We begin in verse 17, I call
your attention to the opening word, therefore. That tells us that this is or
has something to do, some connection with that that has gone before. That is making a further point,
drawing a conclusion or something of that sort, from something
that has gone before. So, in effect, we are breaking
in, in the middle of the flow of the thought of the Apostle,
but we had to for the sake of time. So, therefore, in verse
17, Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. O things are passed away, behold,
all things are become new. And all things are of God, who
hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given
unto us the ministry of reconciliation. to wit that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses
unto them, and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then, we are ambassadors
for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us. We pray you, in Christ's stead,
be ye reconciled to God. For ye have made Him to be sin
for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness
of God in Him. Now I want you to look at verse
19 again. The words that are here are my
text for this morning, to wit that God was in Christ reconciling
the world unto himself. Now those are the words that
I want us to look at. Again, my subject is the heresy
of universalism. And I'm going to work at it from
those words, reconciling the world unto himself. What do we mean? What does Paul
mean by making this statement? Let me begin with this manner
of introduction. You will remember that last Lord's
Day morning, we had a message on the rotten pillars of Arminianism. That was our subject last Sunday
morning. For as some claim, the love of
God is universal, and the death of our Lord Jesus Christ and
His atonement was for everyone ever born without exception. It is the plea of Arminianism,
it is the doctrine of Universalism that God's love is fixed upon
each and every member of the race and that our Lord shed His
blood for each and every member of that race. Then the question
might come up, what of those who have never in their life
heard the gospel of Christ? What of those who have never
been told by a gospel minister that God loves them or that Christ
has died for them? We're going to be focusing on
universalism. We're going to be considering
it from the standpoint that it is a grievous heresy according
to the Word of God, and I beg your attention and I beg you
to consider the argument. Now, there are a couple of views
which some of the Universalists might put forth in defense of
their doctrine of Universalism. You might have heard this one.
First of all, I've heard it many times over the years. They have
blamed the churches for not bringing the gospel to every part of the
globe. They say it is the fault of Christians
and of the churches that they have not brought the gospel into
every nook and cranny. of the world, even going so far
as to suggest that the blood of the heathen are upon the hand
of the Christian churches because they have not carried the gospel
in every place. That's one view. That's one excuse
for universalism. Now, a second one is that a universalist
would seem to be ready to accept the notion that there is, there
might be, there is possibly another way for the heathen in the dark
corners of the earth to be saved. Some you would be surprised at
who might give credence under this view, that they might look
at creation and from that they might figure out that there is
a God. Others might pin it upon the
conviction of conscience, that conscience is speaking and is
working to convict of sin. Others might attribute it to
the light of nature, that natural revelation that men see, and
some by a secret regeneration that perhaps God regenerates
people that are never taken any further or that are never converted. We would reject these with an
abhorrence. Now, in our text today, a prominent
subject there is the doctrine of reconciliation. If you notice
it, Paul mentions it five times in this short span of scripture,
the passage that we've read today. There are five references to
the doctrine or the work of reconciliation. At this point, let me tell you
that there is a doctrine in the world, there are books that are
written, one is making the round that teaches ultimate reconciliation. We'll say more about that later. First of all, let's get our contextual
bearings in this great chapter of God's Word. Let's see where
we might launch in our feeble vessel into this flowing stream
that Paul has given us here. For there is a continuity here
of Paul's flow of thought. He has dwelled at some length
earlier in the epistle on the glory of the gospel and his manner
and reason for preaching the gospel as he did. Now, that gospel
reveals God's method of reconciling sinners unto Himself by the death
of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is good ground for the
doctrine of reconciliation, because in verse 21, God made him to
be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of
God in him. Now, that gospel reveals the
method of reconciliation. with Paul saying here in our
text that the ministry of reconciliation has been committed unto him as
a minister of the gospel. And this reconciliation rests
upon that sure foundation found or declared in verse 21. Now we consider the question,
is this reconciliation absolute? Is this reconciliation universal? For Paul says, God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself. Is this reconciliation strict
and particular? Has God, number one, reconciled
all absolutely to Himself? Are all, without exception, reconciled
unto God? Has He made all His friends and
put them again on friendly terms, and to be at peace with them
and they with Him? Or secondly, has He made it possible
for all to be reconciled unto God, just having removed all
of the obstacles to those being reconciled unto Him? Now we should
know that Paul speaks here in definite terms, not conditional
terms. That is not conditional terms
that are found here. Look at verse 18 again. Has reconciled
us to God. Look at verse 19. He was reconciling
the world unto himself. Or thirdly, is this reconciliation
strict, limited, and particular, falling in line with eternal
election, with a special love of our great God, and the particular
atonement of our Savior, and the sovereign regeneration of
the Spirit of God? After all, Universalists will
tell us, and tell us again and again, all means all, they say,
and world means world, by which they understand, would have us
to understand, all without exception. So let us point out, All are
not Christians. All in the world are not Christian. And the whole world is not reconciled
unto God, has never been in any age, any time, any country, any
age, anywhere in the world. So, let's have a closer look
at a couple of words that are coming before us here in our
text. One of them is actually a Christian
doctrine and that is the word reconciliation. Five times we
saw in this text. There are variations of it. We have it reconcile. We have
it reconciled in the Eroist and Past Tent. We have reconciliation
as to the thing or the doctrine. We have reconciling as to the
act itself. Or the verb form and the noun
form we have here in these places in the scripture. Now to reconcile,
the biblical word reconcile, is to bring together two parties
as you know. Two parties who have before been
at variance one from the other. They once may have been in friendly
harmony but have become estranged or alienated for some reason
that drove and enmity between them, as two former friends might
become estranged and possibly again be reconciled and become
friends all over again. In considering reconciliation
and alienation, consider Joseph and his brethren in the Old Testament. beginning in Genesis chapter
37. Or think of the case we sometimes
see in real life of a wife and a husband estranged one from
another, yet might be reconciled. Think of the case of the Jew
and the Gentile who were at enmity and could not speak peaceably
and had no dealings one with the other. but then think about
sinners and God at enmity, and then reconcile again. So that there is not only estrangement,
they are separated, but there is also enmity during the separation. Now, to reconcile, means to remove
the cause of the estrangement and the alienation, and to change
then from enmity unto friendship, that the offending party might
put away their enmity, and the offended party might be appeased
for the wrong that has been committed against them. And on that basis,
the two then come together and be reconciled again. Now Paul
would have us to know that God taketh the lead in reconciliation. It is not man and it is not the
preacher. He has reconciled sinners unto
himself and the means is by the Lord Jesus Christ having been
made sin for us. Now coming to the second word,
and here is the word where so many stumble and fall into wrong
doctrine. That is a simple word, it is
the word world. How many times we meet with it
in the scripture? Here it is again, verse 19. God was in Christ reconciling
the world unto himself." Now, is this to be understood in the
Arminian sense and interpretation? Every person ever born or whoever
lives in the world? Is this everyone without a single
exception? Is this every member of the race? Will they give the same meaning
to the word world here as they do in John chapter 3 and verse
16 and 1 John chapter 2 and verse 2? He is the propitiation for
our sin, not for ours only, but also for the whole world. Now
the word here that is used is that word cosmos. It is our English
word world. But it is the word cosmos and
it means, it has several meanings. It means an arrangement. It means
an orderly arrangement. It means a decoration. It means an ornament. And contrary to the Armenian
interpretation, this word world is not used in any uniform sense
in the scripture, in the word of God. In fact, as A.W. Pink wrote in a book, and as
A.W. Pink claimed, the word is used
at least seven different ways in the New Testament, this word
cosmos, and it does not have a universal meaning everywhere
that you see it in scripture. For example, in Acts 17 and verse
4, it means the universe. In Romans 3, And verse 19, it
means humanity. In John 12 and 31, it means the
world system. So there are just some. Think
about that time when all the world should be taxed in the
book of Luke. Now, let me give you some more
examples where it cannot and does not mean every single person
without exception. Here they are. Notice them carefully,
take them down, look at them, whatever pleases you best. Ecclesiastes
chapter 3 and verse 11. He has set the world in their
heart. Now, no way in this world, there's
another use for it, no way that you can make this to mean everyone
without exception. Think about what our Lord said
in Matthew 16 and verse 26. What shall it gain a man? What shall a man be gained or
profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? And yes, it is the same word.
It is the word Cosmos. In James 3 and 6, you will see
that it is a hyperbole. The tongue is a fire. a world of iniquity. Yes, it is the same word, kosmos. In Matthew 24 and verse 3, the
disciples ask the Lord about the end of the world. Matthew 25, 34, Ephesians 1,
4, Revelation 13, 8, all mention the foundation of the world. Is there any way you can make
that? to mean all people without exception. In 1 Peter 3 and verse
3, the word kosmos is translated in King James as adorning. And it is from the same word
kosmos, same word translated world in John 3 and verse 16. In Matthew 13 and 38, In Jesus'
parable of the tares, he says, the field is the world. Now there's no way that that
can mean everyone without exception. So we make the conclusion, there
is no way that these verses, which contain the word cosmos,
translated world, can be interpreted to mean everyone ever born into
the family of man. Now concerning universalism. We may find it hard to get a
hold upon it. It's a little slippery in this
place and that. It's kind of like a grass snake.
It breaks in pieces sometime when you grab it. For all universalism
is not the same. One man's universalism differeth
from another man's universalism. For example, Armenians believe
that the love of God and the death of Christ are universal. We saw that last week. They believe God loves everybody
and Christ died for everyone without exception. But for the
most part, evangelical Arminians do not believe that all are saved. They do not believe that every
lasting one is saved, though they do believe that all could
be saved. Salvation is available to everyone,
but many neglect and reject it. So let's call this mild or partial
universalism. It is Inconsistent, I'll point
that out to start with. It is inconsistent to say that
God loves all and Christ died for all, and yet all He loved
and all that Christ died are not saved. But then there is
a full-fledged Universalism, who would make use of this text
in 2 Corinthians 5 and verse 19, and their interpretation
of the word world. And some carry it so far as to
say, and as to teach that all will eventually be saved. That all without exception will
eventually be saved. Some call it final salvation. Some call it final restoration. And I heard a new term recently
that I mentioned earlier, ultimate Reconciliation set forth in that
book I mentioned. It is a restorationist view of
all things, and it seeks support from the text that we have taken
today. It also uses other passages. Acts 3 and verse 21 is one of
their favorite. Romans 5. 18 and 19 is sometimes
used, Ephesians 1 verse 9 and 10, that Christ will bring all
things again, and 1 Corinthians 15 and verse 22, are some of the verses that will
be used by the full-fledged Universalists, and of course there are others,
and we may look at some of these later in our study. But first of all, let's look
at the historical background of the doctrine of Universalism. of this teaching. First we learn
it is not a new teaching. It is not new. It is not a Johnny
come lately at all. It is not of recent origin in
our day or lifetime. for the evil enemies of the gospel
sowed these tares early on in the Christian church. It got
up on its legs early in the Christian movement, as did a lot of heresies
in that time. I have read that one of the old-time
early writers, Clement of Alexandria, was one of the earliest writers
on the subject of universalism, and that this doctrine was condemned
in the Ecumenical Council in 553. Later, even out of Puritan Calvinism,
there was spawned a view of universalism. Out of Calvinism in England,
and then took roots even in 16th century America, confirming an
old saying that I have heard, that heresy can go around the
world before truth can ever get its britches on. And this emphasizes
how early and how quickly one may fall into era, while yet
pretending to have the support of the Scripture. Now, quoting
from selected passages, till now we have some teaching that
all will be ultimately reconciled under God, that all without exception
will eventually be happy in heaven, and this they rest upon what
they consider the universalist atonement made by Christ, that
his death paid the sin of every child of Adam and of Eve. Let me tell you this, if you're
interested in pursuing it further, studying it more, reading more
about it. If you Google and type in simply
universalism, you can read a lot of articles there, pro and con,
for and against, and see who has written what book on the
subject, proving universalism, who has come out against it,
and arguing for the other side. Now, I found out that universalists
are very encouraged in our day and in our time because I found
this quote from a full-fledged universalist. Quote. Many Christians
are rediscovering Universalism and returning to it today." What
they call discovery, I call apostasy. That many professing Christians
are falling away, apostatizing, taking their leave of the faith
of Christ once delivered unto the same. I want to give you
a small sample of what is available on the internet. First, from
an outfit that I ran across calling themselves tent makers. If you Google that and find them. speaking of, quote, Christian
universalism, unquote, or they'd also love to call it ultimate
reconciliation in the Lord Jesus Christ. Here's a quote. He is
the Savior of the world through whom all mankind will be restored
to God's original image, Using such text as John 1.29, Behold
the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world. Using John
12 and verse 32, I be lifted up, I will draw all men under
me." Another called Christian Universalism Association has
posted this under their name, quote, All people are God's people
and no one will be left behind." Like most universalists, they
place heavy, heavy emphasis upon the love of God. And not just
the love of God, but the universal, unlimited love of God. Here is a direct quote. God would
never abandon anyone to eternal punishment. God has a plan to
rescue and transform even those who turned away from truth and
goodness in this life. Our Heavenly Father will find
every lost sheep and forgive every prodigal son," unquote. Now, I'm not making this up.
I got it off of their website from their reading. Thus, full
universalism is the doctrine that all human beings will eventually
be saved. And they call this, quote, the
gospel of inclusion, unquote. Or as I said, ultimate reconciliation
is one of their favorite terms. One called it, quote, the wider
hope, unquote, for they have opened the doors as wide as they
may go. Now, it proceeds upon the premise
of the universal fatherhood of God. Now, this, do you remember,
reared its ugly head. Oh, was it the fifties and the
sixties and the seventies? In our lifetime, because I remember
the liberals speaking of the universal fatherhood of God. And around America, when apostates
began to talk openly about the fatherhood of God and the universal
brotherhood of man. Can you remember those? This
is full-blown universalism, saying in essence, God is the loving,
spiritual, heavenly, saving Father of all. And all being children
of God, all having a common brotherhood, all men are spiritual brothers. I especially remember something
about that. What I recall was Evangelical
Armenians, remember we have described them, the fundamentalist movement,
in America, especially Armenian Baptists, vigorously oppose these
views of the universal fatherhood of God and the universal brotherhood
of man, with themselves holding a universal view of God's love
and a universal view of the Atonement. How inconsistent are they? Now, apostate universalists began
to teach that in every person there is a spark of divinity. Again, Arminian Baptists opposed
that. They called it free will. But
they are one and the same thing. Now, universalists generally
deny an eternal or everlasting hell. They deny that there is,
some admit there is Tormien, but that it is not everlasting. They say this is consistent with
the great love of God, and one put it like this, quote, the
eternal alienation of anyone from God would represent a less
than complete victory for the love and self sacrifice of Christ."
And so according to the Universalist, quote, sooner or later all will
be saved, unquote. Ultimate reconciliation. They do not blush to say this
gives the dead, quote, another chance at redemption, unquote. Only a blinded apostate, degenerate
spirit would hold to such a position. I would expect the Universalists
to use 1 Peter chapter 3 and verse 18 through 20. that says something about Christ
went and preached to the spirits that were in prison. And there came, years ago, an
addition to the Apostles' Creed. For a long time it didn't have
this in it. But then these words were added
to the Apostles' Creed. Quote, He descended into Hades,
unquote. In the late 4th century, it was
added. In 1 Peter chapter 4 and verse
6, I would imagine they would use, that the gospel was preached
to them that are dead. That would make them a good text,
it would seem. Those that hold to Christ's descent
into Hades. was more than a descent into
death and the grave in the mind of many of them. And it might
be divided into three views. They are basically three views
of 1 Peter 3 and of Christ descending into the lower parts of the earth.
Number one, there are those that say that he went, that he might
deliver the Old Testament saints from paradise and bring them
all into heaven. There are others that say that
he judicially declared condemnation upon the wicked that were there. Thirdly, there are those who
say that He preached salvation and a second chance unto the
lost soul, another chance at redemption, that none be lost
and that all come to repentance. I should think if you put a man
in hell for a hundred years and then offer him a way out that
he might take it. Now while the first two are held
by some in mainline Christendom, the third would appeal to full
universalism. William G. G. Shedd noted in
opposing them in his book, The Doctrine of Everlasting Punishment,
even though some universalists agree that sin does deserve punishment,
while on the other hand, they are contending that redemption
reconciliation are extended beyond death, that because Christ bore
the sins of the world, that is, of all, that redemption and reconciliation
through the death of Christ is yet working in the afterlife
of them. That there is salvation after
bodily death and even from hell even reconciliation again unto
God. Here is how Shedd described one
form of universalism. Quote, the advocates of this
view assert that between death and the final judgment, the application
of Christ's work is yet going on, that the Holy Spirit is regenerating
sinners in the intermediate state, that they are believing and repenting
as in this life." That is the view of full universalism. Hence their teaching of ultimate
universalism. And I think that people hearing
this prefer it to an everlasting punishment, for eternal torment
is perhaps the most offensive doctrine in all of the Word of
God. And I predict belief in and preaching
on the subject of hell will soon all but disappear from the churches
and the pulpits in our generation. None need be a prophet of God
to see this coming, as they are mostly silent about it, about
sin and its evil, and about its punishment, even as we speak. And fewer all the time are believing
in eternal hell, and that hell is here upon the earth, a man
told me. I believe this is hell. I believe
this is all the hell that there is in this life. Now the source
of these eras proceed from the two-fold eras that we looked
at last week, universal love and the universal atonement of
Christ. You believe that God's love is
universal, that He loves all without exception. You believe
that Christ died for all without exception, so that in a sense,
Arminian universalism is but the forerunner of absolute universalism. That God is love, that He is
too loving, and too kind to send anyone to hell, and if you accept
this, then he might apply the remedy even in the afterlife. Once you accept this premise,
that Jesus paid the debt of sin for each and every one ever born
or that ever lived, then it is but a step to say, Even those
in hell might have the benefits of the death of Christ. By the
way, in reading the internet and other places, I've read that
Origen believed that even the devil might eventually be saved. That might be the same set of
the apostate angels then, might the same be said of those angels
that God cast down and reserved in chains of fire. Now, universalism
is a distant cousin of Arminianism and is a first cousin of Unitarianism. If you're going to be a full
universalist, you might as well go on and join up with the Unitarians. I think they have practically
taken themselves out of even calling themselves a Christian
denomination. And to think, just think, having
those views, and they condemn we Calvinists for limiting the
atonement to the elect and saying that all that Christ died for
will most certainly be saved. But it will be in this life,
not in the one to come. Now two great plumb lines to
all of this are, number one, the truth about the love of God. It is particular and strict. He loveth his own. It is everlasting. And number two, the extent and
intent of the death of Christ. What did God intend by the death
of Christ? That's how you ought to look
at it. The extent and the intent of the death of Christ. Thus
we have come to say, universalism is a great heresy. It is not
a Christian doctrine at all. Remember that.