Here's that verse known revered
by so many, 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. Now, our question is, is this
universalism? When we see the word world and
all and all the world, is it in a strict and a universal application? I might begin by saying that
of all the disputes that have ever arisen in Christendom, none
probably exceeds this one for ferocity between one group and
the other. I confess, I don't think it'll
ever be resolved, there'll ever be agreement as long as the world
is standing, for the battle has raged for centuries and yet goes
on. It was in the time of Augustine
and Pelagius. It was again in the time of Calvin
and Arminius, and it rages on until this day. But let's therefore
define the two positions that we want to contrast in our study
of the afternoon. First of all, universalism. Now universalism, as we know,
is embraced by most of Christianity today. I say most, the far larger
part would embrace our universalism, and particularly that one known
as Arminianism. They contend that the Scripture
teaches that God desired every woman and every man to come to
the salvation in Christ. And that Scripture teaches us
that Christ died for each and every soul that will ever live
that proceeded out of Adam. that His blood paid the ransom
price for each and every sinner, Him taking their place upon the
cross and dying in their stead. Now, the leading tenets of this
system of universalism are the heavy, heavy emphasis upon the
love of God and, of course, upon free will. On the other hand,
there is that doctrine of particularism, sometimes called sovereign grace
or Calvinism, and it teaches that some, but not all, are elected
in Christ before the foundation of the world, and that God ordained
these people under eternal and everlasting life. and that Christ
died for each and every one of His elect, and that the Spirit
at God's time comes and regenerates them and gives them new life. That Christ died for them, that
they are regenerate, they are called, they are converted, they
are preserved in Christ Jesus unto eternal and everlasting
glory. Therefore, we conclude that only
those chosen in Christ and redeemed in Christ, but not each and every
one of the family of man shall be everlastingly saved." Now
the main tenets of the system of particularism is the heavy
emphasis on the sovereignty of God and what we believe is the
honor of divine grace. Hence it answereth to sovereign
grace or the doctrines of grace and is set forth in the five
points of Calvinism and sometimes identified by the acronym T-U-L-I-P. So the question is whether absolute
universalism or particularism is the truth of the scripture
and must be decided by two matters, I think, that we cannot ignore
in a consideration of these things. Number one is that purpose of
God that we read about so much in the scripture. The purpose
of God regarding men and regarding man when he is fallen. What is
the will of God in regard to saving sinners? What is the intention
of God toward fallen sinners in the world? And number two,
the death of our Lord, the death of Christ upon the cross. We ask, therefore, for whom did
Christ die? And did Christ die savingly for
any? for all without exception or
for a definite and particular number of the descendants of
Adam. Now, concerning the first, God
declares that His purpose is certain and absolute, that He
will do all of His will, as we read in the prophet Isaiah, and
that none can resist His will and none can stay His hand. For example, Isaiah chapter 46
and verse 10 My counsel shall stand, and I will do all of my
pleasure." In the 11th verse, I have purposed it, I also will
bring it to pass. I have purposed it, I also will
do it. Not only that, but the Apostle
Paul declares in Romans chapter 9 and verse 11 that God so ordered
the affairs, the historical affairs, of the house of Abraham that
the purpose of God according to election might stand, that
it might not be reversed, that it might not fail, that it might
not fall, and that it is not running upon or that it is not
guided by the souls or the rails of human works. Not at all is
this purpose determined or is it followed or worked out, but
it is by a sovereign and divine choosing and calling for election
is not based upon ancestry as the Jews imagine, not from personal
merit does election come, not upon free will as the Armenians
imagine that the people might elect themselves. Now, concerning
the second thing, and that is the death of the Lord Jesus Christ,
we ask two questions to consider. What was the intention of God
the Father in Christ the Son in the death of the Lord Jesus.
Why did He die? What did He intend? What was
to be accomplished by the death of Christ from the standpoint
of God the Father and the standpoint of Christ the Son? How many were
intended to be saved by means of the death of our Lord? None? Some? Many or all? Which one would we say? And second,
we ask then, not only what is the intention of God, but what
is the actual accomplishment and end of the death of Christ? Does the actual match the intended? Does that which has been accomplished
match that which God intended to be accomplished? Has the death
of Christ done what God intended to be done by it. Will its benefit be lost to anyone
for whom it was intended by God or by Christ? In other words,
to simplify the question, will any be lost or should all be
saved because and through the death of our Lord? Now, if a
general or a universal ransom were made by Christ, that is,
if Christ died for all, then, as John Owen the Puritan wrote,
what a sharp mind did he have to reason out these things. One or the other must be admitted. Number one, God and Christ failed
in their intention and did not accomplish what they set out
to do in the saving of all men, though they would blame this,
the Arminian would, upon free will, not upon any failure or
shortcoming in God or in Christ. But since, according to that
scheme, they intended that all be saved, but all are not saved,
then their purpose fell short and is incomplete. Who can deny
that? If God intended that every single
soul be saved by the death of Christ, then we can see that
that has not been accomplished. Secondly, Or they might contend
that all will be finally saved. This is a doctrine that's been
dead, or almost dead, gasping for breath, yet has been resuscitated
in our day. And I've even heard it from some
who claim to believe in sovereign grace, that all will be finally
saved. That since God set out to save
all, at some point they all will be saved. At this point, let
us confess that there are two sorts of universalism found in
Christendom today. There is, first of all, that
absolute universalism that I just mentioned, that indeed all will
be saved ultimately in the end, what Thomas Manton called the
wild charity that was in origin, holding to that position. Origen
was a figure early in the church that did a lot of writing, living
from 185 to 254 A.D. in fact. And both Manton and
John Gill have charged that until that teaching, all that none
or all souls would be saved came even The devil and the fallen
angel are included in that number. That they eventually will be
restored unto happiness and unto glory. His notions are discredited
by a couple of wacky notions. The one called him the greatest
theologian in the early Greek church. A. Origen took literally
the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 and verse 12 about eunuchs
and actually emasculated himself because he had based it on that
scripture. But then B. He seemed to teach
that souls that sinned in a former life, in a life past, were given
then a human body to be purified and restored unto God by His
grace. But then there are those nearer
unto our time and in our time who hold this heart of universalism
such as deny the existence of hell and they think that all
go to heaven when they die. Because they say God is too kind
and God is too loving to send any soul unto hell. And these kind of people will
always be found to hold a faulty view of depravity, a deficient
view of the sin and depravity of man. For they come very, very
close to denying that man is even a sinner at all as he lives
out his life in this world. And secondly, the most common
sort of universalism is that found in what I'll call, quote,
the Arminian community, unquote. Or we may call it evangelical
Arminianism, if you prefer. That taught by Whitby, Wesley,
by the Phineas, and by many others after them. In our days, such
well-knowns as Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson
and Joel Osteen, and such like, who teach that the atonement
is actually universal in scope and that Christ indeed died for
all sins of all people, but is not effectual unless and until
each individual accepts that atonement as their own and makes
application. I mention Owen, who wrote prolifically
in the 16th century, quote, of a spreading persuasion of a general
ransom paid by Christ for all that he died to redeem all and
everyone, unquote. Even in that day, Owen saw it
as a spreading plague and as a problem. It was also Owen that
cast down this challenge to the Armenians as to put which position
they would take concerning the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let them choose which one they
will take, Owen said. You might have seen this printed
out. Number one, did Christ die for all sins of all men? Or number two, did Christ die
for some sins of all men? Or number three, did Christ die
for all the sins of some men? We might add a fourth. Did Christ
die for none of the sins of some men? We ask them to stake their
claim upon whichever one suits them best. For their answer must
fall somewhere in these four positions. Where else can it
lie? Where else can it fall? Their
answer must fall somewhere in these four principles that we
have just mentioned. Or how else can the death of
Christ be framed? Now, we affirm that Proposition
3, Proposition 4 are true, that Christ died for all of the sins
of some men and for none of the sins of some men. so that the
sum for whom Christ died, for all of their sin, shall most
certainly be regenerate, called, converted, and saved. While the
sum He died not for, any of their sin certainly are bound to perish. What then of the second? If Christ died only for some
sins of all, then have all sins yet to be answered for, and none
should be saved upon that proposition. Now, our menu generally contend
for the first proposition, and that is that Christ most certainly
died for all the sin of all of Adam's race from the beginning
of time. Then, Owen would trap them with
his logic, asking them If Christ died for all sins of all persons,
why then are not all persons saved? After all, divine justice
is satisfied by Christ's death. God asks no more. Real atonement
has been made. Christ has offered himself without
spot and without blemish to God, Hebrews 9 and 14. Ephesians 5
in verse 2, He has given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice
unto God for a sweet-smelling savor. So if Christ has died
for all and for everyone's sin, has shed His blood for each and
everyone, and that without any exception, if he made universal
atonement so that not one sin of one person is left out of
the suffering and the death of our Lord, why then again are
not all saved? Now the universalist is quick
on the trigger and is quick with his answer. Why then are not
all saved? Well, they say because of their
sin of unbelief, because they have not believed, because they
are not believers in Christ, because they are therefore in
and under the sin of unbelief. They believe not. Well, then
we ask, Is unbelief a sin or is it not? Did Christ die for
all sin? Then He died as much for the
sin of unbelief as for the sin of idolatry, or drunkenness,
or pride, or self-righteousness, or adultery, or thievery, or
blasphemy, or whatever sin. we might name. If Christ died
for the unbelief then of sinners, then their unbelief is no more
a hindrance to saving them than their other sins, since Christ
made an atonement for each and every sin. I have read some theologians
that believe that Christ died for every sin except the sin
of unbelief. And that upon believing one is
no longer therefore an unbeliever and no longer guilty of the sin
of unbelief. But what of the past sin of unbelief
when they were for years an unbeliever? Were not we all at one time an
unbeliever? There are others who say, though
Christ died for all sin of all men, the sinner must accept it,
or I think sometimes they use the word appropriate it as their
own before it can be effectual. Then we ask them the question,
did not God accept the sacrifice of His Son? Did not God accept
it as full payment for sin? Was not his sacrifice made for
sin and made unto God? And was it not paid directly
to God's justice and righteousness? He made his soul an offering
for sin. His surety of the covenant answered
the full debt and amount. He paid all that was owed, paid
all that God required. which we know satisfied the dead
and also fulfilled the justice and the righteousness of God.
How do we know that? Because our surety was let out
of prison. Our surety came back again from
the dead at the appointed time. Had not satisfaction been made
and fully made, our surety had been held. as our dowry. Now, have the universalists never
seen the problem of double jeopardy? This doesn't seem to bother them
at all. It doesn't seem to trouble them
at all. But this is a fly in the ointment
of universalism. And that is, that notwithstanding
their claim that Christ died for all the sin Of all people,
yet even by their own admission, there are millions who will suffer
for the same sin that they say Christ died for on the cross. His death will be no benefit. They will be punished for the
sin that was laid upon Christ when He died. up on the cross,
the one that Christ has already died for. God will require of
them again. The hymn writer wrote, which
hymn I can't remember, Payment God Will Not Twice Demand. First at my bleeding surety's
hand, and then again at mine. But still, we must deal with
those scriptures which universalists use as their proof text to prove
universalism. and which at first inspection
may seem to, because they contain such words and such phrases as,
all, all men, all the world, the world, the whole world, and
those kind of statements, as well as 2 Peter 3.9. He is not
willing that any should perish. That's one of their favorites. 1 Timothy 2 and 4, who would
have all men to be saved. And yet, they ignore those places
in the Scripture where the words all, the word world, whole world,
and so forth, cannot mean all without exception. They just
cannot mean that, and that is clear from the Scripture, such
as John 12 and verse 19. They said, The world is gone
after him, but the whole world had not, for they themselves
had not gone after the Lord. That one in 1 John 2 and verse
2, where the whole world there is you, in contrast with our
And ours, our and ours is the contract. He is the propitiation
for our sin and not for ours only, but for the whole world. So that the whole world there
does not include all without exception. Marshall's interlinear
renders the verse this way, consider it, as he is a propitiation concerning
the sins of us, but not concerning ours only, but also concerning
all of the world." Thus the us, the we, are distinct and contrasted
from the whole world. And for what it is worth, I agree
with those who think that us, ours, and we refers to the Jew
and all of the world here refers unto the Gentile. Thus, all of
the world, as in 1 John 2 and 2, no more means all without exception than Caesar's
decree. In Luke chapter 2 and verse 1,
there went out a decree that all the world should be taxed,
as we have it in the King James Version. But not every person
upon the face of the earth fell under the decree of Caesar, and
he had no authority over them. What then is the justification
for making 1 John 2 and verse 2 mean everyone without exception,
while Luke 2 and verse 1 cannot mean all without exception or
every person in the world? What else can it mean but the
Roman Empire, those under and controlled by the Roman government,
the citizens of the kingdom or the nation of Rome, those subject
to that government, all the world, every one of them. So this point,
Even in our own language, we hear it every day. We say it,
perhaps, every day. Such words we use in our common
speech as all and world, in a restricted sense, of course. We say, the
world has gone mad. Do we not hear that almost every
day? Or do we not say their world
is a crazy place? Or we say everyone or everybody
is doing it. That's a favorite thing with
the young people. But mama, daddy, everybody else
is going. Now, do we mean all without exception
when we use those phrases? And besides, in reading the writings
of John, it would be found that he, number one, uses the word
world frequently. It appears often in the writing
of John. And number two, he uses it in
a limited and in a restricted sense. And as John Gill notes,
Even when speaking of redemption and salvation, that is so. Like that contrast he makes in
1 John 5 and verse 19, the whole world lies in wickedness. Now this is not all without exception,
for he said, we are of God. little children, and the whole
world lieth in wickedness." Again, in Revelation 12, verse 9, we
read, Satan, which deceives the whole world, and yet not the
elect are deceived in that sin. Yet the Lord Jesus, in Mark 13.22,
Matthew 24.24, the Lord accepts the elect from this devilish deception,
saying, it is not possible to deceive them unto their ruin. Now, as we head down the home
stretch, let us consider universalism and let us put the question to
the proponents and the adherents of universalism who say that
Christ died for all and none except it. Not even Pharaoh,
Ahab, or Judas are accepted from the atonement preached by the
Armenians. Not Stalin, not Hitler, and not
Hussein, and not Castro. All of them are objects of the
love of God and of the death of Christ according to the Armenians. that Christ paid their debt of
sin upon the cross. Now here is the question. The
death of Christ, was it one, absolute, or two, was it conditional? Did Christ die absolutely for
his people, or did he die conditionally for those that he died for? That is, in the judgment of the
universalists, which one will they say? And they must decide. Number one, was the death of
Christ, for such as he died for, absolute? Absolute. Was it sure? And was it absolutely
infallible? And did it guarantee eternal
life for those that he died for? Or two, Was it conditional, that
is contingent upon some condition to be fulfilled by the sinner
in order to be made actual partakers of that eternal life that Christ
died to secure? In other words, is it contingent
or is it conditional upon man's believing or repenting or accepting
the atonement or accepting Jesus, or exercising faith, or something
of that nature. This pleases most universally,
that it is contingent upon those things. And then the final question
is, can sinners in their own strength meet these conditions
that God has supposedly set? Can they believe unaided? Can they believe apart from special
and divine sovereign grace? If they must believe, then faith
must be given. And only God can create faith,
the faith of God's elect that lays hold upon the Lord Jesus
Christ. So that God purposed to work
faith in those that Christ died for, but not in the reprobate,
for faith is only for the elect and by grace. Therefore, we conclude
by saying universalism brings the death of Christ and the love
of God to almost nothing, since the objects of both may be lost
forever. God may love one, Christ may
die for one, and they may perish in their sin. Secondly, universalism
overthrows, as it were, the will of God since His will is defeated. Thirdly, universalism shatters
the purpose of God so that it's contingent upon the actions of
men. Number four, universalism impugns
the power of God that He might save and call whomsoever He will. And number five, lastly, universalism
robs God of His glory and it gives too much unto man. It taketh too much from God,
it giveth too much unto the man or unto the sinner. We are comfortable
saying that the death of Christ is absolute, that not one shall
perish for whom he died, for he died for their soul, for their
sin, for their salvation according to the purpose of God. Thank
God for that. And it was a wonderful day when
God brought us to that realization and that conviction.