Brother Boll states that he was "somewhat perplexed as to how to deal" with the negative's first reply. His second affirmative, indeed, shows that he was very much "perplexed," as he did not answer any argument that was made by the negative, neither did he attempt to answer any. He complained against the negative's reply. Well, it did not occur to the negative that the affirmative should be consulted as to how the reply should be made; neither does the negative think that the affirmative is a very good judge as to whether his arguments were answered. It may be that the affirmant is prejudiced in favor of his side of the question and would therefore be incompetent as a judge. So it is best for both of us to let the readers be the judges as to whether his arguments have been answered.

      It may be well to observe here that authorities on logic and argumentation give three effective methods of refutation. They are: (1) The reductio ad absurdum--that is, reducing the opponent's arguments to an absurdity. (2) The dilemma. In this the opponent's case is reduced to an alternative, which shows that if one position be true, the other must be false. (3) The method of residues. In this method a careful analysis is made of all possible theories and that another position is more plausible than the one which the opponent has espoused. The negative always has the right to choose his own method of reply. In the present case the negative used the second and third methods in replying to the affirmative.

      Brother Boll's second affirmative, as the reader will see, deals largely with irrelevant matter and does not treat the proposition in a clear, definite, logical way. In fact, it is difficult for one to gather from what Brother [361] Boll has said his proposition. I seriously doubt that any one who has not followed this discussion closely could get his proposition from his second affirmative. He is to prove that "the Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent." He has forsaken his proposition in the hour of greatest need. He wandered and rambled around and made no new argument, no new Scripture introduced. He dealt largely with irrelevant matter. Let the reader bear in mind that he has a double proposition. He cannot prove either member of his proposition. Even should he prove one member and fail to prove the other, he has lost his proposition. He must prove that the coming of Christ is "premillennial," and then he must prove that the coming of Christ is "imminent."

      Brother Boll gives some quotations from his former writings showing that he does not belong to "a sect of the premillennialists." His quotations are not to the point, since no one has accused him of belonging to "a sect" of this school of interpreters. However, he has with some modifications espoused the theory of the premillennialists. It is one thing to believe and teach the theory of the premillennialists and quite another thing to belong to "a sect" of them.

      The principal points of the theory, as stated by their ablest writers, are repeated here. They are as follows: That the kingdom of God is not yet in existence and will not be until Christ comes; that the gospel was not intended to convert the world to Christianity; that it merely holds in restraint evil and wickedness; that the world is now growing worse, and will continue to grow worse and worse until Christ comes; that his coming is always imminent; that the chief duty of the Christian is to watch for his coming; that Christ will come and raise the righteous dead and transform the living saints and catch both classes up in the air--this is called "the rapture;" next [362] there will be a time when God will pour out his judgment on the wicked--this is known as "the great tribulation;" that Christ and his saints remain up in the air hovering over the earth while "the tribulation" continues, and that he will return to the earth--and this is called "the revelation;" that Christ will then bind and cast Satan into the abyss, and will overthrow all wickedness, and will occupy the throne of David, making Jerusalem as the capital of the world while he reigns over all the earth--this is called the "millennium;" that after the end of the thousand years there will be a violent outbreak of wickedness, when the devil will be turned loose for a season. "The millennium" is one of the chief corner stones of the great scheme of the premillennial theory. Brother Boll was asked to disavow any points in this theory that he does not believe. He has failed to do this.

      I think that the affirmative owes it to himself and to the brotherhood at large to state just such parts of this theory as he does rot believe. Many believe that he teaches the theory in full. He has the opportunity now to set himself right before the brotherhood on these questions, and he should be glad of the opportunity to clear this matter up. The negative has no desire to convict him of any error or saddle upon him any theory. The negative will be glad to have him state just such points of this theory as he does not believe. I am sure the many thousands of readers will be glad to bear him declare himself on these points. I do know that Brother Boll has written much in Word and Work on all phases of this theory. I have before me volumes of Word and Work from 1916 to 1926, and in these volumes he has frequently commended to his readers a number of books which indorse and teach all phases of the premillennial theory as outlined above. Brother Boll has written upon such themes as "How Will Christ Come?" "Premillennialism," "The Millennium," "The [363] Restoration of the Jews," "The Great Tribulation," "His Coming Imminent," etc. In fact, each item of the premillennial theory has been commented upon favorably in Word and Work for the last ten years. This is mentioned that Brother Boll may see the importance of just stating to the brotherhood what he does believe on these points. I hope that he may see his way clear to do so.

      Just here I think that attention ought to be given to what Brother Boll calls a "charge" which he thinks I have made against him. He says:

      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.

      Now, I did not give this as a charge against him. I showed that his reasoning and teaching led to just such a conclusion, and I quoted from his own writings evidence sufficient to prove the point. But as he calls upon me to either "clear him of this charge, or else to substantiate it," I propose to substantiate it by his own writings. In Word and Work, 1917, page 354, Brother Boll said: "It is to be noted that this prophecy sees Israel back in their land in the end-time: their temple is rebuilt, their sacrifices again resumed. . . . Once returned, they will, of course, at once rebuild their temple and resume the temple service." This is evidence enough to sustain the "charge." But there is more evidence. In writing on "The Abomination of Desolation," in Word and Work, 1917, pages 387, 388, in summing up he says:

      1. Israel is back in their land just before the Lord's glorious coming: the temple is rebuilt, its service resumed. [364]

      2. The last great world power, Rome, in her final shape, flourishes.

      3. The man in supreme rule exalts himself above all that is called God.

      4. He sits in the temple (either in person or his image installed there), setting himself forth as the object of worship. This is the "abomination of desolation."

      5. When that thing occurs, all believers in Jesus who are in and around Jerusalem are warned to flee instantly.

      6. For then shall be unparalleled tribulation.

      7. The glorious appearing follows immediately upon this tribulation. (Matt. 24:29.)

      8. The "lawless one," that wicked leader, meets his doom at the hands of Jesus at his coming.

      If the temple is to be rebuilt and the service of the Jews resumed, this will bring into force again the Mosaic ritual of worship; and this will call for a priesthood and animal sacrifices. Brother Boll knows this. Why should he deny "the charge?" If he does not believe that now, why does he not say: Yes, I taught that at one time, but I do not believe it now, neither do I teach it now?

      It was pointed out that Brother Boll had assumed that there would be such a time as the premillennial theory calls a "millennium." He was called upon to prove his assumption. Every gospel preacher known to me preaches that there is coming in the future a time of peace, joy, and bliss to the faithful saints; the home of the soul, heaven, which the saints will enjoy, with all that heaven means. Much that Brother Boll describes as belonging to the millennium belongs to heaven itself. I deny that the Bible teaches that there will be such a period of time as the theory calls a "millennium." I deny that the Bible teaches that there will be such a period of time as Brother Boll calls the "millennium." Brother Boll means by the "millennium" that period of time of one thousand years immediately after Christ's return, when Christ will sit on David's throne in [365] Jerusalem and rule with his saints in person over all the earth. This is what Brother Boll calls the "millennium." He means that time when the Jews will be restored to Palestine and make Christ their King, seat him on the throne of David, rebuild the temple, and resume the temple worship. This he says will be done for a thousand years and will suddenly cease. This is what Brother Boll calls the "millennium;" this is what the premillennial theory calls the "millennium." This is exactly what I deny. Brother Boll has not given a single Scripture that teaches it; he will not give one, because there are no Scriptures that teach it.

      No one has ever denied that there will be "bliss and triumph in the future" for the Lord's people; but this will be in heaven, and not on earth just for a thousand years. It is one thing to deny the bliss and happiness and triumph that shall be enjoyed in heaven and quite another thing to deny the theory which is commonly called the millennium." Brother D. Lipscomb never taught the "millennium" in the sense that Brother Boll uses that term.

      But Brother Boll thinks that he is in good company when he espouses the theory of the millennium. He gives a quotation from the "Millennial Harbinger," 1854, page 354; but he leaves out a very important sentence in the quotation that he gives from A. Campbell. The sentence which Brother Boll leaves out is: "We have been, and still are, hearing both sides, and collecting documents in aid and furtherance of such an object." A. Campbell recognized that there were able men on "both sides" of this question, and he gave them space in the Millennial Harbinger. Even A. Campbell in his early days had a misconception of the Bible teaching on this question and named his paper "The Millennial Harbinger," thinking and believing that the millennium was very near, but later in life he modified his views on this question.

      Brother Boll also gives a quotation from Lard's [366] Quarterly. He should have examined a little closer, and he would have found that the quotation which he gave was from M. E. Lard, who wrote under the title, "A Theory of the Millennium." Brother Boll objects to calling his position a "theory," but Lard called it a "theory," and Brother Boll quotes from his discussion of the theory. But if Brother Boll had read a little more of Lard's "A Theory of the Millennium," he would have found the following:

      On no subject of Christianity can authorities be consulted with less satisfaction than on the millennium. Where men have written on it at all, their views are both confused and contradictory.

      Further on in the same article Lard says of the paragraph which Brother Boll quoted and others in the article that "they are intended to wear no air of dogmatism, yet it is hoped that they will rise something above mere feeble conjectures." Further on, in giving his excuse for writing on "A Theory of the Millennium," he says: "There is not among us, as far as I know, a single elaborate article in print on the subject; and I have never heard a discourse on it, nor even so much as heard of one being attempted." Further on he says: "I have no theory to advance" on "the time when the millennium is to commence." He had a theory of the millennium, but he had no theory as to when it would commence.

      Brother Boll makes another complaint. He thinks that I left him "in the dark" as to my "peculiar position and waited until now to spring it." He says: "I did not surmise that he would take a freak position." Brother Boll knows that I did not want to take any advantage over him, and he also knows that I have not sought to take any advantage. I fear that his complaint grows out of his irritation in not being able to answer the arguments which were made against his theory. There has been no occasion to discuss this issue until now. While [367] discussing the other propositions, the discussion of the present proposition would have been irrelevant matter.

      Brother Boll's first affirmative was based on an assumption--an admitted assumption. He said:

      I shall assume, therefore, that there will be such an era of universal blessedness, and that it is yet in the future. 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 shall proceed upon the assumption that it is agreed between us that there will be such a period.

      The point was made that he could not prove that the coming of Christ was premillennial until he proved that there was to be a millennium. I was not willing to grant the assumption that the Scriptures taught any such a period as Brother Boll and others call a "millennium;" and if the Scriptures do not teach that there will be any such period as is called in the theory a "millennium," then the Scriptures do not teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial. Brother Boll did "proceed upon the assumption," and I called upon him for the proof. He promised to give it in his next article, but he did not give it. Now the affirmative comes in his second article and says:

      I actually did incidentally furnish enough proof and Scripture testimony in my first article to establish that point.

      This seems strange. In his first he says, "I shall assume" and "proceed upon the assumption." In his second article, instead of offering the proof for this assumption, he says: "I actually did incidentally furnish enough proof.  . . in my first article." I do not see how to reconcile such inconsistent statements. He says, in substance: "I will give the proof for this assumption, if it is demanded, in my next article." It was demanded, and then he comes back and says, "I have already given it." Such is his logic. [368]

      Brother Boll is to prove that the coming of Christ is premillennial--that is, he has agreed to prove that the Scriptures teach that Christ will come before a period of time which the Bible does not mention--a millennium. He need not argue against a postmillennial theory. I will help him combat that theory. I am as stoutly opposed to it as I am the premillennial theory. I have no more use for the one than I do for the other. The Scriptures do not teach either theory.

      Brother Boll makes a peculiar statement. He says of the negative's arguments: "So long as he ignores my arguments and Scripture proofs, I have no obligation to follow him or to refute his human arguments." He thinks this is a very easy way of dismissing the arguments made by the negative. To my mind, it is childish. It is the same as saying: "You would not notice my argument, and therefore I am not going to notice yours." It is a tit-for-tat procedure. This is an acknowledgment that he would not notice the arguments and Scriptures of the negative; but there was no use in his saying this, as the readers know that he did not answer them. However, the negative thinks that he is mistaken when he says that the arguments of the affirmative were not met.

      Not a single Scripture which he gave says one word about the issue of his proposition. Let the reader turn to the following Scriptures which Brother Boll cited and see whether there is one word in them about the coming of Christ being premillennial or his coming being imminent. Here is a list of them: 2 Cor. 4:4; 1 John 5:19; Rev. 2:3; Eph. 2:2; Gal. 1:4; 2 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 2:15-17; Rom. 12:2; James 4:4; James 1:27; Luke 19:12-14; Rom. 8:18-23; James 5:7; Phil. 3:19-21; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 Tim. 3:1-5; 2 Tim. 4:3, 4; Luke 17:26-30; Luke 18:8; Rev. 6:15-17.

      Brother Boll confuses the Greek words "aion" and "kosmos." He gives Thayer's definition of "aion," "age," [369] and then gives Scriptures where "kosmos" is used; for example, James 1:27 and James 4:4. James does not use the word "aion" in his entire letter. Again, Heb. 1:2 and Heb. 11:3 use "aion," but the word does not mean "age" in these Scriptures.

      Brother Boll's analogy between the suffering and rejection of Christ and the church is not correct. It was prophesied that Christ would be rejected and crucified; but it was also prophesied that the church or kingdom of God was to "break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." (Dan. 2:44.) Again, Paul said: "Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations forever and ever." (Eph. 3:21.) So the church is to stand forever and conquer all opposing forces; it should be triumphant unto the end. (1 Cor. 15:24-28.)

      The quotation which Brother Boll gave from Brother Lipscomb does not teach Brother Boll's position in regard to Christ's coming being premillennial. In commenting upon Acts 3:20, 21, Brother Lipscomb said:

      "The restitution of all things" refers to the restoration of God's order and rule on the earth, which had been disturbed by the rebellion of man and the transfer of the rule of earth to the evil one. The restoration of the rule and authority of God as the only ruler of the heavens and the earth through the anointed Savior had been foretold by the prophets from the beginning of the world. When he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power, then he will deliver up the kingdom to God, the Father, that he may be all and in all. (1 Cor. 15:24-28.) ("Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles," page 54.)

      So Brother Lipscomb taught that Christ must reign in heaven as King of his kingdom until all rule and authority and power had been put down, and then he would deliver the kingdom up to God. Brother Lipscomb did not teach the present conception of the premillennial theory as presented by the affirmative. [370]

      Brother Boll makes a brief reference to 1 Cor. 15:24-28. He says that this Scripture "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.'" Very well; if, when Christ comes, the next thing in order is the delivery of the kingdom to the Father, then there is no room for a millennium to come between the advent of Christ and the delivery of the kingdom to the Father, for Brother Boll says that "the next thing in order" is for him to deliver up the kingdom to the Father.

      Brother Boll gives a quotation from Dr. Brents. If Brother Boll had looked a little closer, he would have found that Dr. Brents said:

      We have read much of what has been written on the subject, and Brother M. E. Lard is the only man whose writings have fallen under our notice who seemed to have a tangible theory as to what the millennium really will be. On this point we believe his theory is correct, but we shall write as though he had not written. ("Gospel Sermons," page 325.)

      So I am in very good company when I speak of Brother Boll's position as a "theory." Others have also called it a "theory."

      Brother Boll complains that the negative has disposed of his Scriptural quotations and arguments "in a priori fashion." Again, he says that the negative "refuses a priori to accept any Scripture testimony." The negative respectfully denies this charge; but even should it be true and his arguments were disposed of a priori, does he not know that "a priori" is a logical and legitimate course of reasoning? "A priori" simply means reasoning from cause to effect, from any assumption to its logical consequences. All logicians give it as a logical course of reasoning. So Brother Boll inadvertently pays the negative a compliment when he says that his arguments were [371] disposed of a priori. He only ascribed to me a legitimate course of reasoning.

      In the introduction of the subject the negative merely stated that he did not agree with Brother Boll when he made this the most important question of all, and especially when Brother Boll made it "the vital and practical center of the Bible's prophetic teaching." The negative stated that, since all truth came from God, he did not know how to measure the importance of any Bible truth above another; neither did he know how to measure the unimportance of an error. Brother Boll thinks that he does know how to estimate the importance of one truth above another truth and the unimportance of one error below another error. Of course this has nothing to do with the proposition, but we would like for him to give us his standard by which he can determine the degree of the importance of a truth and the lowest value of false doctrines. There is one thing the negative does know, and that is that the Bible nowhere says that the coming of Christ is more important than the obedience to the gospel. Another thing the negative knows is that the Bible nowhere states that "the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent."

      Brother Boll tries to find the idea and synonym of "imminent" in the Bible. The negative has stated that the words of his proposition, "premillennial" and "imminent," are not in the Bible, neither are their synonyms in the Bible. There is no use to waste space in arguing this point. Let Brother Boll give the synonym of "premillennial," let him give us the synonym of "imminent," and show us where they are found in the Bible. That would settle the matter.

      He has defined "imminent" to mean "always liable to occur," "it may happen at any time." He now states that the coming of Christ is imminent "because it is certain." [372] This is a very loose way of reasoning. If the coming of Christ is imminent "because it is certain," then the resurrection is imminent, because the resurrection is certain. Again, if the coming of Christ is imminent, liable to happen at any moment, "because it is certain," then the judgment is imminent, because it is certain. Brother Boll's way of reasoning makes the resurrection and the judgment imminent, "liable to occur at any moment." Has he given any proof that this is true?

      Brother Boll did not meet the argument based on 2 Thess. 2:1-12. He attempted to evade the force of that argument by saying that "the coming of the Lord" and "the day of the Lord" are different, but the context shows that they are the same. Again, Paul, in 1 Thess. 5:2, shows that they are the same. It was pointed out to Brother Boll that "the coming of the Lord," or "the day of the Lord," would not be until at least two events occurred. Paul says that the Lord will not come until "the great apostasy" occurs and "the man of sin" be fully developed. The Scriptures at that time taught that these two events must occur before the Lord would come, and they teach now just what they taught then; and if they did not teach that the coming of Christ was imminent, liable to occur at any moment, then, they do not so teach now. Brother Boll failed to meet this argument.

      I repeat that 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--that is, liable to occur at any moment. A number of things were mentioned that the Scriptures teach must occur before Christ comes. Brother Boll did not notice these things. They show that his proposition as interpreted by him cannot be true; the Scriptures do not teach it.

      Brother Boll's former writings contradict his present, interpretation of his proposition. Brother Boll taught in Word and Work, 1917, page 354, in commenting on the [373] prophecy of Daniel, that human government would be centralized in one king before Christ came. He said "that in the end-time a mighty king shall have all but universal dominion; that this king will defy God, exalt himself above God, oppress God's people most terribly, and shall finally come to his end without the hand of man." Now, if Brother Boll's interpretation of this prophecy is correct, this "willful king" must come before Christ comes; and if the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment--and this "willful king" is to come before Christ comes, then the coming of this "willful king" is imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment. Does Brother Boll even believe this now?

      Again, Brother Boll taught in Word and Work, 1917, page 387, that "Israel is back in their land just before the Lord's glorious coming: the temple is rebuilt, its service resumed." Now, if, as Brother Boll taught, Israel must be back in Palestine, the temple rebuilt and the services resumed, before the Lord comes, and if the coming of the Lord is imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment--then the restoration of Israel and the building of the temple and the resumption of the services are also imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment. But if these things which Brother Boll says must occur before Christ comes are not imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment--then the coming of Christ is not imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment.

      Again, Brother Boll taught in 1917, in Word and Work, page 390, in interpreting Dan. 7 and Rev. 13, that the Roman Empire was to be reëstablished before Christ come. Here is his language: "If this great event was to happen in the days of the Roman world rule, and Rome has long since passed away, how can the prophecy, if it was not fulfilled then, be at all fulfilled now? The answer is, Rome comes back..  . . It is simply Rome, which for a time is passed into abeyance, but shall be revived and return in new power." So Brother Boll [374] taught then that the Roman Empire must be "revived"--"Rome comes back"--before Christ comes. Now, if the Roman Empire must be reëstablished before Christ comes, and if the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment--then the reëstablishment of the Roman Empire is imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment. Even as late as last year (1926) Brother Boll taught that the Roman Empire would come back. In Word and Work, 1926, page 100, under the title, "Rome Coming Back," Brother Boll says: "Mussolini may or may not restore the Roman Empire; at any rate, he is showing the easy possibility of the thing, and the fact that the matter is in the air." Again with emphasis we press upon the affirmative that if the coming of Christ is imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment--and the Roman Empire must be reëstablished before Christ comes, then the return of the Roman Empire is imminent--that is, liable to occur at any moment. Has Brother Boll given a single Scripture which leads to such a conclusion? The negative maintains that he has not.

      In my humble judgment, the affirmative has utterly and completely failed to prove his proposition, "The Scriptures teach that the coming of Christ is premillennial and imminent." Can the reader put his finger upon a single Scripture that has been given to sustain such a proposition? We leave the matter with the readers as to whether or not he has proved his proposition. He has but one more article to write on this proposition, and, without anticipating him, I want to venture the assertion that the discussion will close and no reader will be able to quote a single Scripture which sustains the affirmative of this proposition. [375]

[UP 361-372]