IS SALVATION TO BE
UNIVERSAL?
Did
the death of Jesus as man’s Redeemer make mandatory the eternal salvation of every
individual member of Adam’s race, as claimed by the Universalists? Will the love of
God yet find a way to reconcile the devil himself, and ultimately save even him from
eternal annihilation? To find an answer to these questions we of course must depend
entirely upon the sacred authority of the inspired Word. All who profess to accept the
Bible as authoritative must concede that all opinions voiced as truth must stand or fall
as such according to whether or not they are supported by this Book which is God’s
Word.
As
students of the Scriptures, and Christians, God has invited us to use our reasoning
faculties; not independent of His Word but in conjunction therewith. (Isaiah 1: 18.) Yet
in reasoning, as in all matters pertaining either to doctrine or practice, the
Christian is liable, if not continually on guard, to go to extremes; either by accepting
blindly what some human leader proclaims as truth without really reasoning on the matter
at all, or else by “reasoning” beyond the bounds of Scriptural authority. Each
of these extreme courses is destructive of the simplicity of the Gospel; and the latter,
we believe, is responsible for the unscriptural theory of universal reconciliation of all sinners. We say this because of the
indisputable fact that nowhere in the Bible is any statement to be found that willfully
incorrigible sinners shall finally be reconciled to God. This hypothesis can only be
established by an ingenious process of so-called philosophical reasoning, into which
certain Scripture texts are erroneously and subtly injected, causing the unsuspecting
reader to feel that a great truth is being opened up to him which is “supported”
by the Bible.
The
Wages of Sin
It
is a truth, abundantly substantiated by the Bible that “the wages of sin is death.”
(Rom. 6: 23.) The whole world is dying because of Adam’s transgression of the
divine law. It is conceded by all enlightened Christians that the death of Jesus makes
possible a general release from the Adamic condemnation to death. But, do the
Scriptures support the thought that the death of Jesus guarantees everlasting salvation for all of Adam’s children? Let us see. The Bible
says that “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.” (Heb. 9:
22.) Also in Hebrews 10: 26 we read, “For if we sin willfully after that we
have received a knowledge of the truth,
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.”
If
the “wages of sin is death,” and if “without the shedding of blood there is
no remission of sin,” and if there is to be “no more sacrifice” on behalf
of those who “sin willfully after having received a knowledge of the truth,”
then certainly all such willful sinners, in suffering the wages of sin, must remain
eternally dead; else these Scriptures are meaningless.
The
apostle continues his argument by saying that the only prospect these willful sinners have
is a “certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” False reasoning may
seek to interpret these words to mean that such willful sinners will be devoured merely as
adversaries, vet will continue to live as friends;
but the apostle precludes the possibility of such a conclusion by comparing the
destruction of such willful sinners with the destruction of those who disobeyed
Moses’ law, saving that their punishment will be more severe than that administered
under the law covenant.
We
know that transgressors under the law covenant were literally destroyed as individuals.
If willful sinners in Jesus’ day are merely to be destroyed as sinners, but saved and
everlastingly blessed as individuals, it would seem that the apostle had a very poor conception of what constitutes
“sorer” punishment. Let us remind the reader again that it is only by a
process of ingenious human philosophizing that one is able thus to destroy the real
meaning of these plain and inspired statements of Bible truth.
Will
God’s Love Save All?
The
argument is sometimes presented that God’s love would not be satisfied if a single
one of His intelligent creatures should lose life eternally because of sin. Here again
we must confine our reasoning within Scriptural limits. In the most wonderful love-text in
the Bible a limit is placed on God’s love. We read, For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in Him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3: 16.) Here the gift of life that comes
through the redemptive sacrifice of Christ is definitely limited to those who believe.
Right
here let us examine the claim that because God “will have all men to be saved”
therefore every individual must be eternally saved.
In making this claim our Universalist friends never seem inclined to inquire as to the
exact nature of the salvation here alluded to, which God has willed must come to all men.
If it be true that God has willed the everlasting salvation of every individual; then of
course every individual will be everlastingly saved,
else God is unable to work all things after the counsel of His own will. But has God
willed that all must be everlastingly saved? The apostle does not say so! On the contrary,
his entire statement shows us exactly what it is that God has willed. We quote: “Who
will have all men to be saved and to come unto the
knowledge of the truth. For there is
one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave Himself a
ransom for all, to be testified in due time.”-1
Tim. 2:4-6.
From
the foregoing text it is clear that the thing that (God has willed on behalf of all is
that they shall “come unto a knowledge of the truth”—the truth of the
ransom sacrifice of Christ. Inasmuch as nearly all of Adam’s posterity have fallen
asleep in death before learning anything about “the only name given under heaven or
among men” whereby they might have life, it is necessary that they be awakened from
the sleep of death—“saved” from Adamic death—in order that this great
truth may be testified to them.
Thus
we see that, not only has God’s love made a provision of eternal life or all mankind,
but also has willed that all shall have a full opportunity to know about this loving
provision and to “believe,” in order that they may not eternally perish.
“How shall they believe on Him of whom they have not heard?” asks the apostle.
Hence God has willed that they shall hear—that the truth shall be testified to all
“in due time,” even though it require an awakening from the sleep of death to
make such a general testimony possible.
But
what of those who, when the truth is testified to them, shall refuse to believe and to
obey? Peter answers: “It shall come to pass that the soul which will not hear that
prophet shall be destroyed from amongst the people.” (Acts 3:23) Paul also answers.
“If we sin willfully after having come to knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no
more sacrifice for sin.” (Heb. 10:26.) It is only by vain human philosophy that the
Universalist is able to go beyond these plain statements of the Scripture and say that
these passages do not express the ultimate end of willful sinners, but that there is yet
to be a resurrection for them. The Bible does not say that there is to be such a
resurrection, so let us not attempt to be wise beyond that which is plainly written.
The
Sovereignty of God
It
is claimed that if a single willful sinner on any plane of existence should be eternally
destroyed rather than eternally reconciled to God, it would prove that God is not all
supreme as the Ruler of the universe; that He sometimes fails in His purposes toward those
whom He has created. It is strange what mental gymnastics the human mind can indulge in
when it begins to reason outside the boundaries of God’s Word. We are reminded of a
noted clergyman who, in thus reasoning outside the Bible, said that in the hereafter he
would be able to look over the battlements of heaven and see his closest relatives and
friends writhing in eternal torture, yet turn and praise God the louder for His majestic
sovereignty and infinite justice! This was also false reasoning concerning God’s
sovereignty, but to the very opposite extreme of the position taken by the Universalists.
To
say that God would not be supreme in power and love if He should destroy even one of His
intelligent creatures who continued to willfully transgress His law, definitely detracts
from God’s sovereignty rather than magnifies it. It is equal to saying that God does
not have the right to do as He pleases with that which He has created. It not only reduces
God’s intelligent creatures themselves to mere mechanical puppets in His hands, but
implies that God Himself must be no more than a mighty mechanical principle, which, after
having brought intelligent beings into existence, does not have the right to end that
existence for any cause, but must let it continue ; and that His irresistible will must
be mechanically imposed upon all, until through sheer exhaustion from resisting
punishment the wicked must mechanically yield to His “sovereignty” and render
unwilling obedience. Now could any theory be more destructive of the true sovereignty and
purpose of God than this? True, Universalists do not reason the matter out exactly as
outlined above, but this certainly is where the theory leads when followed to its logical
conclusion.
God’s Foreknowledge, Man’s Freewill
The
apostle tells us that “known unto God are all His works from the foundation of the
world.” (Acts 15:18.) God foreknew the course that Judas would take, and caused His
prophet to write about it in advance. He knew that Jacob would appreciate the birthright
while Esau would despise it, so He chose Jacob to be the heir before he was born. He knew
that Saul of Tarsus would become a loyal follower of the Master when the truth was
presented to him, so he was selected to be a special apostle to the Gentiles “from
his mother’s womb.” He knew also that the pharaoh of the Exodus would react to
His dealings with him exactly as he did, so He raised him up to be on the Egyptian throne
just at the right time to accomplish the divine purpose. These and other similar instances
are cited by Universalists to prove that God fully controls the eternal destiny of every
individual, and is therefore responsible for their ultimate salvation.
It
seems singular that those who claim to have such an enlarged appreciation of God’s
sovereignty should thus, by their false reasoning, actually reduce His sovereignty to the
low level of their own finite and imperfect abilities! They recall that the only way a human being could possibly foreknow the future
activities of another with any degree of certainty would be to be in a position to
absolutely control those activities; and
Universalists, by their false reasoning, would circumscribe God’s power within the
confines of their own meager resources, by insisting that just because He foreknows what an individual will do, He must
therefore control the activities of that
individual, and that when necessary He will coerce the willful into doing the
righteous things which His sovereign power has
decreed for them. How pitiably foolish seems such reasoning concerning Him who wants
only such to worship Him who worship voluntarily, in spirit and in truth! God’s true
sovereign power is such that He is able to foreknow accurately every single activity of
any individual, without the slightest necessity on His part of controlling or forcing
those activities! If this is not so then it would appear that God has no more
foreknowledge than man!
Can
Man “Choose”
Life or Death?
Universalist
ask the question, “Where is the doctrine of man’s free will taught or implied in
the Bible?” We answer that it is implied in nearly every statement of the Bible that
has to do with the ultimate salvation of the human race. God calls, invites and
constrains, but He never compels the
sinner to return to Him. The doctrine of man’s free will is directly taught in many
passages. We cite one, as follows:
God
through His servant said to Israel, “I
have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both
thou and thy seed may live.” (Dent. 30:19.) Certainly this statement means that Israel
had the free will to choose between life and death: otherwise this statement was a gross
deception. The Universalist’s unscriptural reasoning would make it necessary to
paraphrase this passage about as follows: “I want you to fancy that you have the
privilege of choosing between life and death; but in reality you have no such choice, for
God’s sovereign power has already decreed what your eternal portion shall be: if you
should be allowed to have some choice in the matter that would belittle God’s
sovereignty !”
The
outstanding conversion of Saul of Tarsus is cited
to prove that God coerces individuals in the matter of their salvation, but a
consideration of all the facts involved in that incident proves the reverse. Saul was not
a sinner in the sense that he was willfully opposing God. In fact, he was zealously trying
to serve God to the best of his knowledge. His free will had already decided to serve God,
and to the best of his understanding he was carrying out the decision of that will. Now,
what God did for Saul was merely to present him with a vision of truth concerning the
proper method of service. And even then, Saul was not
forced to obey the truth when it was revealed to him. Later, in telling about
his experience, he said, “I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19). Certainly this implies that Saul could have
been disobedient to the heavenly vision had he willed to do so.
2
Timothy I:9 is cited to prove that man is not a free moral agent, and especially that each
Christian was predestinated to be a Christian from before the foundation of the world,
“Who hath saved us, and called us unto a holy calling, not according to our works,
but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the
world began.” Here again a false method of reasoning is necessary in order to make
the text agree with the Universalist’s viewpoint. Viewing this text in the light of
other plain statements of the Bible it simply means that because of the inherited
weaknesses and imperfections of every member of the fallen human race no one can hope to
perform such “works” as would justify his being accepted as a member of the
glorious Christ company, and that the only reason one may expect to attain such an exalted
position in the Messianic Kingdom is because of the loving purpose of God, through the
ransom, that was formulated before the foundation of the world.
Is God the Author of Sin?
Since
there are no direct Scriptures to prove the everlasting reconciliation of every creature. Universalists have resorted to many
weird processes of so-called philosophic reasoning. One of these is based on the erroneous
claim that God is the Author of all sin, and therefore that He is responsible for the
ultimate salvation of every one of His intelligent creatures from the effects of the
sin which He Himself has instigated. The awful hideousness
of such a claim becomes painfully apparent when it is drawn out to its logical conclusion.
If
God made Adam and his surroundings such that he could not have resisted sin but must
indulge in it, then God Himself, and not man, would be the real sinner, If God created
sin, and arranged circumstances which produced an irresistible temptation for His
intelligent creatures to indulge in it, then it would follow that the Apostle James was
either a deliberate liar or else an ignorant dupe, wholly uniformed concerning the
universal “sovereignty” of God, when he said. “Let no man say when he is
tempted. I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth He any
man.” —James 1: 13.
If
God is the Author of Sin, hence the real sinner, then of course man should not be severely
punished for sin: thus the claim is made that God will ultimately save all by means of His “irresistible grace.” But if God is
the real author and instigator of sin, then why
should not He, rather than man, be the one to be punished for it? We concede that if man
is a mere dupe or puppet, carrying out the sinful designs of his creator, then of course,
he should not in any sense of the word be held responsible for his acts. But in that case
what need would there be for man to be redeemed from sin? Why the agony and death of Jesus
on the cross? Wouldn’t all have been
saved anyway, without that? Thus would Universalism nullify the necessity of
Christ’s ransom sacrifice, and turn the vicarious death on Calvary into a
meaningless farce!
What
a hypocrite and liar this theory would make of God! For six thousand years He has been
denouncing sin; sin which the Universalist say His own sovereign power has created! During
that same time He has pronounced and inflicted the penalty of death on account of the sin
for which He Himself was responsible! He has even involved His own beloved Son in this
colossal fraud, sending Him to be a sin-offering for man; when man has not, except
unwillingly, been a sinner! If we shall indeed find that all this, on God’s part, is
a gigantic falsehood, and that He Himself and not man is the responsible master criminal,
then the Universalists surely have made a great discovery. But such “discovery”
has been outside the confines of God’s Word.
Obviously,
if God is the Author of sin, and the one who is really responsible for the suffering that
has followed in its wake, He would not be likely to inform His intelligent creatures that
He had thus so completely deceived them. And this may be the reason why there is nothing
said in the Bible about it. Note, however, that Universalists, even as those who attempt
to uphold the eternal torture theory, claim Scriptural support for their distorted
reasoning; indeed, it is only thus that they are able to deceive the unwary Bible student.
“Evil”
and “Sin” Not Synonymous
Isaiah
45:7 and Amos 3:6, are often cited to prove that God is the Author of sin, but these
passages are not talking about God as being the Author of anything. Isaiah and Amos were
both prophets of God whose messages were primarily delivered to Israel, the covenant
people of God. Israel had agreed to keep God’s law, and God had agreed to bless them
in a special way if they were faithful in fulfilling their covenant. God had also decreed
if they were unfaithful He would punish them; hence, the statement by these prophets
that God “creates evil” is merely in the nature of a reminder to Israel that the
calamities that came upon them from time to time were because of the violation of the
covenant they had made with God. It should not be necessary to remind the reader that evil
is not always a sin, though sin is always an evil. An accidental train wreck or any
unavoidable calamity is an evil, but not a sin. Israel’s sin was punished often times
by the calamities that God caused to come upon them in fulfillment of His part of the
covenant. This was not done to coerce them, but to instruct them.
Romans
9:12-24 is cited to prove that God deals with His creatures irrespective of their own
wills in the matter, as the potter molds the clay into whatsoever shapes he wishes. In
examining this passage let it be noted to begin with that it is not discussing the eternal
destiny of anybody. In it Paul is merely telling the Jewish converts in the church at Rome
that it is useless for them to resist the will of God in His acceptance of Gentile
believers to be fellow heirs with them in the Gospel. The Jews had always looked upon the
Gentiles as being wholly unworthy of God’s favor, but Paul would have them know that
now it was entirely out of place for them to “reply against God,” by attempting
to discriminate against those whom God had seen fit to adopt into the Christ company.
That
Paul’s argument in the passage cited foregoing has to do merely with classes, or
races, and cannot be used to prove that God arbitrarily decrees that certain individuals
must be in the “little flock” while other individuals are arbitrarily kept out,
or that He in any way interferes with man’s free will with respect to his own
salvation, is clearly shown in the following chapter, where the apostle reaches the
climax of his argument by showing that God is no respecter of persons, and that
“whosoever believeth on Him shall not he ashamed”—shall not be a
“vessel of dishonor”—and that, “whosoever calleth upon the name of the
Lord shall be saved.”—Rom. 10: 11, 13.
“Doing
Evil That Good May Come” (?)
In
charging God with being the responsible Author of sin, the Universalist hastens to explain
that the Creator caused it in order that His creatures might ultimately receive a richer
blessing than otherwise they could have experienced. But this, too, is very strange
reasoning. When the great Apostle Paul, who spoke under the inspiration of the spirit of
God, was accused of “doing evil that good may come,” he referred to it as a
slanderous report. (Rom. 3:8.) In view of this, what gross slanders are now being
circulated concerning God!
Another
point regarding God’s responsibility for sin should be noted: If He is the Author of
sin, then, as we have seen, man is not the sinner, hence does not justly come under
condemnation for sin. If this be true, then the “inescapable grace” of God,
represented in the forced salvation of every individual and proclaimed so loudly by the
Universalist is not ‘”grace” at all but a much belated exercise of plain justice
in rescuing the involuntary sinner from the results of the Creator’s own overt
acts of cruelty toward him!
The
Second Death
The
“second death” is described in the book of Revelation as a condition of
destruction, which destruction is symbolized by “fire and brimstone.” Because
of the fact that the Scriptures are absolutely silent concerning the possibility of anyone
ever being resurrected from the second death, many Bible students when referring to it
have become accustomed to adding, “from which there will he no resurrection.”
Universalists decry this as being a willful or careless adding to the inspired
Scriptures. But before analyzing the scripturalness of the assertion, “from which
there will he no resurrection,” let us ask our Universalist friends if there are
any Scriptures which state that there is to be a resurrection from the second death? The
answer, of course, must be that there are no such Scriptures. The Universalist knows that no such Scriptures are to be found in the Bible, and this may be the reason why he attempts to hide the weakness of
his own position by accusing others of adding to the Word of God. They who live in glass
houses should not throw stones.
While
there is absolutely no Scriptural authority for claiming that there will be a resurrection
from the second death, it is appropriate however that we here examine briefly one of the
chief arguments used in an attempt to prove this erroneous hypothesis. On this point one
Universalist writer says, “Death, first, second or any other, is an enemy. If any
ever remain in death, then death is not destroyed, as Paul said it would be (1 Cor. 15:26), and one enemy has proved too strong for even
the Almighty.” Thus it is seen that the theory that there is to be a resurrection
from the second death is not based upon any direct Scriptural testimony, but merely on
inferences; in this case upon the claim that the second death is an enemy of the restored
world, and that, like the Adamic death, it will be “destroyed,” in the sense of
releasing everything and everybody that goes into it.
Is
the Second Death an “Enemy”?
But
is the second death, as described in Revelation an “enemy” of God and
righteousness, and of restored mankind? Throughout the Scriptures Satan the devil is
described as an enemy of God, and in Revelation he is represented as being destroyed in
the “second death.” Now is that second death which destroys Satan to be
regarded as an enemy of God and man? The
iniquitous “beast” and “false prophet” systems of Revelation are to be
destroyed in the second death. Regardless of what
we may understand to be represented by the “beast” and the “false
prophet,” surely they are both hideous things in the sight of God; and it could
hardly be said that that which brings about their ultimate destruction should be
considered an enemy to mankind.
“Death
and hell” are likewise to be destroyed in the second death. Is that which destroys
the “grim reaper” and puts an end to his heartless stalking up and down in the
earth spreading sorrow and sighing everywhere, to be looked upon as an enemy? “But
the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth
with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.” (Rev. 21: 8.) Is the incinerator
of such abominable characters, who continue their abominations in spite of a full
opportunity to do otherwise, to be considered an enemy!?
And note that nothing which is good, or righteous, or praiseworthy, goes into
the second death. Obviously then it does not come within the category of an
“enemy” in God’s sight, hence no provision has been made for its
destruction.
If
the second death is not an eternal condition, then there is no assurance but that the
“beast” and the “false prophet” may intermittently return to plague
the world during the “aions” of the future. And what assurance would we have
that death itself would not return to again spread sorrow and suffering?
No!
No! “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes,” and they will remain wiped
away, because there shall be “no more death.” (Rev. 21: 4.) Universalists
attempt to show that this expression, ‘”There shall be no more death,”
includes the second death. They seem to ignore the fact that the “lake of fire which
is the second death,” is a symbolism by which God tells us of His loving purpose to
mercifully destroy all incorrigible enemies of righteousness. How inconsistent it would
be to suppose that God, through the symbolism of the “lake of fire,” would
assure us of the ultimate destruction of all that which has caused sorrow and suffering in
the world, and then turn around and make another promise that completely nullifies this
blessed assurance!
The Destruction of Satan
That
Satan, the devil is to be destroyed, is emphatically stated in Hebrews 2:14, and is also
clearly shown in other places in the Bible. Universalists declare, in effect, that these
Scriptures do not mean what they say; that the destruction referred to means
“corrective punishment,” etc. The text in Hebrews declares that the devil is the
one who has the power of death. It seems strange that anyone, in order to prove a
resurrection from the second death, should so eagerly seize upon 1 Corinthians 15:26 to
show that all “enemies” are to be destroyed,
and yet not be willing to concede annihilation of the one who has been the
promoter of the world’s greatest enemy!
And
why should the destruction of death be real destruction, while the destruction of Satan is
merely “corrective punishment”? And why should Satan be punished at all, if God
is the one who is responsible for his entire nefarious career? How true it is, as the poet
declares, that “Every passage in the book they bend, to make it fit that all
important end”!
We
are aware that much stress has been laid on the fact that the Greek word aonian, which is
translated “everlasting” in the King James Version, does not necessarily mean
without end. Because of this the claim is made that there is no proof that the
incorrigibly wicked will remain eternally dead. We have purposely avoided the use of
texts and arguments that would involve this particular Greek word, because the eternal
destruction of the wicked is clearly shown in the Bible entirely apart from the meaning
that translators may attach to the word aonian. We would remind the reader, however, that
it is this same Greek word that is used in the New Testament in connection with many of
the wonderful promises of everlasting life for the righteous. If the correct meaning of
the Greek word aonian proves
that there is no eternal destruction for the wicked, it also would prove that there is no
eternal life for the righteous.
In
Jude 12 the destruction of the incorrigibly wicked is described as resulting in a
condition in which they are “twice dead, plucked up by the roots.” To be twice
dead would indicate that those referred to had once believed, and had received the merit
of the ransom sacrifice, but now had “trampled under foot the Son of man” and
had become candidates for the “second death.” Note the expression, “plucked
up by the roots.” Could a more vivid symbol of complete and eternal destruction be given to us? A tree may have its branches severed, yet
continue to live. It may even be cut down to the ground, yet sprout and grow again; but
when it is “plucked up by the roots,” that makes an end of the tree
so is the final destiny of the wicked. When cut off
in the first death they were allowed to sprout up again the resurrection. But when they
die the second time there will be no further sprouting; because “Christ dieth no
more” for them.
“They
shall be as though they had not been,” “consumed.” “cut off,”
“perish like the brute beast,” and other like cryptic expressions are used
throughout the Scriptures to show that God means what He says when He declares through the
apostle that the “wages of sin is death.” We are aware of the claim that the
manner in which God destroys the sinner is by making him righteous: but let us see how
such “reasoning” works out. In Matthew 7:13
we read, “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way
that leadeth to destruction (righteousness)” (?) By the use of the concordance
numerous such absurdities will he discovered if one thus attempts to distort the plain
meaning of the sacred Word. Brethren, let us not be confused by any such misleading
sophistry.
All Gathered in Christ
Ephesians
1:10 describes the ultimate gathering under Christ of all things, or creatures, both in heaven and in
earth. This and other kindred passages describe the oneness and harmony that shall yet
exist in all of God’s great universe. Our Universalist friends emphasize the word
“all” in these passages and insist that it means universal reconciliation.
Ephesians 1:10 describes the same great
restoration work as is outlined in Acts 3:19-23, yet in this latter passage it is made
plain that in the gathering, or restoring work, some will refuse to obey, and as a
consequence will he “cut off from among the people.” It being Scripturally true,
therefore, that the incorrigible are to be “cut off” during that gathering period, it is evident that the “all” of Ephesians 1:10, and similar passages, has reference
merely to the obedient ones, while the
disobedient who “perish like the brute beast” are, in these particular passages,
ignored.
A Universalist writer, in
agreeing that the “wages of sin is death,” and that those “who will not
hear the prophet shall be destroyed from amongst the people,” adds: “Not one of
these passages deals with the final outcome of God’s dealings.” How does he know
this? Surely the Scriptures give no hint of a dispensation of God’s grace for the
sinner beyond the thousand year reign of Christ. Only by the ingenious distorting of
certain passages of the Bible can the theory concerning further ages of reconciliation
be even apparently supported.
The
Judgment Day
The
Kingdom period is set forth in the Bible as the world’s judgment day, and a day of
perdition for ungodly men. Will not this trial and judgment period be adequate? Will the
judge be imperfect, so that those who are then cut off should justly have another
opportunity coming to them? Will the knowledge of God’s glory, which then fills the
earth, really not be complete, so that those who die will not have a full understanding of
why they are thus punished? If, beyond the Millennial age, God provides a further trial
for sinners, it would mean that the Millennial trial did not bring forth a final result,
that there remained doubt concerning the worthiness or unworthiness of the individuals
on trial. In that case there would also be danger that those who had been found worthy of
life might not really be trustworthy in the end.
This
fact seems clear: If the Millennial age is not to reveal the ultimate fate of the wicked, then neither does it reveal the ultimate
fate of the righteous; consequently in that judgment day no creature could b declared once
and for all time either worthy or unworthy of eternal life. So then, as we have already
seen, if there is no eternal death, by the same process of reasoning we must conclude that
there will be no eternal life, but an ever-present danger of being cut off for
“corrective punishment.” All of which
means that the very theory which is supposed to so immeasurably exalt the sovereignty of
God, in reality destroys not only His sovereignty but every Scriptural foundation upon
which we may reasonably and properly base our confidence and trust in Him.
Shall
we not, dear brethren, confine our reasoning within the limits of what the Bible clearly
set forth as facts, without attempting to theorize
beyond that which is so plainly set forth in the inspired Word? Thus doing we will avoid
the maze of pitfalls now being laid in the name of reason
and “advanced truth.” The ultimate effect of most of the so-called “deep things” now being
presented to God’s people is to turn them away completely from that which we have
found to be so clearly taught in the Bible. Yea, the simple truths of the divine plan.
under the influence of these vagaries of the nominal
church—and that is where most of the “new light” comes from—soon
become unimportant and unreal; and their inspiring influence in the Christian life is
lost, while the Christian is wasting valuable time and strength chasing the illusive
bubbles of vain human philosophy.
_______________________________________________________
HOME | FAQ'S | RESOURCES | BIBLE STUDIES | CHILDREN ONLINE LIBRARY | BROADCAST | FORUMS | NEWS | CONTACT US
_______________________________________________________
Copyright ©
1995-2004 Bible Student Ministries. All rights reserved. |
