 |  |
the reconciliation being mutual. In that case, as we pointed out, the word used would
have been diallassomai, as in Matt. 5: 24, which its only occurrence in the New
Testament."
"Mutual reconciliation can only be where each party has wronged the other. What
injury has God done to us, that we have to forgive?"
"The enmity in the heart of man against God is due to the fact that man has wronged
God, and anyone with a knowledge of human nature will admit that it is the one who has
done wrong who seeks to justify his position by blackening the character of him he has
wronged. This is one of the awful consequences of man's fall. Because of sin man is
under the wrath of God (Rom. 1: 18; Eph. 2: 3; Col. 3: 6). By the death of Christ this
wrath is appeased, and God can `be just and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus'
(Rom. 3: 26). Those who receive this reconciliation (or atonement) (Rom. 5: 11) are
removed from (apo) a condition of being under wrath and condemnation (Rom. 8: 1),
to one of acceptance and peace with God. The change is one of position or standing, not
of character. That comes afterwards."
"And here is the mistake that so many make. They are looking for acceptance because
of some change in themselves, instead of believing God, and accepting His statement as
to reconciliation (II Cor. 5: 18-20). Not until the sinner believes in the love of God, does
any love to God spring up in his heart (I John 4: 10, 19), driving out the enmity which is
there by nature. Reconciliation is a question of pure grace or favour on God's part, and
we are conformed to the image of His Son, by contemplating Him and becoming more
and more acquainted with the prefectness of His work. To grow in grace is to grow in the
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (II Pet. 3: 18, R.V.)."
"Any other view of `Reconciliation' (such as universal reconciliation) does away
entirely with the Bible word `destruction', and deprives it of any meaning that can be
given to it. There is no place for the two. As `destruction' is a Bible word, and
`universal reconciliation' is a human formula, the latter must be abandoned" (Vol. XIX,
April, 1913, page 46).
"S.S. (Lanarkshire). Of the resurrections in I Cor. 15: 23, 24, the resurrection of
Rev. 20: 12, 13, is, as you say, implied in I Cor. 15: 24. When the Son delivers up the
kingdom to the Father He will have put down all rule and authority and power. This must
be after the judgment of the great white throne, for that deals with some rebellious
ones whose doom is to be cast into the lake of fire. This is called the second death, and
there is no hint of any resurrection from it. Those who claim that there is should be
prepared with some Scripture to that effect. The first death comes to righteous and
unrighteous alike, and Scripture is full of testimony to the resurrection from it. The
second death comes only to the ungodly, and while it is frequently spoken of as their end
(Psa. 37: 38; Prov. 14: 12; Rom. 6: 21; II Cor. 11: 15; Phil. 3: 19; Heb. 6: 8;
I Pet. 4: 17), we are not acquainted with a single passage that speaks of a resurrection
from that" (Vol. XIX, May, 1913, page 60).
The foregoing extracts--the last of which it will be noted is dated May 1913--and
Dr. Bullinger died but a month later, viz., on 6th June, 1913--speak for themselves, and
inasmuch as the teaching concerning "universal reconciliation" does, of necessity, refer
"to the past", it is pure assumption (to put it mildly) to state that "only his illness and
death prevented him from accepting the doctrine of the eons and the universal
reconciliation".
We may say that in reply to a recent enquiry of Dr. Bullinger's niece
(Miss E. Dodson), who was in close attendance on him until the date of his death,
she writes:--
"I have never heard my uncle say one word in favour of universal reconciliation."