Response To Robert L. Sumner – KAU#190 Pt 2

 [Continued from KA #190 part 1] A RESPONSE TO ROBERT L. SUMNER’S EXTENDED REVIEW OF “THE ROD: WILL GOD SPARE IT?” IN THE NOVEMBER-DECEMBER, 2002 ISSUE OF “THE BIBLICAL EVANGELIST” (Conclusion)

Sumner: “…[Faust] then adds, ‘There is nothing figurative about the words of Philippians 3:11. To spiritualize the resurrection in that chapter is to cast doubt on the literalness of any resurrection, in any verse.’ Is that true? Alas, the resurrection in verse 10 cannot be a literal resurrection because it comes BEFORE the suffering!”

If there ever was an example of arguing beside the point it is here. Brother Sumner attempts to deny the literalness of the resurrection in verse ELEVEN by an appeal to the resurrection in verse TEN. Notice both verses:

Philippians 3:10 That I may know him, and the power of HIS RESURRECTION, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 IF by any means I might attain unto the RESURRECTION of the dead.

Unfortunately, brother Sumner is as wrong about the figurative nature of the resurrection in verse 10 as he is about the figurative nature of the resurrection in verse 11. Jesus did not resurrect figuratively! Paul desires to walk in the POWER of Christ’s resurrection in order that he may win the resurrection to immortality BEFORE the Millennium (instead of waiting until the last day after the Millennium, which is free through faith alone). The power that resurrected Christ literally from the tomb is the same power we have in Christ to walk in newness of life. But if we do despite unto the Spirit and His available power, we will certainly be chastised and will not “have part” in the First Resurrection. All believers will be raised before the Kingdom. But all believers will not stay raised! Nevertheless, they will be raised to experience eternal life after the Kingdom:

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
15 And whosoever WAS NOT found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Verse 15 implies that some WILL be found written in the Book of Life. These had missed the Millennial reign. They did not “attain unto the resurrection of the dead.”

Sumner: “Faust wants the ‘attaining’…to be, both in Paul’s case and ours, a result of our good works. That’s expecting a lot from ‘filthy rags’…isn’t it?”

Sumner believes that most of the believer’s warnings are to “false professors” (meaning that a believer must now keep up an undefined degree of good works or he will prove to be heading for eternal damnation). Sumner does not think that this is “expecting a lot from filthy rags.” If he can say that believers must possess a high degree of holiness or have no right to EXPECT to live with God in eternity, certainly it is logically inconsistent to decry my view that believers must possess a fair degree of holiness to reign with Jesus in the Millennium and escape exclusion! I maintain that God’s grace and the power of Christ’s resurrection are available to believers in practical sanctification. But if believers refuse to walk in this gracious provision, they will not win the prize:

Hebrews 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, LET US HAVE GRACE, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly FEAR:
29 FOR our God is a consuming fire.

Sanctification is not passive. From man’s side, we must respond and “put on” the new man. To fail to do so will result in chastening. If all chastening is despised, we will meet with a scourging at the Judgment Seat.

Sumner: “He says being a part of the ‘first resurrection’ is a ‘prize’ for Christian winners, not a right of every believer….He uses the ‘prize’ in Philippians 3:10 and 1 Corinthians 9:24 as proof. He proves too much! In the first passage Paul had just finished reciting the good deeds of his religious morality and said he counted them as dung so that he might ‘win Christ.’ If the first resurrection is ‘a prize’ won for living right as a Christian, salvation must likewise be ‘a prize’ lost sinners like Saul of Tarsus win.”

Brother Sumner, in the above passage changed the tense! Notice how the passage reads in the Bible:

Philippians 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I COUNT all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and DO COUNT them but dung, that I may WIN Christ,

Now notice again Sumner’s words: “Paul had just finished reciting the good deeds of his religious morality and said he COUNTED them as dung so that he might ‘win Christ.’” Paul certainly “has counted” (past tense). Yet, he most certainly still counts his old glory and opportunities as dung. The morality that Saul walked in was not Christ-ordained or Christ-empowered morality. Christians must not look back (like Lot’s wife) at the glories and pleasures of this world. If a Christian gets entangled again with commands that are not for this age, and leaves the Head to be entangled again with a yoke of bondage and vain philosophy, he will not WIN CHRIST. “Winning Christ” does not have to do with salvation in eternity. It has to do with winning fellowship with Jesus Christ in His Millennial glory.

Sumner: “Faust refers to 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 and asks, ‘What does it mean to be a ‘castaway’ at the future judgment seat?’ Well, in the first place we think he is talking about being put on a shelf while down here…”

This is a popular interpretation. But it does not fit the context. The context is winning a crown. Believers are given crowns at the JUDGMENT SEAT. Therefore, the opposite of winning a crown in a race is being CASTAWAY. This must likewise occur at the Judgment Seat. The Judgment Seat occurs at the return of Christ:

Luke 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be CAST AWAY?
26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when HE SHALL COME in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.

Sumner: “In Faust’s view, the winner of the race is crowned, but all losers in the race will be scourged! That is ‘not exactly’ what the passage is saying!”

First of all, it is not just a “race” that pictures our Christian walk. A FIGHT is also pictured in 1 Corinthians 9. This is the illustration (not the race) that the “castaway” warning is found in:

1 Corinthians 9:26 ….so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a CASTAWAY.

Roman FIGHTS were often to the death. The gladiators proclaimed, “Hail, Caesar, those who about to die salute thee!” These fierce gladiator fights were found in Rome as early as 264 B.C.! When the loser of the fight was down, unless the audience signaled for his mercy, the loser was slain.

Secondly, this is the race of Hebrews 12, which shows that to lose is to face a grave judgment:

Hebrews 12:1 …let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the RACE that is set before us…
14 FOLLOW peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:
15 Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled;
16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.
29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Sumner: “But what about the impressive array of Fundamentalists and other Premillennialists Faust quotes as saying (or, usually just implying) they agree with his thesis? Well, in a NUMBER of them – men I knew personally or have read after voluminously – I know they did NOT hold his position. For example, he quotes the late Dr. John R. Rice…”

This is called bluffing. The ONLY example of this “number” that Sumner dares mention is John R. Rice. I have already documented in the first part of this response that Sumner did not read the context in which John R. Rice was quoted. He was quoted as a teacher that rightly applied the “terror” in 2 Corinthians 5:9-11, but then explained it away! This was dishonest or careless for Sumner. The reader is left with the impression that men are wrongly quoted in my book. Yet, out of literally hundreds of quotes and lengthy excerpts, Sumner cannot find one example! His reference to Rice was a nice try, but he had to put words into my mouth to make it stand, when I had actually stated the opposite!

Sumner: “He doesn’t take every one he quotes out of context, of course.”

He hasn’t given us ONE example yet of a single writer who is misquoted or taken out of context! His one example of Rice was a lie or a very sloppy reading. I suspect it is a very sloppy reading.

Sumner: “Some he quotes are partial rapture men, some posttribulationists, some postmillennialists, some preterists, some amillennialists….”

We now publicly call for one example of “SOME preterists,” or “SOME postmillennialists,” or SOME amillennialists” who I list and quote as agreeing with my position! My position is: Carnal Christians who do not repent beforehand, are in danger of being literally punished at the Judgment Seat and missing the MILLENNIAL Kingdom. But they will live eternally in happiness after the Millennium.” Sumner’s statement is an example of his numerous remarks he throws out that are easily misapplied by the reader. If an amillennialist is quoted in my book (it doesn’t matter in what light or for what reason), Sumner can now make this statement and let the reader’s mind assume that the men whom I quote as advocates of my position cannot even place the Millennium. My primary (long) list of Christians who embraced my position (whom are each quoted in detail) begins with the following words: “A Sample of PREMILLENNIALISTS Who Believed in Kingdom Exclusion and/or Corporal Chastisement at the Judgment Seat of Christ.”

Sumner: “Here is Grant’s quote, exactly as Faust gave it: ‘The recognition of the first company here [i.e. Revelation 20:4] also removes another difficulty which troubled THOSE WITH WHOM THE ‘BLESSED HOPE’ REVIVED at the end of the last century – that the first resurrection consisted wholly of martyrs.’….where in the world does it say in that quote that ‘the belief of practically ‘all’ of the premillennialists’ in that period was that Revelation 20:4 taught a selective-resurrection…”

I can excuse Sumner for being somewhat hazy in regard to premillennial history. But when I go to the trouble to extensively quote the works from this period, Sumner should be ashamed of himself for not reading their quotes in my book for himself. Most of the works I possess in my library, so I am not reading them second-hand. I have “Mede’s Work’s” from the 1600′s, Thomas Newton’s “Prophecies,” and many other premillennial works from these days when the “Blessed Hope” revived. F. W. Grant is trying to figure out why practically all of these early premillennialists believed in a selective-resurrection. Grant is only one quote of pages and pages of documentation proving that the most popular view among premillennialists (from 1500 to the 1800′s) was that only “martyrs” and those who were “overcomers” (the spirit of martyrdom) will enter the Millennium to reign with Christ.

Sumner also pounces upon an Ironside quote I gave wherein Ironside states that the “overcomer” teaching had many advocates. He is beating the air. I never quoted Ironside as an advocate of my position. But I am thankful for his testimony to how many advocates the overcomer teaching possessed. Sumner calls this the “majority rules theme.” Yet, I state in my book that the final chapters of “advocates” are simply given to even up the fight. Since in this modern age, so many do not believe in the possibility of a dreadful Judgment Seat (which is to be expected), many use this as a primary argument. I have dealt with it for years: “But if this is true, WHO taught it before you?” Now they are forced to argue, “He is following the majority rules theme.” Good. Now we can get down the real issue: What does Scripture teach?

Sumner: “We had trouble, too, with his falsely judging the motives of Christian leaders. Oswald J. Smith is a case in point. Saying that Smith’s acceptance of D. M. Panton’s views in his early ministry ‘obviously drove Smith’s early missionary zeal.’ (Now, how would he know that?)”

If Sumner would have given my EVIDENCE for the conclusion, his readers would see that I am not judging motives, I am reading his own CONFESSION. Notice the quote from Oswald J. Smith in my book:

“Smith: ‘…’If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him.’ THIS WAS THE GREAT INCENTIVE to the Christians of the early Church.…Pastor D. M. Panton, widely known writer and diligent student of prophecy…Hudson Taylor and others have been exponents of ‘select’ or ‘partial’ rapture and a ‘partial’ reign. This view I must say I have no hesitation whatever in accepting.”

It is Smith’s own words that reveal to us that winning the Millennial reign was Smith’s own incentive! When Smith wrote these words, Panton and others were in a great, fervent, public debate with some Christian leaders in regard to whether or not Christians may be excluded from the Millennium and be temporarily cast into the underworld.

Sumner: “Then he adds that Smith’s views ‘were later watered-down due to the temptation and dangers associated with his immense popularity. Oh my, oh my, what a vicious and wicked judging of Smith’s motives…”

Sumner is again leaving out words to paint my words in the worst light. Here is what I actually wrote: “However, it APPEARS that his views in regard to the kingdom and Christian accountability were later watered-down due to the temptations and dangers associated with his immense popularity.” Sumner left out the word “appear.”

We must also remember that this very man who is accusing me for judging motives (leaving out my qualification) is the same man who wrote:

“Hyles explains it [his spending on a female church worker] as being due to his generous character – a matter we do not deny, although WE HAVE A RIGHT TO RESERVE OUR OWN OPINION ABOUT WHY HE IS SO GENEROUS.”
(“The Biblical Evangelist,” May 1, 1989, Volume 23, #5)

In spite of any truth Sumner supposedly dug up on his brother, there was also a great deal of motive-judging, scandal-mongering, tattling and tale-bearing mixed with it.

Sumner: “The reader will probably be impressed early on with how many men in antiquity he quotes as agreeing with him – all the way back to the Church Fathers – until he recalls that cultists do the same.”

The list of advocates in the latter part of the book are provided for the purpose of answering the argument, “If this is true, certainly many Christians would have believed it throughout history. But I have never heard of anyone teaching this.” I clearly state in print that this is the reason the history is provided.

Sumner: “All the cults prove their points by parables….”

Sumner gives no examples. “All” the cults? I would like to see an example.

Sumner: “As a general rule of thumb, a parable has one single point…”

Assuming this is so, the single point of Christ’s warnings to His disciples is to FEAR GOD and obey the commandments in faithfulness or get ready to pay for unfaithfulness at the Second Coming. Therefore, Sumner proves nothing.

Sumner: “Alas, if you took away Faust’s parabolic arguments his case would collapse like a house of cards in a Texas tornado.”

My book is filled with commentary concerning many non-parabolic, literal warnings. Hebrews 10 is not parabolic. Most of the Lord’s warnings that I quote are not parabolic! And those that are, I show from the Lord’s key given in Matthew 13 that the warnings in the parables are literal!

Sumner: “Some of Faust’s arguments are not even clear to us. For example, talking about the futurist view of Revelation 4-22, which both of us hold, he says: ‘Dean Henry Alford (1810-1871) once accused the Futurist interpretation of being a Jesuit heresy since Francisco Ribera (1527-1591) also taught it.’ Why would he do that? Alford was a Futurist himself, a dyed-in-the-wool Premillennialist.”

Let us make this argument clear for brother Sumner. Sumner is a futurist. Alford taught that Futurism was a Jesuit conspiracy since Ribera taught a form of it. Is Sumner a Jesuit? Does Sumner hold to a Catholic view of the Book of Revelation? No. But this was the TECHNIQUE used to decry the new teaching of Futurism. I am sorry that Sumner does not see that he is doing the exact same thing to Millennial exclusion that Alford did to Futurism. Sumner shows much confusion by stating that Alford was a Futurist. Sumner appears to equate Futurism with premillennialism. But premillennialism has to do with the timing of the Millennium. Futurism has to do with the timing of the Tribulation period. Futurism is opposed to preterism (the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in the 1st century), and historicism (the Book of Revelation is being fulfilled in history). Alford was a premillennial historicist. He opposed Govett’s new FUTURISM. Spurgeon listed Govett as the chief defender of Futurism. Govett published his commentary, “The Revelation of St. John: Literal and Future” in 1843. Men such as Alford opposed the Futurist interpretation. Yet they were premillennial. Sumner’s review is filled with these types of mistakes.

Sumner: “One thing Faust doesn’t make clear: what is the line in the sand that, if a believer crosses, he must spend over 1,000 years in Hell as punishment?”

Now we again come to the amazing phenomena. It never fails to occur. This objection is answered in my book in my “Objections Answered” chapter. Sumner has just stated that he believes the warnings in Hebrews are to “false professors.” How many sins do we have to commit, brother Sumner, before we are no longer permitted to have absolute assurance of salvation? How many sins cause us to have to wonder whether or not we are false professors and will burn for trillions of years times trillions of years on out into eternity? Where is the line in the sand? At what point of backsliding should we logically pass from certainty, to confidence, to doubt? Sumner does not know. He cannot be absolutely certain that he will not backslide next week and then have no right to think he was ever truly converted! Yet, this man wants to know where the line is for TEMPORARY punishment. The whole point of the New Testament is that we must never arrive at certainty until our race has ended. We should strive for a general confidence. But to possess absolute assurance of Millennial reign would be presumption. Sumner wants certainty concerning the Millennium, yet his view destroys certainty in regard to ETERNITY!

Furthermore, we will now ask Sumner a question: “Brother Sumner, how can we know with absolute certainty that we will not be ashamed at the Lord’s coming and miss a crown?” Where is the line for losing a crown? Is it carnality and worldliness in 5% of his Christian life, 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%? What is it?

Sumner: “Let me offer this passage in closing: ‘For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.’ (1 Thessalonians 5:9-11).”

We agree that no believer will experience eternal wrath, regardless of his degree of faithfulness. Yet, the context of the wrath appears to be the Second Coming. The Scripture is therefore simply teaching that it is not God’s will and pleasure that any believer be excluded from the Kingdom. God has made every provision necessary for His people. He is not unrighteous to forget our labors for Him. The context is not a positional salvation already received. It is a future salvation into the Millennial Kingdom. God also appointed Israel to inherit the Promised Land. But all did not walk in God’s will and provision. God has appointed us to enter the Kingdom and reign. Yet, we must be diligent to make this calling and election SURE:

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your CALLING and election SURE: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

This is teaching us to strive to make our Kingdom ENTRANCE sure by works, not our eternal salvation.

****************************************

ORDER “THE ROD: WILL GOD SPARE IT?”

http://www.kingdombaptist.org

****************************************