Reproductions From Conquering and To Conquer

Reproductions From Conquering and To Conquer

We gladly take this opportunity to give fresh and more extended expression to the Irish predecessor of The Researcher, "Conquering and To Conquer." So here are two messages from former, welcome writers of that valiant voice, whose demise brought us into the job of publishiing The Researcher, fourteen years ago. We hope to use some other material from these men in our new issues of The Challengers' Prophetic Bible Course also, in the near future.

In a letter to the London magazine The Harvester (December, 1963), Mr. E. W. Rogers—in our view one of the most able representatives of Darby-Scofield eschatology—highly recommended a series of articles on the Prophecies of Daniel by Norman C. Deck, and expressed thanks to the Editor for publishing them.

Referring particularly to Mr. Deck's phrase "consistency demands' he emphasized the essentiality of consistent exegesis in the light of contextual evidence, and maintained that disregard for this "twin principle" was responsible for so many "strange ideas" gaining ground these days. The following paragraph demonstrates what he had in mind :

"For example, 'consistency demands' that if the four kingdoms of Daniel 2 are earthly, visible kingdoms then the fifth and last, that of our Lord Jesus must be earthly, and visible also. It Is inconsistent to make that a spiritual kingdom whilst holding, as is inescapable, that the other four are earthly and political kingdoms."

Now whilst we heartily agree with Mr. Rogers' "twin principle," and are quite certain that a consistent interpretation of Scripture is very needful nowadays, we are nevertheless equally certain that his "example" is singularly lacking in this very thing. For, on the evidence of the context and indeed the rest of revealed truth, the eschatological kingdom of our Lord Jesus cannot possibly be earthly and political. Consistent interpretation does not, in fact, demand that the fifth kingdom should be earthly, visible and political because the preceding four kingdoms were of such a nature. If this were the case, then those vitally important eschatological changes from the typical to the actual, the natural to the spiritual, and the temporal to the eternal must become complete impossibilities.

We reject Mr. Rogers' interpretation for the following reasons :

(1) The fifth kingdom is essentially different from the preceding four as to origin. They are symbolized by the great metallic image; and metal is mined and prepared by human hands. Messiah's kingdom, however, is symbolized by a stone "cut out without hands," which thing betokens its divine, rather than human, origin.

(2) The fifth kingdom differs from the others as to nature. For the four world empires were earthly and political and, therefore, could not exist contemporaneously. But Messiah's kingdom was to be established, not after the collapse of the fourth empire, but "in the days of these kings" (Dan. 2:44). And the New Testament clearly shows that in the days of the fourth empire—-"in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1)—John the Baptist announced that the Kingdom had drawn near (Matt. 3:1). It is, therefore, perfectly evident that this was of an altogether different order.

It is just here that Mr. Rogers and his fellow Dispensationalists betray themselves; for although they amazingly agree with us that the Baptist preached the fifth kingdom, yet in holding this to be earthly, political and visible they find themselves compelled to say that John's message was later postponed and another kingdom substituted! Such a theory is so utterly false that it neither deserves nor requires refutation. It is a fact beyond question that John the Baptist preached a spiritual kingdom, and that his message was "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (Mark 1:1; Matt. 3; John 1:29; Acts 19:4).

(3) The fifth kingdom is different from the previous four kingdoms as to duration. Like the things that are seen, these were temporal; but Messiah's kingdom, like the things that are not seen, is eternal. As Daniel said, "It shall never be destroyed... it shall not be left to other people... it shall stand forever... The saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever" (Daniel 2:44; 7:18). To associate this, as Mr. Rogers obviously does, with a political, earthly and, therefore, temporal kingdom of a thousand years duration is more than inconsistent; it is quite untenable.

One feels that we would all be much more consistent if we were to pay attention to the plain words of our Master and Teacher who said, "The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation : neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Luke 11:21); and, "My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews : but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36). Indeed, the entire teaching of Christ contains not the slightest allusion to the carnal kingdom of these new style "Fifth Monarchy Men." The earthly millennium teaching is therefore not a Christian doctrine: it belongs rather to the cunningly devised fables of the ancient Judaists. Consequently, "consistency demands" that we consent to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ. To His more sure word of prophecy we all do well to take heed.

CHRIST, OR ANTICHRIST?

In the first issue of Conquering and to Conquer published some eighteen months ago we explained our choice of title in the following words :

"To many, the choice of such a title will seem not a little strange. This has been quite deliberate, however, for we are aware of no single expression that could lay greater emphasis on the non-dispensational character of our paper. .... As is well known, the Dispensationalist holds the larger part of the Revelation to be future, i.e., subsequent to the rapture of the Church in its fulfilment. Because of this he is compelled to interpret the symbol of the man on the white horse who 'went forth conquering and to conquer' (ch. 6:2) as either Antichrist or a coming Roman prince. Thus, because of his Futurism, he cannot do what the passage and, indeed, the whole Prophecy demands, viz., admit that Christ is the Conqueror."

Now, if the validity of the above thesis had ever been in doubt, this would have been quickly dispelled by the ensuing letters of criticism we received from some Dispensational-Futurists. The substance of our reply to one of such letters appears in this edition. More than ever, this attempted criticism confirms that Futurism's "Antichrist" or "Roman prince" idea of the conquering horseman is at variance, not only with what has been for centuries the settled opinion of the Church, but with all the received principles for the' interpreting and understanding of typology and symbolism.

Nor is this school in ignorance as to the startling novelty of such an interpretation; for in his Lectures on Revelation William Kelly says : "Most of the ancients and not a few moderns thought that the first seal applied to Christ." And even Walter Scott—"the eminent Bible teacher" mentioned in the Introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible—had to admit that "the mass of expositors" understood the white horse to signify "Christ on a career of conquest." Indeed, this is so true that the learned Dr. Grattan Guinness could write: "Nor was any other interpretation ever known in the Christian Church till the rise of modern Futurism."

This indisputable historical fact should cause us to wonder whether those preachers and teachers, who are so zealously committed to the furtherance of Dispensationalism, realize that it was unheard of before the Nineteenth Century. Certainly, the arbitrary manner in which they label the alternative teachings "strange things," would never lead one to imagine that these have been the common faith of godly men for hundreds of years. However, the light of truth is beginning to break through these murky clouds of misconception, and already not a few have seen it.

MANY OTHER GOSPELS

Shortly after our last edition, we received a copy of the pamphlet Right Dividing by Charles H. Welch, editor of The Berean Expositor,—a Bullingerite publication. As its title suggests, this pamphlet is a treatise of the fundamental principle of Dispensationalism. Mr. Welch is, of course, a completely uninhibited Dispensationalist, and writes in a direct, unambiguous style. In the main his quarrel appears to be with the inconsistency of those Dispensationalists that are not prepared to pursue to logical conclusions their own basic principles of interpretation. He argues convincingly against such compromising inconsistency, and in this respect we are quite prepared to agree with him.

However, that Mr. Welch should be right on this matter is something for which every Christian should be thankful. Indeed, if Right Dividing represents the consistent Dispensationalism, then it is a very good thing for the faith of the Gospel that the Scofieldites are aware of the danger of being too logical; for very rarely has one seen the appalling errors of this scheme so deliberately thrown into such sharp, unclouded, relief.

According to Mr. Welch, a right division of the New Testament requires that we disentangle no fewer than eight distinct gospels:—(1) the gospel of the kingdom; (2) the gospel concernning His Son; (3) the gospel of the circumcision; (4) the gospel of the uncircumcision; (5) the gospel of the grace of God; (6) the gospel of the glory of Christ; (7) the gospel of the glory of the blessed God; and (8) the everlasting gospel. To illustrate the distinctions between these "gospels" he appeals to Galatians 2 : 7, where we read of "the gospel of the uncircumcision" and "the gospel of the circumcision," and declares that it is not the same gospel sent to different hearers, but two distinct gospels preached by Paul and Peter respectively. Then he sharply contrasts these in the following manner:

"Peter tells us in Acts 15: 7 that the message he delivered to Cornelius was 'the gospel.' If we turn to Acts 10 we shall discover what this 'gospel' was. Peter's opening words are enough to tell us that we are to hear a message very different from the gospel preached by Paul: 'Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him' (Acts 10:34, 35). Place these words beside Titus 3:5: 'Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us/"

There can be no doubt that this incredible multiplication of gospels—this stretching and straining to establish a vital difference between the respective messages of Peter and Paul—does serious violence to the unity of the Faith. It is very dangerous nonsense. That Peter's allegedly distinctive gospel of the circumcision could be preached to the uncircumcised Gentile Cornelius and still retain its distinctiveness bids defiance to common-sense. But to suggest that Peter's message, which according to Acts 11:14 was instrumental to Cornelius's salvation, was a gospel of justification by human merit i tradistinction to Paul's message of Sovereign grace, is just plain heresj gospel Peter preached to Cornelius was one of faith in the crucified anc Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 10 : 39-43). This also was Paul's gospel.

It is surely significant that It is in the very Epistle from which Mr. has drawn his distinction between the "gospel of the circumcision" that St. Paul pronounces a curse on the n angel that preaches any other gospel than his (Gal. 1:8). Moreover, as Mr. Salmon pointed out in our last issue, Paul himself settled the question whether or not his message was the same as Peter's when he declared that he was preaching the very same faith he once destroyed (Gal. 1:23).

We must conclude, therefore, that this divisive Dispensationalism is not only lacking in Scriptural authority, but is in head-on collision with the truth. As we said before, we are very happy that most Dispensationalists are not prepared to go quite as far as these heterodox "Bereans." This, is due only to a lack of consistency; for the difference between Bullinger Scofield is manifestly only one of degree. Indeed, when all is said and the Pauline anathema is quite as fatal to four gospels as to eight.

OUR CHERITHS