A problem in Ray Stedman’s Expository studies in Second Cori

[Melchizedek]

I’ve been reading through this book as part of my “homework” related to some new covenant ministry discipleship I’ve been working through with the pastor of our church. I was actually quite enjoying the book up until this point, as some excellent observations are made in it. However, as I was reading through the section on 2nd Cor. 4:16 through 5:5 I ran across a problem that I would like the community’s help ‘refuting’ specifically and biblically, as I’m supposed to be discussing the stuff that comes up in this book as I’m working through it; and I’d like to provide a solid counter to this in case it comes up in our conversation.

The chapter starts out well enough: Ray is talking about how Paul has just spoken of the momentary light afflictions are preparing us for a weight of eternal glory, and that as believers we should be moving forth with the knowledge that we cannot hide anything from God, and how that knowledge should cause us to guard our attitudes and actions, and how the love of Christ both controls and sustains us.

The third thing Paul pictures is the change of viewpoint that comes to a Christian. He (Paul) says that “We don’t look at people anymore from a human point of view”, not judging them by outward standards, etc. ‘We see everyone as made in the image of God, but having lost the likeness of God’. “Yet people are able to be restored to that relationship. Any life, no matter how dissolute, wasted, empty or lonely can, by the touch of the divine life, be restored to usefulness, joy, peace and power, and be part of the new creation that God is working out. We are to live like that. We are to have that in our thoughts every day. We are to be ‘renewed in our minds’ by the Spirit of God; we must look at life this way because this is the way life really is.”

He then goes on to begin to describe the ministry of reconciliation; saying that we need to understand this ministry very carefully because it is our ministry. He first points out that the ministry comes from God himself; that it doesn’t need to be mediated through a pastor or an elder board, etc.
He states that the message of reconciliation is sharing how God reconciled you and healed the breach, crossing the gap between you and Him, finding yourself now supported by his divine grace and forgiven by his divine love.
Then secondly, he says that

“…this powerful ministry reconciles the world:” quoting verse 5:19 ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation’

He continues:

“Above all else, this is the message the world needs to know. The problem with people everywhere is they have no security, no sense of acceptance, no sense of worth. Paul is addressing just this problem. We are lost, we are alienated, we are cut off from the God who runs everything…They all need this universal Word sent to the world.”

Ok fine; then he starts in with the next bit; and my heart really begins to get into it here when he says,

“Paul points out that this message will come in two forms. If it is really the right message from God, it does not come talking about the judgment of God over sin. When I graduated from seminary over thirty years ago, I came out convinced my job was to make men aware of their sin and the judgment of God upon evil. I was brought up in a theological generation that taught you have to scare people before they will become Christians. Then I began to learn from verses like this. I saw how the apostles and the Lord himself delivered God’s message. Almost universally, God’s message says, ‘We do not need to talk about judgment. I’ve taken care of that’. As Paul puts it here, ‘God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them’.”

(Great! I’m thinking at this point… )

“I learned after a few years that all I need to do is go to people, taking for granted that, like me, they are hurting inside from their sins, and talk about a God who understands, who wants to relieve them from that hurt and has done something about it. He is not ready to throw them into hell; he opens his arms and invites them to come to a loving Father and be restored. He sees our hurt, our loneliness, our emptiness, our struggles and hungers to be something different than we are. He sees our sense of frustration that we cannot get it all together. He comes with a word of release that says, ‘I know that. I know you can’t make it and I’ve done something about it. I’ve taken care of the whole problem of sin. Now let’s just talk about relationship and make appeal to people to come’. “

(Awesome)
Now he says,

”Do not read this as though God is not concerned about human evil. Some people think that God is so loving he does not care whether they sin or not. He will just forget it all and they can come. But no, that is never the word of the Gospel. God takes sin seriously and sees it as a hurtful thing. This passage says very clearly that God has done something at tremendous cost to remove this problem of sin. He cared so much about it that he was willing to pay that cost.”

(Uh-oh. I think I see where this might be going but I’ll read on to find out…) He then goes on the talk a bit about the second characteristic of being sent to be reconcilers. No problem here.
But wait, here it comes: The title of the next section is; Are All Saved?

“So Paul goes on to point out in verse 20, the third characteristic of the message (of reconciliation): It requires a voluntary acceptance. It is not true that everybody is automatically saved. Some people teach today that God in Christ paid the debt of sin and, therefore, everybody is saved; they do not know it, but will find out when they die and all of a sudden wake up in glory. They will say, ‘We don’t deserve to be here’, and God will say, ‘Well, surprise! Christ paid for your sins and that is why you are here. Everybody makes it.’

(He seems to be arguing against a straw man version of something akin to ultra u here, but he continues: )

No, that is not true. Look at what verse 20 says: ‘So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God’.” Now watch what he says next; “There would be no reason for that kind of pleading entreaty on Paul’s part were everybody automatically saved by the death of Christ. There is no universal salvation. It is as you receive this Word and accept it for yourself, as you come into a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus that the benefit of his death is applied to you. As it is when you are saved, so it is when your neighbours and friends receive it. That is why God sends us as ambassadors”.

Huh? Have I missed something here? He appears to be simultaneously arguing against a straw man version of (ultra?) EU, and making some sort of non-sequitur claim that God would not send us as ambassadors if salvation has already been provided for everyone…
So here is some of his later reasoning on this: referring to an illustration given by the founder of his seminary,

“ In the beginning when God created man in the Garden we were in perfect fellowship with God. Then man turned his back on God, so God’s justice required a response; namely that he turned his back on man and man has been alienated from him ever since. But in the work of the cross, God is reconciled to man, turning back to face man again, and now the message goes out to all men everywhere, ‘You turn around now and be reconciled to God.’ When that happens peace is restored. This is the message of reconciliation.”

This sounds suspiciously Old Covenant to me…
I’m in need of some solid scriptural help here.

[Melchizedek]

Martin Zender has kind of an interesting take on the ideas surrounding this. He makes a distinction between salvation for the eons (eonian life) vs. the salvation of eternal life, the idea being that only the elect are saved for the particular life pertaining to the next (2?) eons (hence, eonian/ kingdom life), but that eternal life (once the eons have ended) is for everyone.

In that case, Ray (and all those of his ilk) are sort of right, in that not everyone is saved when you look at it only from the perspective of the next eon(s), (ironically more of a problem for dispensationalists) which they erroneously assume is the end of the story; and that’s why they can’t see ‘universalism’. (Of course, Zender would disagree with the application of the term universalism to what he teaches, even though the end result is the same.)

Anyone else have any helpful insights?