 |  |
#5.
The Postponement Theory.
pp. 65 - 68
The idea of a "dispensational change" or "dispensational break" is opposed very
strongly by "M." Instead of a "break" he teaches that there has been no change
whatever in the testimony from the time of John the Baptist to the writing of the
Epistle to the Ephesians. The teaching of a dispensational change at Acts 28:, or
earlier, the writer calls for convenience the "postponement theory". Our brother then
makes the following sweeping statement:--
"This principle of interpreting a passage according to its plain and simple meaning is
of the utmost importance in the inquiry we are now making, for the reason that the
advocates of the postponement theory do not even pretend to offer proof from Scripture
in support of it."
We do not even pretend! The author of G.P.K. will be grieved to discover when
dealing with the testimony of others that his antipathy to their doctrines has led him to
cross the border line of truth. The advocates of the postponement theory do not EVEN
PRETEND to offer proof from Scripture. Yet within the space of two pages the same
writer says:--
"Finally, we have sought to examine patiently EVERY SCRIPTURE, and EVERY
DEDUCTION from Scripture, that has been brought to our attention as tending in any
way to support the postponement theory."
If those who advocate this theory do not even pretend to give Scripture proof, how can
anyone examine patiently, that which no one even pretends to produce? Does "M." mean
us to understand that he only pretended to seek to examine patiently these Scriptures with
their deductions? If he does not, then upon his own confession, the advocates of the
postponement theory have evidently a goodly array of Scripture and deductions from
Scripture. This question of Scriptural proof we must take up seriously when we deal with
these subjects positively. In this paper we are seeking to understand our critic. Of course
there is an exception to every rule. The "PLAIN and SIMPLE meaning" has not been
followed for instance in the case of Malachi's prophecy of Elijah, or of John Baptist's
plain straightforward answer "I am not". In order to prove John Baptist to be Elijah, the
words "Elijah the Tishbite" are introduced instead of Elijah the prophet. You must speak
of an "Elijah ministry" instead of Elijah in person. "M." even teaches that either John did
not know that he was Elijah, or that he could say "I am not" with a double meaning.
Further, the postponement theory is novel, therefore untrue:
"The results of his investigations fully confirm our statement as to the entire novelty
of the postponement theory."
Some think the John-Baptist-Elijah-theory to be novel--yet once again this is the
favoured exception. The doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ was considered novel
when it was brought to light by the early Brethren. Justification by faith was novel to the
majority in the days of Luther.