Christ in his kingdom. It has been gradually realized, as the stone cut out without hands has broken in pieces other kingdoms. ("New Testament Commentary," Volume II., page 964.)

      It will be noticed that Dr. Alford says: "It has been gradually realized, as the stone cut out without hands has broken in pieces other kingdoms." This shows that he interprets it to mean that it is in process of fulfillment now, and that the saints are reigning with Christ now, and have been ever since the stone began smiting the image on the day of Pentecost. Dr. Smith, as quoted before, says: "This power will work through his people, and thus to them, the instrument, he imparts this power. This is a part of their reward in the overcoming." He emphasizes that it is now working through his people, or that they are now reigning with Christ in his kingdom.

      It has been my observation that when an opponent begins to ridicule scholars and disparage scholarship he feels keenly the force of their testimony against his proposition. It is a futile way of attempting to weaken the evidence of scholarship; it is also an admission that one is unable to answer them. Dr. Macknight says: "I do not think there is here any reference to the millennium." This is very emphatic.

      Attention is called again to the two parallel conditional clauses. They are: "If we died with him, we shall also live with him: if we endure, we shall also reign with him." The Centenary Translation of the New Testament translates verse 12: "If we endure suffering, we shall also reign with, him." And the New Testament in Modern Speech, by Weymouth, translates it as follows: "If we patiently endure pain, we shall also share his Kingship." [211]

      It is an axiom of logic that if the antecedent of a conditional proposition is affirmed, the consequent is thereby affirmed; or if the antecedent is true, the consequent is true. For example: "If we acted justly, we shall be respected." Now, if we affirm that we acted justly and prove that to be true, then the consequent, "we shall be respected," is true. The same reasoning applies to Paul's two parallel conditional clauses. Let us notice the first one, "If we died with him." If this is true, then "we shall also live with him" is true. But Christians have died with Christ (Rom. 6:2; Col. 3:3); therefore, the consequent is also true; we are now living with Christ, or the life which we now live is in Christ (Rom. 6:4; Gal. 2:20). Likewise, "if we endure," is true, then "we shall also reign with him" is also true at the same time that the antecedent is true. Now, Christians do "endure"--"endure suffering." Paul says: "Yea, and all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." (2 Tim. 3:12.) It is true that the faithful child of God endures suffering in this life; then the consequent, "we shall also reign with him," is true in this life. Both of the antecedents of the two conditional propositions are true, and therefore both of the consequents are true in this life. Hence, this Scripture teaches that the saints are now living with Christ and also reigning with him in the church. Brother Boll did not answer this argument; he did not even refer to the argument that is here made.

      It seems to me that the arguments which have been made on the fact that Christ is reigning now are so clear, emphatic, and Scriptural that Brother Boll had to admit them, and after doing so he turned square around and attempted to deny them. For example, the argument was made that Christ is now reigning and that he has all authority. (Matt. 28:18.) Brother Boll says: "Good. [212] I hold by that." Then he faces about and says that Christ does "not as yet have it in actual fact and act." He further asks, Did Christ "actually have all authority at that time?" Yes; he said that he had it, and began exercising it in giving the commission, but told his disciples to wait till the Holy Spirit came. They did wait, and received the power from on high, and remitted sins according to the terms which were given them by their Lord. It seems that Brother Boll is confused in regard to the authority which Christ now has, or else he has not the courage to come out boldly and deny the Lordship of Christ. His theory denies Christ as actually having all authority now, but says that he will receive it when he comes: that he will only have it "in actual fact and act" during the millennium. I repeat that I regret that Brother Boll does not believe that Christ is in "actual possession" of "all authority." Such a position contradicts the statement of our Lord. Such a position robs the reigning King of power, authority, and glory; it dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a position denies the fundamental principles of the Christian religion, because, if Christ does not have "all authority" now, the whole foundation of Christianity rests upon a sandy foundation; for Christ has made a false claim, if he is not "in actual fact and act" exercising "all authority."

      Again, Brother Boll does not hesitate to push aside the testimony of J. W. McGarvey and D. Lipscomb on Matt. 19:28. McGarvey said that the period of regeneration and restoration is now going and that the apostles are now on their thrones judging true Israel. Brother Lipscomb, as was quoted, bears testimony equally as clear and strong. But Brother Boll puts up his own interpretations on this Scripture against these eminent scholars, who contradict his position. All restoration is under the Lordship of Christ, and is being worked out now by the agencies of Christianity through the saints. Brother Lipscomb further says: [213]

      As the whole under-creation sympathized with man in his ruin, it likewise sympathizes with him in his rescue. (Rom. 8:20-22.) .  . . In perfect accord with this, wherever the Christian religion gains a foothold, it excites to industry. Briers, thistles, and thorns are rooted out; the earth is reclaimed from a desert waste and brings forth food for man and beast. With generous and nutritious food, the lower animals improve in their development and are softened in nature. ("Salvation from Sin," pages 124, 125.)

      This emphasizes the restoration of all things in Christianity through the present reign of Christ with his saints in the church or kingdom of God on earth. Truly, if we "fill the world with faithful, pure, active churches, led by the light of truth and the Spirit of God, soon 'the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.'"

      Brother McGarvey says that the "throne of his glory in Matt. 25:31 is "the throne of judgment." ("Commentary," page 220.) Christ is now on his mediatorial throne and interceding between God and man; but this same Mediator on the same throne will at his coming be Judge "of the quick and the dead." His throne then will be the same as his throne now; the only difference will be in the different offices of Him who sits upon the throne.

      Brother Boll sums up his work on this proposition under seven heads. He vehemently affirms these seven points; but, in my judgment, he has not proved a single one of them. We wish to notice each one of them separately.

      1. Rev. 2:25-27. Adam Clarke, Dean Alford, and Dr. J. A. Smith, all eminent Bible scholars, contradict Brother Boll's interpretation of this Scripture. They say that it has been fulfilled or is now in process of fulfillment; that the saints are now reigning with Christ. What evidence has Brother Boll given us that his interpretation of this Scripture is correct and that their interpretation is false? [214] He cannot claim with absolute certainty that his interpretation of this Scripture is true beyond a doubt, and therefore the uncertainty of his interpretation weakens his proof of his proposition. So he cannot claim this Scripture as support to his proposition.

      2. 2 Tim. 2:12. Macknight, in commenting on this Scripture, says that "it has no reference to the millennium. There is not one word said in it about the saints' reigning with Christ when he comes. This Scripture does not sustain beyond a doubt Brother Boll's position; hence, the element of doubt (which Brother Boll is unable to remove) inheres in his premises and is inevitably a part of his conclusion. So, again, the proof of his proposition weakens his contention. He cannot claim this Scripture as support to his proposition.

      3. 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. This does not sustain Brother Boll's position. It says absolutely nothing about the saints' reigning with Christ when he comes. A casual reading of this Scripture shows that it does not support his proposition.

      4. Luke 19:11-27. This is the parable of the pounds. In my judgment, Brother Boll misinterprets the entire parable. The chief lessons of it are that Christ, before establishing his kingdom, would go into the grave and would be raised from the dead and then establish his kingdom; that our gifts are intrusted to us and are not our own; that they are to be used and improved as we serve in his kingdom, for an account must one day be given of them; that greater or less diligence and conscientiousness in work will receive a proportionate reward; and that in the end all things will be put under the Lord's feet. To say the least of it, Brother Boll has not given infallible evidence that his application of it is true, and hence he cannot use it as positive proof of his proposition.

      5. Dan. 7. The "kingdom" mentioned in this chapter is the church. (Brother Boll admitted this in our [215] discussion on a former proposition); and if it is the church, then the saints are now reigning with Christ in this kingdom. Brother Boll's admission on this point is fatal to his present contention. So this point is taken from him.

      6. Matt. 19:28. As shown by the testimony of McGarvey, Lipscomb, and others, the apostles and saints are now reigning with Christ; so what they bind on earth is bound in heaven; or whatever the words of the apostles bound upon men upon earth, the same is ratified in heaven. (Matt. 16:19.) So, again, this Scripture cannot be claimed to support (without doubt) Brother Boll's proposition.

      7. Rev. 19, 20. This Scripture takes Brother Boll into "the many so-called interpretations, wild theories, and imaginations men have spun around that book;" into the very field in which Brother Boll gave such wise counsel several years ago. He does not know the meaning of the symbolical language used in these chapters, and therefore cannot give a correct interpretation of them; hence, his interpretations here are freighted with doubt and uncertainty, and therefore cannot support with any degree of certainty his proposition.

      1. The kingdom over which Christ is now reigning "shall stand forever" (Dan. 2:44); it "cannot be shaken" (Heb. 12:28). This is the description which the Holy Spirit gives to the kingdom over which Christ is now reigning. We need not look for another kingdom to be given unto him. If his saints reign with him, they must reign with him in this kingdom, which is the church. Brother Boll has failed to meet this argument.

      2. God has not promised to give to Christ another kingdom than the one he now has. So, if the saints ever reign with him, they must reign with him over the one he now has, and the one which he now has is the one which Brother Boll has admitted to be the church. The Bible [216] speaks of only one reign of Christ (not two or more), and it represents him as reigning now. This refutes Brother Boll's position that he is to have another throne and another kingdom and that his saints will not reign with him until he comes and occupies another throne and receives another kingdom. Brother Boll has not met this objection.

      3. Brother Boll wants the smiting of the image in Dan. 2:44 to take place when Christ comes again, and his theory joins the saints with him in the smiting of the stone at that time. Now, in discussing a former proposition, Brother Boll admitted that the smiting of the image was done during the existence of the Roman Empire. Daniel said that it would be during the existence of the Roman Empire. Now, if Daniel told the truth, the smiting of the stone began on Pentecost, when the kingdom, or church, was established. We believe that Daniel told the truth when he said that it would be done during the existence of the Roman Empire. So Christ began his reign then, and his apostles and saints began reigning with him in his kingdom when it was established on Pentecost. Again, if Daniel told the truth, Christ is now reigning with his saints, and we need not look for him to have another kingdom given him in order for his saints to reign with him. Brother Boll has not met this objection.

      4. In the description of the judgment as recorded in Matt. 25, Brother Boll says: "Furthermore, in this judgment Christians are not among those who are being judged, for they are already with their Lord, past all judgment (Col. 3:4), and are themselves associated with the Lord in his judging. (1 Cor. 6:2.) Moreover, Israel is not in this judging." ("The Kingdom of God," by R. H. Boll, page 84.) Now, Brother Boll has defined his proposition to mean that Christ with his saints will reign only over the wicked race then living when he comes. He would have Christ, a righteous Judge and righteous King, with his righteous saints, with righteous laws and a [217] righteous; kingdom, ruling for a thousand years over a wicked race. The reader will recall that Brother Boll has not touched this argument. He has not given it the courtesy of even referring to it. May we ask why?

      5. Christ came on his first advent, which completed the opening of the gospel dispensation; he established his church or kingdom; he is now the Head of the church and the King of the kingdom. The Scriptures are clear in teaching that he will return at the end of the gospel dispensation to raise the dead, to judge the world, to punish the wicked and to reward the righteous, and then deliver up the kingdom to God, the Father, that God may be all and in all. If the saints reign with Christ, they must reign with him before he delivers up the only kingdom that he will ever have to God, the Father. This refutes Brother Boll's contention that they will reign with him when he comes.

      6. Christ has all authority now (Matt. 28:18); angels and authorities are now "subject to him" (1 Pet. 3:22); he does not have to wait until he comes again to receive this authority; he is reigning now in his kingdom (1 Cor. 15:25; Heb. 2:8); his present reign will continue in his kingdom until the last enemy is destroyed; then he will deliver the kingdom to God. He will not reign after his present reign ceases, for there is only one reign of Christ mentioned in the Scriptures. His principles, spirit, and love will continue in force until the last enemy is conquered. It is a travesty on Christ and his kingdom to suppose that his kingdom is to be like that of Alexander the Great, or Xerxes, or any other mighty murderer on this earth. Again we see that his saints must reign now in his present kingdom with righteous laws and principles.

      7. The influence of Christ and the power of his kingdom in the world may be seen on every hand to-day. Its influence will continue until the world shall be brought to his feet, not by compulsion of force, but by the irresistible might of love. As he reigns in heaven and on earth [218] through his saints, he also intercedes in heaven for his saints on earth. He is preparing a home for the saints in heaven. He is not preparing for them to become world rulers on earth. As rapidly as people now submit to his rule and come under his influence, so speedily his church or kingdom conquers all opposition.

      8. The Lord's people are "a royal priesthood." (1 Pet. 2:9.) A "royal priesthood" means a kingly priesthood, a priesthood of kings or a kingdom of priests. The two elements of priesthood and kingship are united in every faithful child of God. Every Christian is a priest and a king. Christians are priests to offer spiritual sacrifices through Christ, and they are kings to reign with him. As surely as the saints are priests unto God, so surely are they kings reigning with Christ; and as they are kings, Christ is indeed "King of kings," as he is our King. Brother Boll has made no reply to this argument.

      9. Again, Paul tells us: "For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one; much more shall they that receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, even Jesus Christ." (Rom. 5:17.) In this Paul tells us that the saints are reigning in this life through Christ Jesus. As Christ is now reigning over his kingdom through his saints, his saints are said to be reigning through him. Brother Boll has not answered this argument.

      1. He has failed to establish his ability to interpret correctly unfulfilled prophecies.

      2. For some cause he has failed to set forth clearly and fully his theory in regard to the thousand-years' reign, or millennium; he has chosen to fill his space with much irrelevant matter.

      3. He has failed to meet the argument that the Bible mentions only one reign for Christ and that he is now reigning, and hence no other reign is to be given him. [219]

      4. He has failed to meet the argument that, since Christ has but one reign or kingdom, if his saints reign with him, they must reign now with him in the church.

      5. He has failed to meet the argument, based on 1 Pet. 2:9, that Christians are "a royal priesthood," hence reigning now.

      6. He has gone to the book of Revelation for much of his proof for his proposition, yet he has failed to give the meaning of more than forty symbols and figures which were compiled for him as a test of his ability to understand the book of Revelation.

      7. He has failed to recognize the weight of authority of Adam Clarke, McGarvey, Lipscomb, Sewell, and others who have been quoted. He has failed, in my judgment, to prove his proposition that "the Scriptures teach that Christ, when he comes, will reign with his saints over all the earth," meaning that Christ, when he comes, will reign with his saints over all the wicked people then living upon the earth for a thousand years. [220]

[UP 206-220]