by Don C. Hewey
UNIVERSAL SALVATION REFUTED INDEX PAGE
A.E. Knoch contradicts himself in his own book entitled "All in All --- The Goal of the Universe" pages 86 - 87, ©1978, printed by Concordant Publishing Concern, in regards to Mark 14:21.
"Set
thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand." ---Psalm
109:6 KJV
CONTRADICTION (1):
Read carefully the excerpt written by A.E. Knoch, page 86, in response
to Mark 14:21 as to "whom" Jesus Christ was referring to
in the last 12 words of Mark 14:21 "...Good were it for that man if he
had never been born." There are only two possibilities here.
(1)
Jesus Christ is not referring to Judas Iscariot, but is referring to Himself.
That would grossly contradict the multitude of prophecies concerning the
Messiah. For A.E. Knoch to even suggest a hint, that it would be
better if Jesus Christ was not born ("ideal for Him
if that man was not born") is straight out of the pit of hell.
It
is of the spirit of antichrist (Matthew 16:21 - 23).
(2)
The only other option is that Jesus Christ was referring to Judas Iscariot.
Since Jesus Christ is referring to Judas, they why would Jesus say "good
for it for that man if he never been born" if "ALL" are saved? Jesus
Christ is saying that it would have been better if Judas never ever existed
in the first place.
Romans 1:20 - 21 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God,..."
Judas witnessed many many miracles personally that Jesus Christ did. Judas even witnessed personally face-to-face that Jesus Christ prophesized about His betrayal at the Last Supper. Judas however freely choose to do evil even after being warned of Jesus being betrayed.
Matthew 16:[21] From that
time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go
unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests
and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
[22] Then Peter took him,
and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall
not be unto thee.
[23] But he turned, and
said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan:
thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be
of God, but those that be of men. (KJV)
Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly,
O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh
unto thee:he [is] just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an
ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.
Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased
the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make
his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong
[his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (KJV)
KJV: Mark 14:21
"The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that
man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he
had never been born."
CLNT: "...The
Son of Mankind is being given up! Ideal were it for Him
if that man were not born!"
A.E. Knoch writes on page 86: "...There
is no real reason why this should not be rendered "it were ideal for Him
if that man was not born." This leaves nothing out and does
not unite the "ideal (well)" with "that man" instead of "Him."
The question arises, Who is the Him?
The versions say he is "that man." But just as soon as they introduce
the pronoun "Him" it is in contrast
to "that man," rather than the same. That man suggests a different
one from the subject of the sentence, which is the Son of Mankind.
A most simple solution if offered us in the preceding clause of this sentence.
There we have the pronoun "Him" and
"that man" both referred to in such a way that we cannot mistake them.
"The Son of Man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him; but woe to
that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!" "Him"
is the Son of Man; "that man" is Judas. And how can it be otherwise
in the balance of the sentence? It is simply out of the question
for Him to refer to Judas. We
must read on "ideal were it for Him
[the Son of Mankind] if that man [Judas] were not born."
"Christ said many serious things concerning the son of perdition, but not
one of them conflicts with His purpose or power to save him eventually
together with all mankind. He never said it were good, or better,
if he had not been born."
Wrong! Examine (CLNT) Matthew 27:3, Matthew 26:4, Matthew 18:7 and blatantly contradicts Luke 22:22
KJV: Matthew
27:3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned,
repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the
chief priests and elders,
CLNT: Matthew
27:3 "Then Judas, who gives Him up, perceiving that He
was condemned, regretting, turns back the thirty pieces of silver to the
chief priests and the elders,"
Wrong rendering of "He" by the CLNT in Matthew 27:3. How can "He" refer to Jesus Christ when Judas understood that it is himself that was condemned, since he "regretting," turns back the thirty pieces of silver? The CLNT contradicts it's very own rendering of "Him" in Mark 14:21, Matthew 26:24, "He" in Matthew 27:3, and more blatantly in Luke 22:22 "...woe to that man through whom He is being given up!"
KJV: Matthew
18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that
offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
CLNT: Matthew
18:7 "Woe to the world because of snares! For it is a necessity
for snares to be coming. Moreover, woe to that
man through whom the snare
is coming!"
KJV: Matthew
26:24 The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man
by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he
had not been born.
CLNT: Matthew
26:24 "The Son of Mankind is indeed going away, according as it
is written concerning Him, yet woe to that man
through whom the Son of Mankind is
being given up! Ideal were it for Him
if that man were not born!"
KJV: Luke 22:22
And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that
man by whom he is betrayed!
CLNT: Luke
22:22 "The Son of Mankind is indeed going, according as it has been specified.
However, woe to that man through whom
He is being given up!"
CONTRADICTION (2): A. E. Knoch also ridiculously contradicts himself once again on pages 114 - 115 in regards to "endless" life, then changes to "eonian" life. On page's 114 - 115, Knoch writes: "Our Lord is not only the Resurrection but the Life (John 11:25). Not only could He call back Lazarus from the tomb to a life like that he had before, and thus be his resurrection, but, in the days to come, He will call Lazarus once again, to a life indissoluble and incorruptible, and thus become his Life. That is why, especially in relation to Lazarus has already experienced His power in resurrection, but he waits in death until His future presence before he makes His acquaintance as his Life. His resurrection was a passing occurrence, but the life that he will receive will be enduring, constant, incorruptible, eonian. For death the cure is resurrection, but for dying we need life. The crisis of death is a single act and so is resurrection.......The long drawn out activity of death in dragging men down to the grave is put in contrast with the endless activity of life in imparting incorruption, power and glory."
So which one is it? Eonian? Or is it endless? Knoch specifically make's a differentiation between the two terminologies. Is Knoch implying that "eonian = endless?" If so, then he is blatantly inconsistent throughout his entire book.
CONTRADICTION (3): In
the above scan of page 154, we see A. E. Knoch once again denying numerous
scripture passages as he wrote:
"God is not fully
satisfied. He is not All in all."
I will include some passage's of scripture
which will refute what Knoch is stating here, of which I will include here:
John 5:26 For as the
Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself;
Matthew 3:17 "...This
is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Colossians 1:19 For it
pleased
[the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;
Ephesians 1:23 "Which
is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."
Colossians 3:11 "...but
Christ [is] all, and in all."
1Corinthians 12:6 "...the
same God which worketh all in all."
Colossians 2:9 For in
him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
1Corinthians 3:23 And
ye are Christ's; and Christ [is] God's.
Ephesians 2:16 "...he
might reconcile both unto God in one
body by the cross, having slain
the enmity thereby:
Ephesians 3:19 "...the
love of Christ...ye might be filled
with all the fulness of God.
CONTRADICTION (4): Further on down page 115, A. E. Knoch writes yet another contradiction in contrast to "...enduring, constant, incorruptible, eonian." that was written on page 114.
"The great Firstfruit is already glorified. Not only has He been roused from sleep as to His soul, and raised as to His incorruptible frame, but He has been vivified, as to His spirit, and possesses a life indissoluble (Hebrews 7:16), beyond the reach of death."
CONTRADICTION (5): On page 130 near the bottom of the page, A.E. Knoch writes:
"That, despite His supernal dignities, the disposition of Christ was one of love and compassion, and utterly lacking in selfishness and pride, is shown by His self-abasement. He empties Himself. What this means is clearly indicated by the change in form. He was not God and He did not become a slave. But He had God's form, yet He took a slave's form."
Knoch admits that Jesus Christ is not God. This is purely the spirit of antichrist.
John 5:23 That all [men]
should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth
not
the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
1John 2:22 Who is a liar
but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? , that denieth the
Father and the Son.
1John 2:23 "Whosoever
, the same :..."
CONTRADICTION (6): In the middle of page 134, A.E. Knoch writes:
"The Christ was given this ineffable name because "He shall be saving His people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21). Never is it used alone in connection with judgment, but always in relation to salvation. To bow in this name can indicate but one thing, the acceptance of Him as their Saviour and all the benefits which that involves."
Wrong again. Knoch contradicts several
scriptures, which clearly show that only the Son judges.
John 5:22 For the Father
judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Romans 2:16 In the day
when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my
gospel.
Romans 14:10 "...for
we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."
CONTRADICTION (7): A.E.
Knoch denies that 1 John 5:7 is part of the Holy Scriptures. This
is quoted in the appendix of the CLNT. 1
John 5:7 - 8 are vehemently contested by some, most bible's WILL include
1 John5:8 in scripture and omit verse 7. Which in itself is contradictory.
Because there are only approximately 50 Greek NT manuscripts that have
1 John 5:7 - 8 in them, translators allowed verse 8 in the new translations,
but omit verse 7! The main reason for this is because of 1 John 5:6
because it is referring to the blood and the water. It would have been
too obvious to take out both verse 7 & 8. Another thing
is, (almost) every manuscript that have
1John5:7 - 8 in them, also have Acts 8:37
which is missing from Sinaiticus and Vacitanus. MANUSCRIPT
EVIDENCE FOR 1 JOHN 5:7 - 8
1John 4:15 Whosoever shall
confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1Corinthians 3:16 Know
ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth
in you?
1 Corinthians 6:19 "...your
body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of
God,..."
1John4:13 "...we dwell
in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit."
1John3:24 "... he abideth
in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us."
CONTRADICTION (8): A.E. Knoch on page 146, contradicts universalist doctrine for eon, eonian, etc., when he refers to the cross as "permanent...which will never lose its potency. The blood of Christ...permanent power of His sufferings...potency is permanent...will never lose its power." Knoch is doctrinally correct in his brief summary on the power of Jesus Christ's blood and the power of the cross, but why does he blatantly contradict himself on page 149?
"It is a permanent,
an abiding power which will never
lose its potency. Today the cross avails to conciliate
the world, and to reconcile those who receive the conciliation. But
this will by no means exhaust its power.
The blood of Christ is a most expressive figure of the permanent
power of His sufferings. ...So it is with the suffering
of Christ. Thank God it is past, but its potency
is permanent. It avails today, and will never
lose its power. The blood remains as it were, within the
holiest in heaven, to witness to His offering. But the blood of the
cross---this goes far deeper still.
...Peace is made by the blood of His cross. The blood is a reminder
of its permanence."
Then on page 149, Knoch contradicts himself three times in the same sentence in retrospect to his (doctrinally correct opinions on page 146 in regards to Jesus Christ's blood and the power of the cross), conclusion of the chapter in his book regarding the "BLOOD OF THE CROSS."
Page 149 A.E. Knoch writes: "May mistaken trasnlations of other passages not bar our way into this holy of holies, beyond the veil of His eonian dealings with His creatures! May not the false philosophical terms "everlasting" and "eternal," or "eternity," blind our eyes to the eons, the scene of the Son's glories, their commencement in love, and their consummation in reconciliation!"
CONTRADICTION (9):
On pages 170-171 of Knoch's book, Knoch once again contradicts himself
with the following statement:
"Now it is the very
essence of this priesthood of Christ. Now it is the very essence
of this priesthood that He be a King as well as Priest. We know that
He be a King as well as Priest. We know that He does not as yet rule
as King (Revelation 11:15). His Melchizedek priesthood also waits
that glorious day when He shall sit a Priest upon His throne." continuing
on page 171"...God tabernacles with mankind once again and the temple
with its priestly mediancy vanishes when He makes all things new (Revelation
21:3 - 5). So that the Melchizedek priesthood is proven, by entirely
independent scripture, to be literally "for the eon" and not forever.
This priesthood vanishes even before His Kingly prerogatives are laid aside."
Those statements are ridiculous and are contradictory according to scripture. Jesus Christ is the only King of kings and the LORD of lords. Jesus Christ alone is immortal and incorruptible. In Jude 1:25, Jesus Christ is God, Jesus Christ is the only Saviour, both now and ever.
Revelation 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
1Timothy 6:15 Which in his times he shall shew, [who is] the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
Jude 1:25 To the only wise God our Saviour, [be] glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
1Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal,
immortal, invisible, the only wise God, [be] honour and glory
for ever and ever. Amen.
KNOCH
ADMITS THAT JESUS CHRIST ALONE IS THE SAVIOUR
KNOCH ADMITS JESUS CHRIST ALONE IS IMMORTAL, THEN CONTRADICTS HIMSELF
KNOCH ADMITS REVELATION 21:5 "ALL THINGS ARE MADE NEW"
KNOCH THEN ADMITS REVELATION 21:3 - 5 "ALL THINGS ARE MADE NEW" (contradicts a key universalism doctrine)
KNOCH INDIRECTLY PROVES THAT JESUS CHRIST IS INCORRUPTIBLE, IMMORTAL AND INDISSOLUBLE (Hebrews 7:14)
CLICK HERE TO SEE PAGE 86 OUT OF KNOCH'S BOOK
CLICK HERE TO SEE PAGE 87 OUT OF KNOCH'S BOOK
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CLNT VERSION OF LUKE 22:22
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE CLNT VERSION OF MATTHEW 18:7
CLICK HERE TO SEE THE PAGE WHERE KNOCH CONTRADICTS COLOSIANS 3:11 & Ephesians 1:23
