Some years ago a widely known preacher remarked concerning the Boles-Boll Debate on "Unfulfilled Prophecy," "When I read Boll's statement at the outset that the questions under discussion did not affect any outward act of religious practice, any act of obedience in work or worship; in fact, they do not refer directly to the present, but have reference to the things that are to come of which the Holy Spirit speaks--then and there I lost interest in the whole thing." Evidently that preacher must have understood this to mean that the themes discussed were "non-essential," which to him meant the same as superfluous, needless, and useless. As another put it, the prophetic teachings are like the question of eating meats: we are none the worse if we eat not, nor any better if we eat (1 Cor. 8:7). Thus if we know these teachings of prophecy we are none the better for it, and if we don't know them we are none the worse off. Of course if that were the case it would be a foolish waste of time to discuss them at all. But one would wonder if that were so, why the Holy Spirit revealed these things at all (John 16:13); also why unfulfilled prophecy occupies so large a space in God's Book. And certainly those parts of Scripture would not be profitable for teaching or instruction. (2 Tim. 3:16.) Also we would have to wonder just by what test and standard we could distinguish the "essential from the non-essential" portions of God's word, and how we could know exactly how the dividing line runs.

      We shall perhaps be told that these things are "not necessary to salvation." Undoubtedly a man may become a Christian before knowing some of this teaching; and conceivably some dear souls will get home without ever knowing some of these things. (Some of these things, I say; for some matters of unfulfilled prophecy enter into the very elements of primary teaching to sinners and new converts--1 Thess. 1:9, 10). But granting that some poor brother could get through on a very small bit of God's truth--would that be a good reason why we should all limit ourselves to what that poor brother knows? And should all he doesn't know be regarded as non-essential and unnecessary?

      Moreover, there is quite a difference between guiltless ignorance, and wilful denial and rejection, of some parts of God's word. If that poor brother gets by on the barest fundamentals--would that excuse the man who could, but will not, know more of the word of God? For example, the modernists contend that belief in the "Virgin birth of Christ" is not necessary for salvation and that multitudes of the early Christians were saved without ever having heard or known anything of that. We might grant this much: but when those same teachers proceed to the conclusion that this excuses them from believing the record of Matt. 1 and Luke 1, and that they are free to flout and deny that portion of the gospels, it is another matter entirely. Every man is responsible for the light he has, and also for that which he could have had. To set aside any portion of God's [248] word as unnecessary and superfluous is a high-handed procedure, and does not reflect any honor on Him who gave us the word.

      George Washington Carver, the colored man of science at Tuskeege Institute told his students that "there are three sons of ignorant folk: 1. Those who simply don't know; 2. Those who don't know and don't care: 3. Those who don't know and don't want to know. We have too many of the number two's and three's but it is argued further that since unfulfilled prophecy does not directly enter into matters of practical obedience it should not be taught to the troubling and disrupting of the unity of the church. This familiar argument so often urged in disparagement of prophetic teaching, raises two very serious questions.

      1. Why should the teaching of prophetic truth trouble or divide a church? It is conceded that no part of God's truth should be taught in a factious spirit and in a divisive manner. But if a brother endeavors to set forth the teaching of any part of God's word as faithfully as he knows, and in a Christian spirit why should that cause trouble or disruption? If there are those who differ as to the meaning of the scriptures in question--brotherly discussion is always in order; and at the most, agreement to disagree until the one or the other or both together in faithful study come to see more clearly; that would be compatible with unity and love. But if the simple presentation of God's word causes "trouble," the fault lies not with the truth presented, nor with him who presents it, but with those who raise the trouble, whosoever they be; and all regardless of whether they be in the majority or in the minority.

      2. If to avoid trouble some part of God's word Is to be suppressed--what will be the outcome of that? Whither would such a principle finally lead us? Not to Christian unity, certainly; but to the establishing of human standards of what is to be taught and be in the church. This Is the principle of human jurisdiction over God's truth and over the faith of Christians--a principle that inevitably makes a "denomination" and sectarian party of the people who are committed to it.

      But to go back to the statement in the opening pages of the "Boles-Boll Debate"--Whatever Brother Boll may have said it does not matter: the question does not turn upon him or any man but upon truth and principle. But that statement was not to the effect that those prophetic themes and teachings were unimportant, or superfluous, or of no practical value. Far from it, those who think that such an admission was made should read the whole statement. The questions under discussion (said R. H. Boll) are "indeed not unimportant; they have great bearing upon the Christian's outlook, motive, and spirit of service, and I believe that a proper understanding of them will profoundly affect our conception of God's ways and plans and the whole of His revelation." And that certainly is important.

      Finally, some having persuaded themselves that the word of Prophecy is unimportant and rather indefinite, if not altogether unintelligible, and since no thing of any consequence devolves on its [249] meaning in any case--they feel free to make of it whatever they like, by which is meant that most agrees with their ideas and notions of how things ought to be. It is an accepted principle of hermeneutics, we are told, that obscure passages of scripture are to be interpreted in the light of plain passages. But this good general rule must be applied with reverent caution and care. It is easy to count those passages as "plain" which are familiar to us and which favor our convictions, and those passages which seem to differ from what we know (or think we know) may seem to be "obscure," and would therefore be lightly passed over. The danger would be then that we would see, never anything more in the Bible than what we have already seen and understood, for the rest would be "obscure" and unnecessary. But of all people simple Christians who claim to stand for "the whole counsel of God" should keep their minds open to all God has to tell us, and endeavor to gain a true and comprehensive knowledge of all the word of God.

["Is Prophecy Non-Essential." The Word and Work 39 (March 1945): 248-250.]

      The electronic version of R. H. Boll's "Is Prophecy Non-Essential" has been produced from microfilm of The Word and Work for 1945.

      Pagination in the electronic version has been represented by placing the page number in brackets following the last complete word on the printed page. Inconsistencies in spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and typography have been retained; however, corrections have been offered for misspellings and other accidental corruptions. Emendations are as follows:

            Printed Text [ Electronic Text
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 p. 248:    (2 Tim. 3:11.) [ (2 Tim. 3:16.)
 

      Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
Derry, PA

Created 7 February 2003.
Updated 22 June 2003.