Larry Ray Hafley
Various sects, in what is popularly styled conservative evangelical Protestantism, 19 advertise themselves as "Fundamental And Premillennial." Admittedly, their crowing has a nice ring to it. "Fundamental And Premillennial" flows together like cock-a-doodle-do. But it is, practically speaking, impossible to be both fundamental and premillennial. Premillennialism says Christ came to reign as earthly king on an earthly throne in earthly Jerusalem but was thwarted from fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies, thus, in this present "interim period" the "church age" was instituted.
We have been told by modernists that "new truth" was added to the Old Testament by Jesus and the apostles so their gospel of the cross could be preached. The Old Testament, they say in effect, has been adulterated. It has been changed from its original human intent to include its present divine content. In other words, the "historical and poetical writings of an ancient people" have been ingeniously injected with spiritual concepts and divine precepts which they never entertained. That is modernism's view. It is necessitated by the liberal's humanistic authorship theory. The Bible is the word of men, hence, its seeming coherence is explained by the tortured twistings and teachings of men like Jesus and his apostles.
Premillennialism Weds Modernism
The premillennialist thinks he denies the above infidelity. He imagines that he is fundamental in his reverence and regard for Scripture; however, his doctrine belies him and denies his front of fundamentalism. Premillennialism says the Old Testament prophets speak of an earthly king and kingdom, which Christ came to commence at his first coming, but he was rejected and the kingdom was postponed. "They rejected the King, and now instead of the Kingdom comes the Cross the resurrection, the setting aside of Israel, the calling out of the Church, and then after that will come the Kingdom" (Richard W. DeHaan, Radio Bible Class). R. H. Boll said the "church phase" was "new and unexpected." Thus, premillennial theorizing agrees in substance with liberalism's modernizing. Both say the cross was inserted, that Christ did not come in accordance with Old Testament testimony to die. Both say the denial and death of Christ were not inherent in the Old Testament. Neither is fundamentalism. Both are modernism.
Did Jesus Adulterate 0. T. Scripture?
Did the Lord and his apostles add to the fabric of the Old Testament? The consistent and insistent testimony of Christ and his ambassadors is that they did not. They were not rubbing a foreign balm into an old hide, but were rather bringing out the genuine luster of the original garment. A supposition to the contrary is a step above a monstrous blasphemy. Jesus said the Old Testament Scriptures "are they which testify of me … For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me" (Jn. 5:39, 46). "0 fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, lie expounded unto them in all the scriptures concerning himself." (Lk. 24:25-27).
Are we to believe that he who is the Truth is to be seen as an opportunistic adulterer of Scripture who wedged himself into texts where he was a stranger and a foreigner in order to establish a record of reconciliation and a system of salvation? To so think is to partake of the blindness of the Jews-"because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him" (Acts 13:27).
The apostles for a time conceived the kingdom and believed the Scriptures as do many today, but this was before Jesus "opened . . . their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures…. Thus it is written," said he, that Christ should "suffer and … rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Jerusalem" (Lk. 24:45-47). Peter later wrote of this "salvation of … souls" and said it was that which the Old Testament prophets had prophesied, signified, and testified by the Spirit concerning "the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow" (I Pet. 1: 9-12). Paul was customarily found in the synagogues "proving and explaining" from the Old Testament Scriptures that "Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead" (Acts 17:2,3). When noble inquirers searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so, "many of them believed" (Acts 17: 11, 12).
Therefore, in the midst of an unbelieving world, the apostles were found (1) "believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14), and (2) "saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come" (Acts 26:22). Modernism and premillennialisin should take note of the true breed and pure brand of approved apostolic fundamentalism.