I am somewhat perplexed how to deal with my brother's first negative; for if it is the negative's duty to follow the affirmative and to take up the arguments and Scripture proofs presented and to reply to them, he certainly has failed of that duty. I do not think he undertook to examine and reply to hardly so much as one passage of Scripture out of all the number I presented in proof of the proposition. Instead, he dismisses them all, in a priori fashion, with a few disparaging remarks, and goes on to raise issues of his own, make arguments of his own, and fails almost wholly to give attention to the affirmative's argument. It devolves now on to me to show the reader that the negative has not fairly met the issue, but has evaded and beclouded it, however unintentionally that may have been done. I trust that in his next two articles he will come up more squarely.

      It seems that, throughout, my respondent, instead of meeting the Scriptures and arguments I present, is combating some sort of "premillennial theory." Thus, in his first paragraph he says, "I do not believe that the premillennial theory is the 'heart' of the Bible teaching in prophecy;" and the last words of his article are, 'the theory which is taught by the premillennialists is not true." Now, if in my affirmative argument I had advanced or advocated or defended one of the several "premillennialist theories," the negative would do well to fight that. But I not only did not present any theory to him, but I specifically disavowed all complicity with human theories and made my whole fight on Scripture alone. Why does my respondent prefer to turn from the duty of examining and replying to the Scriptures I presented to assail something I never introduced, but specifically repudiated? It must be much easier to combat a "theory" [345] than to meet a Scripture. I am not sponsoring theories here; with God's word alone I propose to stand or fall. My brother still would like, it seems, to line me up with some strange doctrine and prove me to be an exponent of some peculiar "theory." In the last negative of the proposition preceding this I quoted from my book, "The Kingdom of God," in disavowal of theories, "my own included in so far as I may have any." In Word and Work, 1918, page 372, I wrote as follows:

      I would explain here that I defend premillennialism, not in the sense of a sectarian, denominational, or interdenominational creed or movement, but purely in the simple sense of the word. A man is a "premillennialist" simply because he believes that according to God's word Christ returns before the millennium, just as an "immersionist" is one who believes that according to Scripture baptism is immersion. If a Christian says he is a premillennialist, he means just this, and nothing more, and not that he has subscribed to any man's or set of men's position and creed, or is the representative of some human theory. He cannot, therefore, be charged with the follies and extravagances taught by some who hold the premillennial position. A simple Christian indorses and accepts nothing on this or any other subject, except that which he finds in God's word.

      Again, in Word and Work, Volume 1916, page 548, I said:

      If ever a sect of premillennialists should spring up, or a system of doctrine called "premillennialism," I should feel obliged to disavow all connection and complicity with it--just as I would disavow belonging to the "immersionist" sect, or would subscribe to a system of doctrine dubbed "immersionism." I am no premillennialist in a sectarian sense, nor do I hold by any system of doctrine (if there be any such) known as "premillennialism." We beg the privilege of being simply Christians, with freedom to search and see, to believe and speak whatsoever God has spoken.

      Really I'm striving to be only a simple Christian who goes to God's word for his faith and stands for nothing else. Will my brother believe me? All his battle with [346] those "theories" is not against me, but is a fight against straw men.

      And I would like to remind him to clear me of the charge he inadvertently made in his article before the last, that I contend "in the main" for all such points as "that the temple worship is to be restored, the Aaronic priesthood resumed, animal sacrifices to be offered; in fact, the theory demands a restoration of the entire ritual of the law of Moses." I requested him once before to clear me of this charge or else to substantiate it.

      As to my statement that this present proposition is the most important thus far, my respondent says he cannot see that; and he does not know how to measure the relative importance of a truth, or the relative unimportance of an error, he says. Yet he is bound to know that some things are of relatively more importance than others. Justice, mercy, and faith, for instance, are weightier matters than tithings of mint, anise, and cumin. A camel is bigger than a gnat. One commandment was greater than all, and a second was like unto it. Things have intrinsic and also relative values. The New Testament is more important than the Old, though we are very far from thinking the Old unimportant. Love is greater than faith or hope, though faith must be that love may be. Now, our first proposition was important, but does not touch us quite so closely; nor the second, nor the third, nor the fourth. But for us all the questions of prophecy focus in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the attitude a man takes toward that will profoundly affect his life. It makes some difference whether or not a man sees reason to look constantly for the return of the Lord, and to watch and be ready for the same. If the coming of Christ is taught to be postmillennial, I shall certainly not be looking for him--it would be a psychological impossibility; but if no millennium is to come first, and if I am to expect Christ every day, it is a highly practical matter to me, as the many Scriptures I quoted show. [347] That is why this question gets nearer to the heart of things than the preceding four. I told Brother Boles in our preliminary correspondence that if the first four propositions were waived and conceded, it would not essentially affect this fifth and most important one.

      Brother Boles' statement that he does not know "how to measure the unimportance of an error" is rather a dangerous utterance. If that were correct, no difference among brethren could be tolerated. Every disagreement necessarily involves an error somewhere; and if one error may be as important as another, every disagreement on any point, however small, if we could not measure the importance of it, would necessitate a division. The ultimate effect of that would be to put every man in a church to himself.

      My respondent says that the words "premillennial" and "imminent" are not in the Bible, nor their synonyms, and concludes, therefore, that they do not stand for Bible ideas.

      That sort of reasoning could be properly used in the case of some unbiblical substantive noun. These, however, are predicate adjectives describing a Bible subject--viz., the coming of our Lord. Though they be not used in the Bible, yet the facts they describe may well be there. For example, if I should say, "The Old and the New Testaments are mutually supplementary and explanatory," it could not be required that the two predicate adjectives, "supplementary" and "explanatory," should be found in the Scriptures, but we ask only whether they describe the facts in the case. When we say, "The coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent," the question is not so much whether these two adjectives are found in the Scriptures, but whether they describe facts. So when I show that no millennium can intervene before the Lord comes, and that God wants us to live in continual expectancy of Christ's return, I have shown that the coming [348] of the Lord is premillennial and imminent. And this I have done. But to satisfy my brother still further, let me point out that both these ideas are in the Bible.

      1. "Premillennial." That means "preceding the millennium." "Millennium" means "a thousand years," exactly as "century" means "a hundred years" and "a decade" is "ten years." None of these terms, "millennium," "century," "decade," are found in our English Bible, but terms of ten, a hundred, a thousand years are spoken of. If the Bible speaks of a thousand years, it there speaks of a millennium. A special period of a thousand years is mentioned six times in Rev. 20:1-7. This is "the millennium." Everything preceding that period is necessarily "premillennial," and everything subsequent to it is "postmillennial." The synonym and the idea are both, therefore, in the Bible.

      2. "Imminent." A thing is imminent when, so far as we know, it may occur at any time. The coming of Christ is imminent, because it is certain; but the time is unknown, and we are charged to watch and pray always, and to be ready, for we know not when our Lord cometh. So the idea of the word "imminent," as we have accepted and used it, is there also.

      But my respondent sees still more difficulty. He says that "Christ neither before his death nor after his resurrection ever said one word about the 'millennium.'" Does he (like the pedobaptist who says the word "immersion" is not in the Bible) mean that the term "millennium" is not used? "Millennium" is the simple Latin for a thousand years. Therefore, "millennium" is mentioned six times in Rev. 20:1-7. I want to know whether Brother Boles means to say that the words found in Rev. 20:1-7 are not Christ's? Did John speak by the Holy Spirit? Did the Holy Spirit impart Christ's words to John? The New Testament says the apostles spoke by the Spirit, and that the Spirit gave them the words of Christ. (John 16:13, 14). In Revelation especially the [349] whole message, including Rev. 20:1-7, where the millennium is mentioned six times, is ascribed to Christ personally. (Rev. 1:1, 2; 22:16.) So Brother Boles cannot say that Christ never spoke of a millennium.

      The negative grows bolder. He goes on to deny that there will ever be such a thing as the millennium, such as I spoke of in my first. He thinks it is a "theory," and that it depends on a "false interpretation" of one Scripture, and "this Scripture is highly figurative, symbolical, and allegorical," and "Brother Boll is forced back to his position of being an infallible interpreter of unfulfilled prophecy," etc. But in saying this he certainly takes a position contrary to that held by the brotherhood generally, from Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, Moses E. Lard, down to Dr. Brents, David Lipscomb, J. A. Harding, and Daniel Sommer. I think the majority of the brethren (as, indeed, the majority of Protestant Christendom) have always believed in a millennium, a period of bliss and triumph, in the near future. My respondent is mistaken when he says the millennium "is a theory based upon a school of interpretations." The millennium is not a theory. There may be theories about the millennium, but the millennium is a Bible theme. Does Brother Boles believe that there will never be a time when the curse that rests on the earth will be lifted? When thorns and thistles shall be no more? When creation now groaning and travailing in pain shall be delivered from her bondage? Does he not believe that there will be a time of the restoration of all things of which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old? Will there be a time when Satan shall be bound and imprisoned that he may not deceive the nations? A time when the lion shall lie down with the lamb and a little child shall lead them, and the nations shall learn war no more, and there shall be an abundance of peace; when the meek shall inherit the earth, and the knowledge of Jehovah shall cover the earth as waters cover the sea? Well, that is [350] the time we call the "millennium," let it come whenever and however it may. This deathless hope burned in the heart of the church during the first centuries of her primitive existence, and has always been general among those who loved Christ's appearing and believed in his word. It will take more than a little modern theological spiritualizing of God's oracles to stamp this expectation out of believing hearts. I might quote here the testimony of the very earliest Christian writers and of Gibbon, the famous historian of Rome's decline and fall, as to the prevalence of this doctrine from the earliest days. Among the pioneers and leaders in the Restoration Movement, Campbell, Scott, Lard, W. K. Pendleton, Barclay, Milligan, and others, the doctrine of the millennium was freely and earnestly discussed and taught, and, so far from condemning one another for such teaching, they seemed to regard it as an important item of the divine revelation, to be diligently considered, studied, taught, and believed. Thus, for example, one who signed himself "A Friend of the Truth," asked Alexander Campbell:

      Does not the popular doctrine of the spiritual millennial reign involve or comprise a denial of Christ's personal reign, as taught in the Scriptures, or that he no longer exists personally as the Son of man? And is not this a denial of an important part of the faith in Christ, which we are required to exercise in connection with repentance and baptism, in order to obtain salvation? Is not his future literal and personal reign, as the Son of man, so important an office resulting from his obedience here on earth as that a denial of it amounts to a serious apostasy from the doctrine of Jesus Christ, and him crucified?

      In the course of his reply to this, Alexander Campbell said:

      The subject of the millennium is one of growing importance and of thrilling interest to the Christian community. We have had it often before our minds, and are glad to see that it is eliciting more attention than formerly, both in our own country and in the Old World.

      As preparatory to these questions, there are certain [351] preliminary matters, which seem to command the attention of the student of prophecy. Such as:

      1. The restoration of Israel to their own land.
      2. The rise and fall of Babylon the great.
      3. The one thousand two hundred and sixty days.
      4. The coming of the Lord.
      5. The first resurrection.
      6. The thousand-years' reign of the saints.
      7. The descent of the New Jerusalem.
      8. The scenes following.

      These are to be our themes, the Lord willing, so soon as our readers are increased to ten thousand. We have had this subject often before our mind, and more recently has it become more engrossing. We design to give to this great theme much attention, and to spare no pains to assist our readers in the investigation of the prophetic oracles; for the time has come "when many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." We are evidently approaching a new crisis in the ecclesiastic and political affairs of the world. . . . We shall be preparing our materials and placing things in order for such a development as the progress of the age and our means and facilities may furnish. . . . It will unquestionably soon be, if it is not already, one of the most engrossing topics of our generation. (Millennial Harbinger, 1854, page 354.)

      So far as being in splendid good company goes, I do not need to feel bad at all in the belief in the millennium. Take this, for example, from the pen of Moses E. Lard:

      The time has now come to speak of the millennium proper, and first as to the meaning of the word. The term, as many of our readers well know, is derived from the Latin, mille, a thousand, and annus, a year. It hence means a thousand years. And although it is not found in the New Testament, yet the expression "a thousand years" is, and this expression and the term "millennium" are used to denote the same thing. These thousand years, however, are not a thousand ordinary years, but a thousand glorious years, to which Christians, from the earliest ages of the church, have been looking forward with the deepest solicitude. These thousand years of sinless and painless bliss constitute the millennium. Such is the meaning of the term, and such is the period it denotes. [352]

      The millennium will commence in the precise instant in which Satan is bound and locked up in prison. . . . Of the events which are further to characterize its commencement we shall now speak more particularly.

      1. All the living saints will be changed. . . .

      2. The sleeping saints will be raised. . . .

      3. The actual personal, literal reappearance of the Savior. We confidently expect this event to take place in the commencement moment of the millennium. That Christ is to revisit the earth one day, as literally as he left it, is what we think no Bible student can deny, without in the act avowing a principle which, if sound, at once extinguishes the truth of Christianity. . . . I hence conclude that Christ will literally come in person at the commencement of the millennium, and literally remain here on earth during the entire thousand years. (Lard's Quarterly, October, 1864.)

      Such brethren as David Lipscomb, Dr. Brents, James A. Harding, have also left testimony of their faith regarding this theme. Daniel Sommer teaches strongly and boldly in the same line.

      It was not strange, therefore, that I assumed that Brother Boles believed in a future millennium; and I did not surmise that he would take a freak position, denying the whole thing as referred to in the first affirmative. When we arranged our propositions for this debate, I took pains to explain to him my position on all points where I thought he might not understand. I might have expected a similar kindness of him; for, of course, if I had known that he repudiated the millennium, as commonly conceived, altogether, I would not have wasted time discussing whether the coming of Christ is premillennial. If there is no millennium, it would be folly to talk about anything being premillennial or postmillennial. But he failed to inform me beforehand of this peculiar position. And because I said I assumed that he and I held common ground on the fact and futurity of the millennium, he tries to make it appear that my whole article is based on [353] an assumption, that I assumed everything; and on that "assumption" he harps throughout. But it would be too easy and convenient to dispose of the first affirmative argument in such overhanded fashion. I did, indeed, say:

      I have no doubt that my respondent believes that there is to be such an era, regardless of how it may be brought about, or when; and from some expressions during the debate I judge that he believes that this age or period is yet in the future. I shall assume, therefore, that there will be such an era of universal blessedness, and that it is yet in the future.

      But this assumption did not at all affect my argument. It only left a possible room to supply the evidence on this point, in case my respondent demanded. Moreover, I offered to do this, if necessary, in my next article. So evidently I did not make my argument dependent on that. Nay, I actually did incidentally furnish enough proof and Scripture testimony in my first article to establish that point. And my respondent is utterly unable to point out even one single argument that rests upon an assumption in the entire article. I challenge him to show even one point that rests upon any sort of assumption.

      Yet, when I say that the "coming of Christ is premillennial," it is not so much my purpose and interest to argue for the millennium (though, of course, I stand for that, too), but, rather, my point is that, according to Scripture, no millennium can intervene before Christ comes; that the coming of Christ is not to be delayed by the period of a thousand years, but that we must be looking for him now and always. If the Bible teaches that the millennium must first come and run its course, the coming of Christ is thereby projected into the far-away future, which would destroy its meaning as a present hope and as a motive to continual watchfulness. When, therefore, I maintain that the coming of Christ is premillennial, my point is not to prove that there will be a millennium (though I do show that incidentally), still [354] less to launch forth into explanations of details concerning the millennium, but to show that no millennium can come in before Christ's coming for us. In denying the millennium my respondent has relieved me of further concern on this point; for if there is no millennium, then no millennium can intervene before Christ comes. And that is as far as my interest goes just here.

      On the "premillennial" phase of the proposition, says my respondent, "Brother Boll has made three arguments. His first argument is based upon what he calls the character and course of the present age."

      Now, instead of examining the Scripture proofs I presented, candidly and carefully, he forthwith takes up "one of the chief points of the theory"--of some theory I never presented to him nor avowed as mine, and a "point" in the theory which I did not make--namely, "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 adds. Then he proceeds to fight that "theory" and the statement I did not make; but of the Scriptures I advanced which show the Christian's position in a hostile world, and the character of the world and of the entire age, he does not deign to notice even one. He brings up on his own hook 2 Tim. 3:13 and Rom. 8:28, which have nothing to do with my argument, and makes a number of philosophical arguments, to prove that the world cannot be getting worse: (1) that if it were it would discredit the kingdom of God on earth; (2) it would discredit the work of the Holy Spirit; (3) it would belittle the gospel; (4) it would make the first advent of Christ a failure. It is easier to punch a bag than to meet an opponent. So long as he ignores my arguments and Scripture proofs, I have no obligation to follow him or to refute his human arguments. [355]

      For the benefit of all, I cite again some of the Scripture proofs I gave. This present age (according to Thayer's Lexicon, ho aion houtos, "the time before the appointed return or truly Messianic advent of Christ," "the period of instability, weakness, impiety, wickedness, calamity, misery. . . . Hence, the things of 'this age' are mentioned in the New Testament with censure"), I said, is under the rule of Satan. (As Thayer again says, "ho theos tou ai toutou, the devil who rules the thoughts and deeds of the men of this age. 2 Cor. 4:4.") He is "the god of this age." 1 John 5:19, the whole world lies in his bosom. His throne is on earth. (Rev. 2:13.) He is the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience. (Eph. 2:2.) It is "this present evil world [age]" (Gal. 1:4), and Christians must not love it (2 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 2:15-17), nor imitate it (Rom. 12:2), nor make friendship with it (James 4:4), but keep themselves unspotted from it (James 1:27). Christ's servants administrate their Lord's goods now in the midst of hostile environment, while waiting for their Lord's return. (Luke 19:12-14.) The whole creation groaneth, and the people of God also, during this age, waiting only for the coming of Christ, when our bodies will be redeemed and all creation will be released from her bondage. (Rom. 8:18-23.) No relief promised till Jesus comes. (James 5:7; Phil. 3:19-21.) Instead of the last times being the best, they are, in regard to religion, the worst. (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; 4:3, 4; Luke 18:8.) When Jesus comes, it will be as it was in the days of Noah and in the days of Lot, and great and small will cry for the mountains to fall on them and the hills to cover them. (Luke 17:26-30; Rev. 6:15-17.) These Scriptures show abundantly the evil character of the age up till Christ's coming, and that no happy millennium can intervene before them.

      What did my respondent do with this teaching of God's word? He did nothing but to disparage it on general [356] principles. He said in effect that all these Scriptures must have been misapplied and misinterpreted, since they clashed so badly with his ideas of how things ought to be. Here are his words:

      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.

      Now talk about theories! Who is more theory-ridden than the man who first decides how things ought to be, and then refuses a priori to accept any Scripture testimony that clashes with his conception? Why does my respondent not take up those Scriptures and show, if he can, that they are misinterpreted and misapplied? He grandly waives the word of God aside and refuses even to consider anything that does not harmonize with his own preconceived notions.

      The church, indeed, is not going to be a failure, any more than her Lord was a failure, although he was displeased and rejected of men and died on the cross forsaken of all. The church is even as he was, in the world. We go out with him without the gate bearing his reproach. Brother Boles is making the same mistake regarding the church that Christ's contemporaries made concerning him. They thought he would and ought to make some great demonstration and earthly show. Brother Boles thinks the church must sweep and swamp the world before Christ comes. The Scriptures teach the very opposite, and we do not well to try to torture the Scriptures into agreement with our preconceived ideas. In my judgment, one ounce of Scripture is worth ten tons of such grave "reasons" as my respondent offers to the contrary.

      My "second argument," he says, is "also based upon an assumption." But there is no "also" to it until he examines those Scriptures and shows that there has been [357] any "assumption." "The Scriptures cited by him do not prove his contention," says Brother Boles. Well, why does he not show that? "I accept every Scripture quoted by him," he adds. But he will not accept them at what they say, and that is the same as not accepting them. "I do not accept his misapplication and misinterpretations of them." Before all such high talk it would behoove my respondent to show where and how there has been any "misapplication and misinterpretation." The simple fact seems to be that he cannot face these Scriptures, and that his position is judged and condemned by them.

      The "third argument" which he says I made I did not make at all. He probably got it out of some "premillennial theory" somewhere, or out of some book written against "premillennialism."

      Again, on this subject of the imminence of Christ's return, he does not dare to meet the Scriptures presented, although both candor and his duty on the negative require him to do so. I yet hope he will reply to these Scriptures and show how or where they were misinterpreted or misapplied. I want him to do it in his next article, and not in his final negative. I want a chance to review his objections, and I have no come-back to the final negative.

      In my first affirmative I set forth the imminency of Christ's coming by means of the Scripture statements themselves, saying that the Scriptures did it better than words of mine could do it. Here are some passages I used: Matt. 24:42-44, 48-51; 25:1-13, 19; Mark 13:33-37; 1 Cor. 1:8; Phil. 3:20; 4:5; James 5:8, 9; 1 Thess. 1:9; 4:13-18. Will my respondent please take them up and show reason why they should not be accepted just as they stand? Until he does that, why should I trouble about his reasoned counter arguments, however [358] "crushing" he may fancy them to be? Because he cannot see how the coming of Christ can be imminent while at the same time certain prophecies await fulfillment, is that reason for discarding the direct teaching of the Scriptures on the subject? Nay; our conceptions of how things are to come out are generally inadequate, but what God says is always right.

      In his argument on Acts 3:19-21 he mistakes the meaning of the passage. Jesus is not to stay in heaven until after the predicted times of restoration, but, as Brother David Lipscomb said: "Heaven must receive him until the times of restoration of all things. Then the times of restoration of all things must be when Jesus returns again to earth. . . . When Jesus comes again, the will of God will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and all things in the world will be restored to harmonious relations with God, the Supreme Ruler of the universe." ("Queries and Answers," page 360.)

      Regarding 2 Thess. 2:1-12, my respondent fails to distinguish between the day of the Lord, which is the day of wrath and vengeance (1 Thess. 5:1-10), and the coming of Christ for his saints, to save them from the wrath to come (1 Thess. 1:10), which necessarily precedes, we know not by how long.

      Finally, in his rebuttals he places a wrong interpretation on 1 Cor. 15:24-28. That passage does not say that at the time of Christ's return he will deliver up the kingdom to God. The word "then" is the one used in enumerations, and signifies "next in order," without intimating how long or short a time must intervene. But this point has no essential bearing on the proposition, nor have any of these "rebuttal" arguments, so far as I can see.

      I conclude with Walter Scott's well-put statement of the meaning of the imminence of our Lord's return:

      It is important to the character of those who have entered upon discipleship to Christ by obedience to the true [359] gospel, that they have their hopes elevated to the appearing of Christ, and fixed upon the purity, perfection, and glory of his kingdom. . . . Let us, then, who advocate original Christianity, preach to the saints for their perfection, the second coming of Christ, with all its adjuncts, for its intrinsic merits, its own divine importance alone, and leave the chronological question where Christ and his apostles left it; that is, let us leave it in the moral uncertainty in which they left it, and in the hope of its speedy occurrence, purify ourselves from all filthiness, of the flesh and spirit, that whether he comes at midnight, at cockcrowing, or in the morning, we may be accounted worthy to stand before him." (Italics mine.) (Walter Scott, from William Baxter's Life.) [360]

[UP 345-360]