1025. Postmillennialism Does Not Accept the Bible Literally

Postmillennialism Does Not Accept the Bible Literally

"And the burden of the Lord ye mention no more; for every man's word shall be his burden: for ye have perverted the Words of the Living God, of the Lord of Hosts our God" (Jer_23:36)

The Bible either means what it says or else it means nothing. But you say, in response, "Pre and postmillennialism is wholly a matter of the interpretation of the Bible." We answer that plain Scriptural statements need no interpretation. When men use the word "interpretation" as an excuse to explain away a plain statement of truth they are to be condemned.

The Bible says of Christ, "He shall sit on the throne of David." Shall He, or shall He not? If God be true, He shall; if God be false, He shall not. Will you not join us in saying, "Yea, let God be true and every man a liar"?

God says concerning Israel, "I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, whither they be gone, * * and bring them, into their own land: * * and one King shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all" (Eze_37:21-22). Now we all know that this prophecy has never been fulfilled; therefore, if the Word of God is true, it must be fulfilled. Ask your "post" friend if this is to be fulfilled and he will tell you "No."

The angel said to Mary: "Thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest." With a colon for punctuation, the word's of the angel continue: "And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David." The one expression is history, the other is prophecy, but both are the Word of God. Both are true because they are God-breathed.

Such plain statements need no interpretation. Yet the "post" accepts as literal the first, the history part; and spiritualizes the second, the prophecy part. The "post" says that Gabriel did not mean David's throne, but the Father's throne in Heaven on which Christ now is sitting.

Any system of interpretation, which takes plain, positive Scriptures and makes the Spirit of God unsay what He meant to say, is fatal. Any process of spiritualizing the Word of God proves itself in its final analysis to be nothing less than annihilating the Word of God.

If plain Scriptural statements do not mean what they say, and must be "interpreted" in order to be understood, whose interpretation is one to follow?

The premillennialist for his part, does not juggle with the more sure Word of Prophecy. He knows that there are Scriptures spoken in parable, symbolism, and figure. These Scriptures must be understood in the light of other Scriptures, and dogmatic interpretations avoided. He knows, however, that the fundamental facts, and basic truths of premillennialism are not based on parabolic, symbolic, or figurative language.

If the postmillennialist rejects the plain statements which cluster around the Coming Christ, why not reject the plain statements that cluster around the Cross of Christ?

If he spiritualizes Olivet, why not Calvary? The Word of God, as a whole, must stand or fall. If the postmillennialist rejects the clear, concise, and convincing statements of prophecy, why may he not join hands with the destructive "higher critic," accepting what appeals to his reason and rejecting all the rest?

It is an indisputable fact that in post and premillennialism the authoritativeness and inspiration of the Scriptures is at stake. "No premillennialist has ever evolved into a higher critic, they come altogether from the ranks of the 'post.'"

Autor: R.E. NEIGHBOUR