Brother Boll attaches more importance to this proposition than he does to any of the previous propositions which we have discussed. I am not sure that it merits the importance which he gives to it. In his mind, the issues of this proposition express "the vital and practical center of the Bible's prophetic teaching." I do not know just how to measure the importance of any Bible truth. All truth comes from God. Neither do I know how to measure the unimportance of an error. All error is opposed to some truth. I do not believe that the premillennial theory is "the heart" of the Bible teaching in prophecy or in any other kind of Biblical literature.

      The affirmative has a very difficult proposition. The two important words in the proposition, "premillennial" and "imminent," are not in the Bible; neither do these words have synonyms in the Bible. They do not express Bible ideas; hence, the two important words in the proposition do not express spiritual ideas, and it is to be seen later as to whether Brother Boll can employ them in such a way as to express Scriptural ideas. Again, the proposition presents another difficulty in that it imposes a twofold burden upon the affirmative. It is really a double proposition. If the affirmative should succeed in proving that the coming of Christ is premillennial, he would still have to prove that the coming of Christ is imminent; if he should succeed in proving that the coming of Christ is imminent, he would still have to prove that Christ's coming is premillennial. Not only is the proposition a double proposition, but the two parts of it are not closely related. The premillennial idea does not in any way depend upon the imminency of Christ's coming. The two terms are not interdependent in the proposition.

      There is another difficulty which the affirmative must meet, and that is that Christ, neither before his death nor after his resurrection, ever said one word about the [330] millennium. No writer of the New Testament ever used the words "premillennial" and "imminent." The theory is based upon a false interpretation of one Scripture (Rev. 20:1-10), and this Scripture is highly figurative, symbolical, and allegorical. The theory of the millennium depends upon an interpretation of this Scripture. Brother Boll is forced back to his position of being an infallible interpreter of unfulfilled prophecy and interpreter of figures, symbols, and allegories, in order to get proof for the theory.

      Brother Boll and I hold much in common. We both believe that Christ will come again; there is no dispute about this. We both believe that we are now living between the two visits of Christ to this world, his first advent and his second coming. We both believe that the Scriptures abundantly teach that Christ will come again. We believe this as firmly as we believe that he came the first time. I do not know of a gospel preacher who does not preach earnestly and hopefully the coming of our Lord. No Christian can eat the Lord's Supper intelligently without proclaiming "the Lord's death till he come." (1 Cor. 11:26.) Every Christian entertains the fond hope that our Lord will return. So we both occupy common ground in regard to the coming of Christ. Furthermore, we occupy common ground in that neither of us knows when Christ will come. We both teach: "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only." (Matt. 24:36; see also Mark 13:32.) We do not believe in setting dates or attempting to calculate the time when Christ will come. I think that we both believe that no one knows, neither do the Scriptures teach, just when Christ will come.

      So far we travel together; but when Brother Boll begins to say--and that, too, without Scriptural authority--that Christ's coming is premillennial, he goes "beyond that which is written." Let the reader bear in mind that [331] Brother Boll will not give a single Scripture which even remotely expresses the idea of his proposition. In discussing the proposition, "Christ is now on David's throne," and in denying that proposition, Brother Boll listed as one of his points that the affirmative had not quoted a single Scripture which said that "Christ is now on David's throne." If that were a point for him at that time, it is a point against him now. I ask the reader to follow him closely and see whether he finds a single Scripture which teaches that the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent.

      The best that can be said about the millennium is that it is a theory, based upon a school of interpretations. Of course, the proponents of the theory claim that their interpretations are correct. The most zealous advocates of the theory do not claim any more for it than that it is a theory of interpretation; they do not claim that any direct Scripture teaches the millennium.

      It is well in the very beginning of this discussion to get the main outline or chief points of the millennial theory before us so that the reader may understand just what Brother Boll is trying to do. The chief points as given by the proponents of the theory are as follows: That the kingdom of God is not yet in existence in its fullness and will not be until Christ comes; that the present dispensation of the gospel was not expected or intended to convert the world to Christianity; that the world is now growing worse and worse and will continue to do so until Christ comes; that his coming is always imminent, may happen at any moment; that the chief duty of every Christian is to "watch for it;" that first Christ will come and raise the righteous dead (the first resurrection) and transform the living saints; that he will catch them all up, both the dead and living saints, to meet him in the air--this they call "the rapture;" [332] that after "the rapture" there will be a period when God will pour out his judgments on the wicked--this they call "the tribulation;" that during this time Christ and his saints are supposed to be up in the air hovering over the earth, and at the end of "the tribulation" he and they will return to the earth--this return is called "the revelation;" that Christ will then bind Satan and cast him into the abyss and overthrow wickedness on the earth, set up his kingdom with Jerusalem as its capital, the Jews will be gathered back into Palestine (Brother Boll has them converted before they are gathered back to Palestine); that the ancient sacrifices will be restored in Jerusalem, and Christ, together with the resurrected saints, will rule for a thousand years over a world-wide kingdom of holiness--this rule of Christ's with his resurrected saints they call the "millennium;" that after the millennium there will be a violent outbreak of wickedness, and then the wicked dead shall be raised ("the second resurrection") and be judged; that this will be the end of the world. Now, I do not wish to saddle any theory on Brother Boll. I gather from his writings that he believes very much of the above-described theory. He has modified some points, but he can disavow any points that he does not believe and the reader will know what he does believe.

      Brother Boll's proposition calls for him to prove that the coming of Christ is premillennial--that is, he is affirming that the Scriptures teach that Christ will come before the millennium. Now, I deny that the Scriptures teach a millennium as interpreted by this theory. Brother Boll has assumed that the Bible teaches that there will be a millennium, and that it is in the future. He admits that he has made this assumption, for he says: "If I am assuming too much and my respondent is not prepared to admit this as common ground, I will gladly offer proof for these two points in my next article. Meanwhile I [333] shall proceed upon the assumption that it is agreed between us that there will be a millennium." And so he did proceed upon that "assumption." All of his article and all of his arguments are based upon this "assumption" and are worthless, so far as proving his proposition is concerned. We cannot let him "proceed upon" such an "assumption." I regret that he has now spent one-third of his time on this proposition and has occupied one-third of his space for this proposition upon the basis of a mere "assumption." If this proposition is so important as he declares it to be; if it is "the vital and practical center of the Bible's prophetic teaching;" if it is "the heart of the matter," then he ought to prove it and not merely assume it. He should not have "assumed" anything. Let the reader remember that he "proceeded upon the assumption" that there is to be a millennium, and based all that he said upon this huge "assumption."

      Just here we now call upon him to prove that the Scriptures teach that there will be such a thing or time as this theory calls a "millennium." It should be remembered that if he cannot prove that the Scriptures teach a millennium, he cannot prove his proposition; for his proposition says that the coming of Christ is premillennial, or that Christ will come before the millennium. We want to know a little more about the millennium. Will the millennium be literally just one thousand years as we count time? What will be the order of the millennium? What laws will govern it? What will become of the wicked during the millennium? Will there be any sin during the millennium? Will there be any forgiveness of sins during the millennium? Will there be any sickness during the millennium? Will there be any pain or grief during the millennium? Will there be any death during the millennium? What will become of the wicked just as the millennium commences? Brother Boll should give us some information on this millennium.

      The millennium is one thing and the coming of Christ [334] is another. Brother Boll confuses these two points in his article. The coming of Christ, even according to the theory, is not the millennium; neither is the millennium the coming of Christ. The affirmative is to prove that the coming of Christ is before the millennium. May we ask him how long before the millennium will Christ come? Will the millennium begin the moment Christ comes? How much time will intervene between the coming of Christ and the millennium? Christ taught that the Son and even the angels did not know when his coming would be. (Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32.) If the Son did not know when he would come, then he did not teach that it would be premillennial. If he did not know when he would come again, and if he did not teach a millennium, then he could not teach that his coming is premillennial. If he did not teach that his coming would be premillennial, then all the Scriptures and parables which Brother Boll has used have been misapplied and erroneously interpreted. If the millennium begins just when Christ comes, as Brother Boll seems to teach, and if the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to occur at any time--then the millennium is as imminent, or liable to come at any moment. Why not affirm that the millennium is imminent? Will Brother Boll answer this?

      Brother Boll has made three arguments on the "premillennial" phase of his proposition. His first argument is based upon what he calls "the character and course of the present age." This argument emphasizes one of the chief points of the theory, which is "that the world is now growing worse and worse and will continue to do so until Christ comes." It is, like the entire article, based upon an "assumption." He has not proved that the world is growing worse and worse and that it will continue to do so until Christ comes. The negative demands the proof of this before the affirmative can use it in [335] support of his proposition. It is true, because the Bible so teaches, that "evil men and impostors shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." (2 Tim. 3:13.) But the Bible as clearly teaches that good men are getting better and better; that the Lord's people who are faithful to him are growing more and more into the likeness of Christ; and "that to them that love God all things work together for good, even to them that are called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28.) Here Paul teaches that "all things" "work together"--that is, tend toward the ultimate good of the Lord's people. "All things work together for good"--not merely seeming good, but real good, good in view of eternity. Brother Boll and I, with all of our patient readers, if faithful to the Lord, are growing better and better; and as the Lord's people grow better, conditions in the world are better.

      This argument based on the assumption that the world in toto is growing worse and worse discredits the kingdom of God on earth. The Scriptures abundantly teach, and Brother Boll has admitted it, that the church is the kingdom of God on earth; so this theory makes the church an absolute and monumental failure on the earth. The theory teaches that in spite of the church, over which Christ is the head, the kingdom of God on earth, over which Christ rules as King, is a miserable failure; that the world is no better because of the church and its work, but that the world is growing worse and worse and will continue to do so until Christ comes. All the Scriptures which he used in support of this point are misinterpreted and misapplied. If he has not misinterpreted and misapplied these Scriptures, then we must say that the Scriptures teach that the church is an absolute failure on earth.

      This theory also discredits the work of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit came to earth and took up his abode in the church. The work of the Holy Spirit in the world [336] to-day, with all of his righteous agencies, is an absolute failure, if it be true that the world as a whole is growing worse and worse.

      Again, this theory belittles the gospel as God's power to save and redeem the human family. It is an absolute failure, if this theory is true. God's highest conception of human society is to be realized in the perfection of the church on the principles of the gospel of Christ. I here call on Brother Boll to name one condition or characteristic of the millennium that the gospel, the Holy Spirit, and the church cannot bring about. The agencies of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, and the Bible, which are now at work, will bring about every condition and characteristic which is claimed by the most zealous admirers and proponents of the millennial theory. Will Brother Boll attempt to mention a single one that these God-appointed agencies will not bring about if accepted now?

      This argument based on an assumption, if true, makes the first advent of Christ a failure. He came to earth to seek and save the lost; he gave the principles of redemption in the gospel, and shed his blood and gave his life to save man; but if the world is growing worse and worse with all these means of grace and salvation, then the mission of Christ is a failure. Christ revealed the will of the Father to man, and we have that will in the Bible. There are more Bibles printed and sold than any other book in the world; it is translated into every language and dialect; it is read and studied as no other book; there are more consecrated minds devoted to teaching the Bible than any other book in the world. If the world is growing worse and worse in spite of all these agencies at work, then the Bible is a colossal failure.

      Brother Boll's second argument is also based upon an assumption, an admitted assumption. Not only does he assume that the world is growing worse and worse and will continue to do so until Christ comes, but he also [337] assumes that the only hope of stopping this demolition is the coming of Christ. He says concerning this that "the only hope and prospect of a change from these distressful circumstances is connected with the coming of the Lord." The Scriptures cited by him do not prove his contention. I accept every Scripture quoted by him, but I do not accept his misapplication and misinterpretation of them. This assumption, like the other one, discredits all the agencies of truth and righteousness in the world and makes the church, the Holy Spirit, the gospel, and the Bible failures. It holds out a misconception of the purpose of the coming of Christ. The coming of Christ is not taught in the Scriptures as that which was intended to stop the evil tendency of the world as pictured by Brother Boll.

      The third argument of the affirmative is based on the misconception of the work of Christ and the church. His argument is that the purpose of Christianity is merely to hold in restraint the evil of the world until Christ comes. The true purpose of Christianity is the redemption of the human family, and not merely that of restraining evil. Christ came to earth, lived among men, died for all, and gave the plan of salvation for all. (1 Tim. 1:15.) He "went about doing good." (Acts 10:38.) All who follow him must, as he, go about doing good; they must bless the world. God promised Abraham that in his seed "shall all the families of the earth be blessed." (Gen. 12:3.) Hence, the purpose of Christ was to do good and bless the world and save man. Christ did not merely live a negative life; he did not live here upon earth merely doing no evil or holding evil in check; "he went about doing good." He lived a positive and aggressive life; he instituted a warfare against evil--a warfare which was taken up by the church and is to be waged under the guidance of the Holy Spirit according to the principles of Christianity until evil is destroyed. Christianity can make no compromise with evil; it is a [338] fight, a bitter fight, unto the end. "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Rom. 12:21), is the instruction which every child of God has received. It is not the instruction merely to restrain evil and recede from it, but to "overcome evil with good." So all three of the arguments which Brother Boll has made are admittedly based upon one huge assumption, and the arguments themselves are mere assumptions. So far he has not proved that the coming of Christ is premillennial.

      The second part of his proposition includes "the Lord's imminent coming." Be it remembered that this term "imminent" is not in the Bible, and therefore the idea expressed by it is not a Bible idea. Brother Boll has defined this term of his proposition to mean "always liable to occur" "it may happen at any time." He did not quote in full the definition given by the New Standard Dictionary. It defines the word as meaning "threatening to happen at once, as some calamity; dangerous and close at hand; impending; as, imminent peril." His proposition then teaches that the coming of Christ as taught by the Scriptures is "liable to occur at once," or "it may happen at any time." His proposition says, according to his own interpretation of it, that the Scriptures teach that Christ is liable to come at any moment.

      Now, if the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment-then everything the Bible teaches that must occur before Christ comes is also imminent, or liable to occur at any moment. In discussing our first proposition, Brother Boll argued that the Jews were to be converted to Christ first and then as a righteous nation restored to Palestine; and when they were restored to Palestine, then Christ would come and sit upon David's throne and rule over them with his saints. According to his position, the Jews must first be converted to Christ before Christ comes; and if the [339] coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment--then the conversion of the Jews nationally is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment. Brother Boll can never escape the force of this argument; it falls with crushing weight upon him and his position. His position makes him teach that the national conversion of the Jews is imminent--that is, liable to happen at any time. But since the Jews must be converted to Christ nationally before Christ comes, and since there is no prospect of the Jews' being momentarily converted to Christ, then, according to Brother Boll's meaning of "imminent," the coming of Christ is not imminent.

      Peter teaches in Acts 3:19-21 that the heavens must retain Christ "until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God spake by the mouth of his holy prophets that have been from of old." That is, after Christ ascended to the Father, he must remain there until all things which had been spoken by the prophets concerning him should be fulfilled. Brother Boll admits that there are some unfulfilled prophecies even concerning Christ. Then Christ will not come until those things be fulfilled; heaven must retain him, or he must remain in heaven, until these things are fulfilled. Again we conclude, since all the prophecies have not been fulfilled concerning him, that his coming is not imminent as Brother Boll interprets it. The Scriptures teach that Jerusalem was to be destroyed. (Matt. 25.) Jerusalem was not destroyed until A. D. 70. A period of time of about forty-seven years elapsed from the establishment of the church until Jerusalem was destroyed--that is, the church was about forty-seven years old when Jerusalem was destroyed. During this time a great portion of the New Testament Scriptures was written. If the New Testament Scriptures which were written at this time taught that the coming of Christ was "imminent"--that is, liable to happen at any moment--then the Scriptures taught that Christ was liable to come before that prophecy was [340] fulfilled. But the Scriptures taught the same during that period that they teach now; and if they did not teach that Christ was liable to come at any moment before the destruction of Jerusalem, then they did not teach the "imminency" of the coming of Christ. And so Brother Boll has failed to prove this point.

      Again, the Savior, in the commission, taught his disciples: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation." (Mark 16:15.) They were to go and "make disciples of all the nations." They had the promise that while going into all the world and preaching the gospel to the whole creation Christ would be with them "always, even unto the end of the world." (Matt. 28:19, 20.) Jesus knew that it would take some time, considerable time, for them to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He knew that they could not go into all the would in a moment, neither could they preach the gospel to the whole creation in a moment. Therefore, in giving the commission, Jesus understood that it would require much time. He commanded them to go and do this. Now, if his coming were imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment--then he gave a command to his apostles that was liable to be null and void at any moment. We do not believe this, and, therefore, we do not believe that the coming of Christ is imminent as interpreted by Brother Boll.

      Again, Paul, in writing to the church at Corinth, says: "When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." (1 Cor.13:10.) There was an imperfect condition, not only in the church at Corinth, but in Christianity in general. We need not stop here to inquire what is meant by "that which is perfect is come." It is enough for us to know that it had not come, but that it would come in the future; that it would take some time for "that which is perfect" to come. Now, it was several years after Christ ascended to the Father before the Holy Spirit gave this instruction. Nearly all the [341] Scriptures used by Brother Boll were written during this time, and they did not teach then that the coming of Christ was imminent; and since they teach now just what they taught then, they do not teach now that the coming of Christ is imminent.

      Again, Paul taught while he was in prison at Rome, very near the close of his life, that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers were given to the church "till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4:11-13.) The imperfect condition of the church and the imperfect revelation of God's will preclude the possibility of Christ's coming until the perfection should be attained. Again, these Scriptures and conditions preclude the argument which Brother Boll makes on the coming of Christ being imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment.

      Again, Paul teaches in 2 Thess. 2:1-12 some precursors to the coming of Christ. The Lord's coming was to be preceded by two manifest signs. They were not to know by these when the day was to be, but they were to know that it was not yet to be until these two things occurred. The first of these was "the great apostasy;" the second was the fully developed and public advent of the "man of sin." Now, we need not stop here for the present discussion to inquire what these mean. We are to learn that the day of the Lord is not "just at hand," nor will it be until these occur; "for it will not be, except the falling away come first, and the man of sin be revealed." This Scripture flatly contradicts Brother Boll's definition of "imminency." Paul says that it will not be till a certain thing (it does not matter what that is) happens. So the coming of the Lord could not be imminent--that is, liable to happen at any moment--until after these things occurred. Neither does it matter to us whether these things have already occurred or whether they are still in the [342] future. The Scriptures teach now just what they taught then; and since they did not teach the imminency of the coming of Christ then, they do not teach it now. The Scriptures must teach now just what they taught then when they were written.

      The Scriptures teach that the judgment is to take place at the coming of Christ. (See Matt. 16:27; 25:31-46; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 14:9-12; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Tim. 4:1.) People are to be judged by the gospel. (Rom. 2:16.) All are to be judged at the same time. (Matt. 25:31-46; Rev. 20:11-15.) There is no room for the millennium to come between the coming of Christ and the judgment.

      The gospel is God's power unto salvation. The church is the institution which God has ordained for the conversion and redemption of the human family. The church will complete its work before Christ comes. There can be no conversion of the nations after Christ comes, and we need not look for any conversion before he comes, except by the gospel, and that through the church. The coming of Christ is the finality with the judgment of saint and sinner. (See 2 Thess. 1:7-10; Eph. 5:25-27; 1 Thess. 3:13; Jude 24.)

      When Christ comes again, his meditation between God and man will cease, and his second coming will fulfill the object of the Scriptures, when he shall reward the saints and condemn to punishment the wicked. If the nations are to be brought into subjection to Christ after his second coming, then the word of God and the means of grace which are now used will be discarded as failures; the New Testament will be of no further use. Christ said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35.) If Brother Boll's theory is true, then the word of God must pass away. All who are saved must be saved in this present [343] dispensation. There is no such thing as a second chance. There can be no more salvation after Christ comes.

      The intercession of Christ and of the Holy Spirit will cease at the coming of Christ. If people are saved after the coming of Christ, they must be saved without the work of the Holy Spirit. The theory of Brother Boll teaches that people will be saved after the coming of Christ. The Scriptures do not so teach.

      The church is now the kingdom of God upon the earth, and Christ is now the Head of the church and the King of the kingdom. When he comes the second time, he is to deliver up the kingdom to the Father. (1 Cor. 15:24-28.) He is not to set up another kingdom, neither is he to lay down new terms of redemption for man. After the judgment and the righteous are rewarded and the wicked condemned, the finality of the work of the Son of God shall have been concluded.

      If people are saved after the second advent of Christ, there must be new means of salvation, a new gospel, and a resurrection. But the Scriptures nowhere teach these things, and again we conclude that the theory which is taught by the premillennialists is not true. [344]

[UP 330-344]