Omnipotence, what does it mean and is it Biblical?

First I recommend watching InspiringPhilosphy’s video on Omnipotence which is a good start, the gist is that Omnipotence doesn’t mean “nothing God can’t do” but only that no one is more powerful than God..

But I want to dig deeper by asking if the word itself is something we should maybe discard in preference to a better representations of the Biblical Idea?

In the King James Bible the word Omnipotent occurs only once in Revelation 19:6 where it is used to translate the Greek word Pantokrator which everywhere else it appears gets translated Almighty.

Pantokrator does indeed come from combining a Greek word that means “all” with a Greek word sometimes translated “Power”.  But Kratos is also the root of the last part of words like Demokratia/Democracy.  It means Power in the sense of Ruling Authority not in the sense of your Power Level in a Video Game.  An absolute Dictator still can’t defy the laws of physics in his domain.

The Theology of the Ancient Stoics is often defined as not believing in Omnipotence as we’d define it today but some Stoics did use Pantokrator.  The Bible definitely does teach Omniscience (God knows the End from the Beginning) and Omnipresence which are also doctrines it has in common with Stoic Theology in contrast to Platonism.

Universal Salvation alone does not solve the Problem of Evil, many people still have a problem with the need for Salvation in the first place if God is both All Good and All Powerful.

There are two usual methods of trying to reconcile the existence of Evil with Omnipotence.

First would be that it’s about respecting Human Free Will.  But as I’ve already discussed on this Blog the idea that Humans ever truly Choose Evil is one I Biblically reject.

Second is arguing that it's about Creation still being a work in progress, the Evil and Suffering in the world now is the beating the clay into shape or some such allegory.  I have some sympathy for this approach since I think it's partly true even without the doctrine of Omnipotence, much less the popular understanding of it.  But taken on its own, it starts to remind me of how some Anime Villains justify themselves, like Izaya in Durarara which I recently watched.

But you may ask “how can we have Faith in Universal Salvation without Omnipotence?”.  

My Faith is first and foremost in the Character of God, I don’t believe God makes any Promise there’s any chance He could fail to keep, and I firmly believe He’s promised to Save Everyone.

The actual meaning of Pantoktrator combined with Omniscience and Omnipresence gives God more than enough tools to accomplish Universal Salvation.

Ignatius of Antioch was not an Apostolic Father

A tradition developed that Ignatius was another student of John alongside Polycarp and Papias.  But Papias doesn't mention Ignatius, Polycarp does mention someone by that name but not as a fellow student of the same teacher.  Nor does Ignatius in his seven authentic letters ever claim to be a student of John or to have a shared mentor with Polycarp.  Polycrates's letter defending Quartodecimanism doesn't mention Ignatius either.

The oldest surviving sources on Polycarp being a student of John are Irenaeus of Lyon (who is considered a student of Polycarp) and Tertullian of Carthage.  Neither of them says anything about Ignatius being a student of John or even mention him by that name at all.  Irenaeus does seem to quote an Ignatian letter once without naming who he's quoting.  (I now believe the John who Polycarp and Papias knew was not the son of Zebedee, but that's another topic.)

The teachings of these letters seem to me to be a clear product of the increasing Platonist influence on the early Church that in my view largely started following the death of Plutarch but even more so during the reign of Hadrian.

I have also come to agree with the theory that Ignatius of Antioch was the same person as Peregrinus Proteus.  Now this idea is usually promoted online by Atheists or others who believe a lot of other things about Early Christian History I don't agree with, but that's fine.  This website is one example.

https://vridar.org/other-authors/roger-parvus-letters-supposedly-written-by-ignatius/

Now I don't agree with everything about their particular way of arguing this theory.  I'm a lot less interested in arguing the Ignatian letters have been changed from their original form.  I believe the letter to the Romans is even in the text as we have it not actually claiming Ignatius is being taken to Rome, that's a misunderstanding of what it says.  I also disagree with their conclusion that Ignatius is an Apellean.  The aspects of the letters that lend themselves to seeing similarities to Marcion, Apelles or others called Gnostics are a product of Middle Platonist and/or Neopythagorean influence that started to increase in the Early Church in the mid 2nd Century.

I do agree on the mid 140s probably being when the letters were written and with the Philo mentioned in the letters possibly being Theophilus of Antioch who is often considered the first to explicitly teach Creation ex Nihilo.

Tatian and Athenagoras each referred to Peregrinus very negatively and Tertullian is a bit more sympathetic but still acknowledging he was an Apostate.  None of these three ever quote the Ignatian letters.  

Here is a list of similarities I'm going to copy/paste from one of virdar's articles.

• Both are prominent Christian leaders in the same part of the world and were active at about the same time, the second quarter of the second century.

• Both are reputed to be prophets. Peregrinus “had become their prophet, cult-leader, head of synagogue, and what not, all by himself.” The author of the letters claims to have spoken “with the voice of God” (IgnPhil. 3:1) and to receive revelations from the Lord (IgnEph. 20:2).
  • It is sometimes thought that Lucian made a mistake in saying that Peregrinus was head of a ‘synagogue.’ But that word means ‘assembly’ and the author of the letter uses it too to tell his readers to assemble more frequently: “Let synagogues be held more often” (IgnPoly. 6:2.)

• Both figures are associated with a convocation of Christians that drew participants “even from the cities in Asia.”

• Both wrote treatises and last-will type letters of advice and rulings. Peregrinus “sent letters to just about all the important towns, a sort of last will and testament, with advice and rulings… ” This description is an equally apt way to describe the letter collection.

• Both figures conferred titles on their messengers. Peregrinus called them “Death’s Messengers” and “Couriers of the Grave.” The author of the letters called his “God’s Ambassadors” and “Couriers of God.”

• Both figures display an unusual interest in taking on additional names. Peregrinus liked to call himself ‘Proteus’ (TDOP 1) and, later, Phoenix (TDOP 27), while the author of the letters is careful in all seven of them to refer to himself as “Ignatius who is also Theophorus.”

• Both figures have a remarkably similar death wish and loudly profess their desire for martyrdom. Peregrinus, while he was a Christian, wanted to “gladly die in order that he might leave behind him a reputation for it.” Later, after he became a Cynic, he longed “to die like Heracles, and dissolve into thin air.” Compare this to the author of the letters’ longing “to be an imitator of the passion of my God” (IgnRom. 6:3) and “to be visible to the world no more” (IgnRom. 3:2). Notice how in both cases the desire to imitate God is expressed. And in one instance we have total consumption by wild beasts, and in the other total consumption by fire. Do we not seem to be dealing with the same person whose mindset, despite a change of religious affiliation, remained basically the same? Earlier in life he wanted to die suffering like Christ; later, after a transfer of allegiance, he wanted to die like Heracles?

• Access to both prisoners by their religious supporters seems unusually easy. Peregrinus’ supporters “even slept inside with him after bribing the guards. Then elaborate meals were brought in, and sacred books of theirs were read aloud.” (TDOP 12, Harmon). Similarly, the author of the letters has no problem meeting with the Christian delegations that come to see him. He even asks the Ephesians to let one of their number – a deacon named Burrhus – stay on with him to keep him company (IgnEph. 2;1). When he writes to the Philadelphians he has with him a deacon named Philo “ministering to him in the word of God.” (IgnPhil. 11:1). And when he says his guards “are treated well” (IgnRom. 5:1) the reference is apparently to bribes.

• And both figures have a friend with a similar name. Peregrinus, while still a Christian, began to dress like a Cynic, and when he finally was expelled by the Christians he took up Cynicism under the guidance of someone named Agathobulus. The author of the letter collection too knows someone with a name like that: Agathop(o)us. And his description of him as a man “who has renounced this life” (IgnPhil. 11:1) has a Cynic-like ring to it. If Ignatius is Peregrinus, it may be that his Cynic friend too abandoned Christianity when Peregrinus was shown the door.

I find it odd that they mention Peregrinus liking to use multiple names but are still inclined to assume the name Ignatius came later.  I suspect the names he used in these letters were names mainly other Christians knew him by and that the names Lucian primarily used came from his later time as a Cynic.

I also find it interesting that they fail to notice Ignatius's role in popularizing Episcopal Polity as itself another reason to identify him with Peregrinus.  Because Lucian's account does stress that Peregrinus became a leader of the Christians claiming more authority for his office then any prior leader since Jesus Himself.

11.    "It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine.   And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He inter preted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom¹¹ they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

So that should show how sus Episcopal Polity always was.  (Also note that Lucian doesn't question the existence of Jesus.)  

Kenneth A Strand wrote some articles theorizing about the origins of Episcopal Polity that I find useful but I disagree with some of his conclusions.  Even if the Angels of the Churches in Revelation are human members of those Churches that doesn't mean they had Episcopal Polity already just that they served the role of Messager.  

And his argument that the Churches Ignatius is stressing Episcopal Polity to in his letters to them were the ones that already had it I think is a mistake, in my view it's if anything the opposite, I think Ignatius was arguing for it to the Communities most strongly resisting it.  For example we know from Polycarp's own surviving Epistle that he was merely one among a group of Bishops/Elders at Smyrna.  Also later Church Historians like Eusebius couldn't even construct an imagined pre-Nicene line of Bishops for Philadelphia so I feel Philadelphia never became Episcopal till the Fourth Century.  Clement of Rome's authentic episode is evidence that Rome had Episcopal pretty early, as do traditions surrounding Hyginus.

Ignatius's Episcopal Polity is probably itself another Platonist influence, Plato argues for Monarchy being the ideal form of Government in both The Statesman and The Republic.  Plutarch was also strongly Anti-Democratic and he was a big influence on Second Century Platonism.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Tatian were the three earliest Christian to stress Free Will in a way that implies humans become Sinners of their own Free Will, planting the seeds of Pelagianism.  This was another influence from Plutarch who expressed the same Free Will sentiments in his criticism of the Stoics.  For Justin Martyr it also comes up in the context of criticizing the Stoics (these critics of Stoicism overstated how deterministic Stoicism was).  Tatian claimed to be an opponent of all Greek Philosophy including Plato, yet the Theology he developed is virtually indistinguishable from contemporary Middle Platonism.  That's because the Platonist influence on him was indirect with one key middle man being his old mentor Justin.

Peregrinus was excommunicated from the very Syrian Church he had lead, he should not be considered a reliable authority on anything.

Update August 13th 2025: Polycarp's letter mentions the name of Ignatius 4 times. The first of them in 9:1 is among a list of martyrs already passed but the other three in 13:1-2 seem to be to a still living contemporary.  They are I think separate individuals and the latter ones are likely to the author of the Ignatian Epistles.  

It's possible both were Antiochians, I now believe Peter was burned alive in Antioch in AD 67 so Ignatius could be a name multiple Antiochene Christians took as a reference to that.  The first could be the one who's time as a leading Christian at Antioch was 68-107 or 83-115, but the author of the letters who I view as Peregrinus Proteus was most active in the 140s.

Resistibility of Grace

There is a tension in the sentiments I express on this blog, between being sympathetic to Arminianism and wanting to explain why Universal Salvation does not contradict God giving Free Will to Humanity on the one hand, in contrast to my rejection of Existentialist Free Will ideology as a Left Wing Materialist on the other.

The key to resolving this seeming contradiction is how we think about Resistible Grace.  I agree with Arminians, Lutherans and Molinists that many humans who God is actively calling are resisting Him. Bible passages that support that include Luke 13:34, Acts 7:51 and 2 Timothy 3:8.

The verses Calvinists cite to support Irresistible Grace all in my view as a Universal Salvationist refer to how God will ultimately get His way, they do not contradict some people having resisted for their entire mortal lives.

But the difference between me and most who would oppose Calvinism on this point is that I don't think humans resist because of our Free Will, we resist God because of the Sin nature, because of Total Depravity, it effects each of us in different ways so some will be able to overcome it more then others.

There is no Biblical Support for the notion of Free Will as in Man Freely Choosing to be Evil, to me that is an oxymoron, man's nature is to be Good, Sin is a disease interfering with that natural tendency according to Matthew 9:9-12

This bad Free Will ideology did infect the Church early on, being in Justin Martyr, Ignatius and Tatian, it is another influence of the rise of Plutarchian Middle Platonism during the Second Century.

Arminian Universal Salvation

Strictly speaking Universal Salvation is considered a separate position from either Calvinism or Arminianism, that schism that happened among the Dutch Reformed was predicated on both sides assuming not everyone will be saved.

However among modern proponents of Universal Salvation on the Internet who came out of Protestant Denominations, they mostly come out of fairly mainline ones and thus try to sound more Calvinist then they do Arminian, Peter Hiett is explicit that he is a 4 Point Calvinist removing only Limited Atonement, he came out of Presbyterianism.  He refuses to even mention Arminius when talking about his belief in Unlimited Atonement.

For me though there is only one point of Calvinism I kinda do agree with and that's actually the one Arminianism doesn't actually disagree with, Total Depravity.  Unfortunately that is the most easy to strawman/misunderstand of the points of Calvinism because of modern people reading the modern connotations of "depravity" onto this term coined when King James was still on the Throne.  It simply refers to the fact that All Have Sinned, that Sin is a disease we've all been infected with, that it's only possible to follow God if God is calling us via The Holy Spirit.  The difference between what Calvinism believes and what I and Arminians believe on this is simply whether God is calling everyone or only a chosen few.  The Arminian Agreement with Calvinism here is why they aren't Pelegians, Pelegius did deny Total Depravity and was one of the first to condemn Universal Salvation by associating it with Origen.  It's actually not that different from Secular Determinism, meaning I was mostly wrong in the past when I insinuated Arminains would be in agreement with Existentialists.

The other three Articles of Remonstrance vs Points of Calvinism are bound up in how Protestantism has conflated Salvation with other things.  

Elect is just a fancy way of saying Chosen, not every reference to Election in the New Testament is about the same choosing, however I view not one of them as being a reference to Salvation.  I already have a post proving that "the many" can refer to everyone so "Many are called but few are Chosen" only makes sense if the Chosen are those who Choose to answer the Call rather then Refuse it.  They choose to be part of The Kingdom on Earth, to be those proclaiming The Gospel that Death will be swallowed up in Victory.

Grace is resistible during this mortal life but eventually those who resist it now will be Saved regardless because God never gives up, just like an Anime protagonist.

Jesu said "all who Persevere to the end will be saved" in the Olivet Discourse, that people started thinking it was about Eternal Salvation is frankly embarrassing to all sides of the argument.  Regardless I come at this form the perspective of someone who's prior Soteriology was Free Grace Eternal Security.  Now however I do believe there is something a Believer obtains when they place their Faith in Christ that can be lost if they renounce that Faith (I struggle to define what exactly that is however), and I also believe that our Rewards are contingent upon obedience, but Salvation was never contingent upon either Faith or Obedience.  You can't lose something that wasn't your responsibility to begin with.

So in a sense I can claim to agree with Arminius over Calvinists on all Five Articles from a Universal Salvation perspective, and I'm not the first.

First of all there is evidence that Arminius himself was at least an Inclusivist.

https://wesleyanarminian.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/inclusivism-luther-zwingli-and-arminius/

The General Baptists of the early 17th Century were named that primarily after their positron on Atonement.  John Smyth and Thomas Helwys were full Arminians who in the statements of faith they made proclaimed even a belief that Salvation could be lost.  But the larger General Baptist movement did include some who taught Universal Salvation.

According to Thomas Edwards there were even Universalists in John Goodwin's congregation, the leading Arminian Congregationalist.

Ariel Hessayon wrote a thesis you can find online as a PDF called Winstanley and Baptist Thought documenting how certain ideas of Gerrard Winstanley he got from the General Baptists since he had been one for a time.  Winstanley stopped being a Baptist because he decided to stop preforming the ordinances at all for the same reason as The Quakers.  In fact a lot of the early converts to Quakerism came out of the General Baptists.  General Baptist Henry Denne also anticipated the Quaker Inner Light Doctrine.  (18th Century Universalist James Relly also went on to reject the Earthly Sacraments but for some reason was buried in a Baptist Cemetery.)

Sarah Apetrei has written about Universal Salvation being popular among specifically Baptist Women during the English Revolution in her book The Reformation of The Heart: Gender and Radical Theology in The English Revolution.

Amusingly the Baptist Perpetuity Doctrine is today usually taught among Calvinistic Baptists but it is in fact only the General Baptists who can claim a lineage through the Anabaptists and Waldenses, indeed the Anabaptists and Waldenses seem to be who Arminius himself got his Soteriological ideas from.

Another informative PDF is The Baptist Universalist: Elhanan Winchester by Robin Parry.  Winchester was first converted to Credo-Baptism by a Free Will Baptist then backslide into the Calvinism he was raised in for awhile before finally being lead to Universal Salvation mainly by the precedent for it that existed among the "German Baptists" the Schwarzenau Brethren another group descended from the Anabaptists.

John Wesley is considered a type of Arminian, and there is debate about whether or not he became a Universalist soon before he died.  Soren Kierkegaard also developed a very Free Will centric theology but expressed in his private journals a preference for Universal Salvation.

I have prior posts on this blog responding to arguments that Universal Salvation conflicts with God respecting Free Will.  Some Free Gifts can't be rejected.

The Vexations of an Anti-Origen Universalist

I don't have any personal problem with Origen, I'm sure he was a nice guy and a Faithful follower of Jesus.  But as far as internal disagreements between Christians go Universal Salvation is about the only thing I agree with him on.  

He played an important role in the development of so many Middle Platonist/Neopythagorean tendencies that I consider at the root of everything wrong with Mainstream Christianity.  From his weird views on The Resurrection and the Immortality of the Soul to Divine Transcendence and Immutability and Impassability to Asceticism and Puritanical Sexual Morality and Infant Baptism and Free Will and his hyper allegorical approach to Scripture not to mention the Proto-Arianism in his Logos Doctrine founded on the bad Septuagint translation of Proverbs 8:22-25.

I recently purchased A Larger Hope?, Volume 1 by Ilaria L. E. Ramelli off Amazon and found it very frustrating.  I feel it's counterproductive for Universalists to play along with the idea that Origen is the main character in the history of Universalism.  Because if everyone after Origen is getting it directly or indirectly from Origen then that weakens the doctrine, if it all goes back to one guy who was controversial even while he was alive being exiled from Alexandria by it's actual Bishop, that's not a good look.  Not to even mention how that narrative reinforces the Great Man Theory of History.

Even when talking about people before Origen she says it's not "fully developed" yet.  To me the Doctrine of Universal Salvation is fully developed by Scripture itself, it's departing from it that required post Biblical Theological innovations, and the main Pre-Nicene culprits I blame for laying the groundwork are Tatian (who said he was Anti-Plato even though his theology was identical to contemporary Middle Platonism and was Proto-Arian in the same way Origen was) then Tertullian perhaps unintentionally in how he translated some Greek words into Latin and Cyprian of Carthage.  But the different forms of Infernalism are fully developed during the Theodosian era by Augustine of Hippo, Pelagius of Britannia, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria.

What we need to stress is not just that the earliest critics of Origen didn't include his Universalism in their critiques of him but that Methodius of Olympus is even teaching Universal Salvation in the exact same text he wrote to refute Origen On The Resurrection.  If Origen taught Universal Salvation more clearly and explicitly then anyone prior to him, it may be in response to Cyprian being the first to teach that there is no Salvation outside The Church.

Because the thing is those first Theodosian enemies of Universal Salvation were weaponizing the association with Origen from the start, Pelegius explicitly said when defending himself that anyone who accepts a face value reading of Romans 5 is an Origenist and that is why that council exonerated him.  Ironically I feel Arminians should stop embracing Pelegius for the same reasons, the association of Pelegius with Arminianism began as a Calvinist attack on Arminainism.

When Ramelli gets to discussing the Antiochene School even then she still wants to define their Universal Salvation as being argued with arguments similar to Origen's.  But it was that school that was founded on opposition to Origen's influence being the opposite of him in their approach to Scripture, on that issue being even more Anti-Origenist then I am.  That they taught Universal Salvation even more clearly and unambiguously should be the death nail to labeling it as inherently Origenist.

She also began her discussion of Antioch with Diodorus of Tarsus.  Theophilus of Antioch taught Universal Salvation in the 2nd Century and died around the same time Origen was born.  And then there is the representative of Antioch at the Council of Nicaea, Eustathius of Antioch.

Eustathius is one of the least talked about major theologians of who were at Nicaea, and thus his absence from Ramelli's book was one of my major disappointments with it.  The most in-depth discussion of Eustathius I've found was an article titled The Theological Anthropology of Eustathius of Antioch by Sophie Hampshire Cartwright.  Thing is I can't find that PDF simply googling it anymore which is why I'm glad I'd downloaded it.  

This article talks about how firmly Anti-Origen Eustathius was, however my main criticism of it is when it talks about Universal Salvation starting on page 370.  It acknowledges the Universalist implications of a lot of what Eustathius taught, yet insists he ultimately didn't believe in Universal Salvation because he referred to "Aionios Punishments" and "unquenchable fire" even though both those Biblical concept are acknowledged by all Biblical Universalists.  Aionios means "The Age" not Eternal and refers to when the Punishments happen not for how long, the Fire is described as Unquenchable to tell us about the Fire itself not how long anyone will be in it, the Fire is the very presence of God, it is the Baptism of The Holy Spirit.

It also talks about Eustathius as a bit of a Proto-Nestorian showing that his connection to the later Antiochene School isn't just a coincidence of location.

Athanasius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea were both fans of Origen to some extent.  And even Gregory of Nyssa had also probably read Origen. But they were still not following some of his more out there ideas.  

In time the Alexandrians were probably the first in the East to depart from Universal Salvation as we see with Cyril of Alexandria who had at one point thought even Augustine was too merciful.  

And the relationship between Origenism and Caesarea has a nuance I feel many overlook.  Theophilus of Caesarea was the teacher of Clement same as Clement was the teacher of Origen, so they could have got it from Caesarea rather then the other way around, then awkwardly mixed it with their Platonism which was very native to Alexandria.

It is I suppose also important to me to stress that Origen's belief in Universal Restoration was in-spite of his interest in Platonism not because of it.  The traditional view of Hell is another mainstream Christian Doctrine that comes from Platonism not Scripture being taught in Gorgias.  Plato may not have meant it to be taken literally, but Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism were all about taking Plato literally and nothing else.

But the final act of my rant here shall be about what Salvation even is to Origen.  

Origen's Salvation involves everything becoming one with God in a way that implies a loss of individuality.  It likely has it's Biblical roots in Ecclesiastes 12:7, but that verse is about what happens at physical death, Christians who have a proper Understanding of The Resurrection believe that is undone at The Resurrection, to Origen however it seems that Resurrection is only a step in making that happen.  The only time Origen's ideas resemble Stoicism is the one aspect of Stoic Metaphysics I consider incompatible with The Bible.

What Origen believed about the ultimate destiny of every Human Soul doesn't sound like Salvation to me at all, it sounds like the Human Instrumentality Project.... and that's the real reason I hate Origenism so much, talking about it causes me to make a Neon Genesis Evangelion reference.

The Gospel is the Bodily Resurrection, that we all live Forever with God in a perfectly restored but still Material and Physical Universe.

Forgivness explained

In recent years there's been a growing trend among certain Social Justice inclined Leftists on YouTube and elsewhere to say that society's overvaluing of Forgiveness is bad actually, especially the Christian value of it being a moral failing not to Forgive.

The first problem is that the word "forgive" itself is another one of those words used in English Bibles that was still an accurate translation in 1611 but in how it's usage has evolved has become misunderstood.

The expression "forgive and forget" is often said with the implication that the former can't be done without also doing the latter, but that is not what Biblical Forgiveness is.  In The Bible only God is said to Forgive and Forget in Jeremiah 31:34 "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more." and Hebrew 8:12 "For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." and also 10:17, but that is ultimately Eschatological, it's about how things will be when the very existence of Sin has been eliminated.

The word "forgive" is an economic term in origin, to forgive a debt is to relinquish any expectation or even desire to be repaid.  And The Bible especially The New Testament's discussions of the concept are explicitly linked to that economic understanding, the "Parable of the unforgiving servant" in Matthew 18:21-35 is textually entirely about debt forgiveness, it's relevance to moral forgiveness is the metaphor.  That's why "earned" forgiveness is any oxymoron, if they somehow actually made up for what they did (which is usually not possible) then in this analogy they repaid the debt, no forgiveness is necessary.

Forgiving someone doesn't mean trusting a person who's proven themselves untrustworthy, or acting like nothing happened.  And Forgiving an abuser doesn't mean staying in or returning to a relationship with them.

The New Testament's emphasis on Forgiveness is entirely about rejecting Retributive/Punitive Justice.  And so this post is not me saying this common SJW position on forgiveness is actually perfectly compatible with Scripture, because these people mostly are in favor of Retributive Justice, even if they say they are not, you can say you prefer "Restorative Justice" all you want but if you have the attitude that it's a horrible injustice for a person not to be "punished" even though punishing them will not actually undo any of the harm they did, that's retributive justice.

But I'm not done yet talking about areas where I'm on their side of this issue.  One of the few morals common in Anime I don't like is how some seem to say children always owe something to their parents no matter how abusive and/or neglectful they were, this is part of joyce-stick's problem with the Mahou Shoujo Site Manga (the Anime hasn't gotten that far), and it bugged me in Clannad After Story.  On the blog that is primarily me talking about Anime I did a psot on After Story before I'd finished it appreciating it's found family element with an MC who's biological father was a drunken neglectful failure finding a surrogate father in Nagisa's father.  The problem is the show later devotes an arc to him reconciling with his father and even goes so far as tell him he did nothing wrong.

And I know a lot of Christians think this sense of unconditional loyalty to a sperm donor is Biblical because of the Fifth Commandment.  But in my opinion one has to do more then give birth to you and let you live in their house till a certain age to be worthy of the title of Father or Mother.  The New Testament is all about how true Family has nothing to do with biological relation.  So you can forgive a bad parent in the proper understanding of forgiveness I laid out above, but to "Honor" them as your Mother or Father when they weren't one would actually violate the Fifth Commandment by diminishing that Honor.

The Biblical understanding of Forgiveness and Atonement and Redemption is also easier to understand when you properly understand what Sin means and the materialist understanding that no one is entirely responsible for their own actions.

There is also the Psychological fact that for many people forgiving someone was good for their own mental health, finally being able to do it felt like a burden being removed.  The Bible even applies this to God Forgiving us in Isaiah 43:25 "I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins".

I guess it's time to get into how this ties into the discourse surrounding Redemption narratives in fiction.  One fairly well known Video Essay on the topic I can't remember the name of right now talks about a distinction between passive redemption and active atonement, being redeemed vs redeeming themselves, the former is as they acknowledge what The Christian Gospel is about but the latter is what she prefers.  The thing is this preference for "earned" redemption is a form of Meritocracy, a key pillar of the justifying ideology of Capitalism.

That video was cited in a Sailor Moon Video that's not watchable anymore because of Toei's incomprehensible copyright standards, I'm pretty sure it was a Unicorn of War video but I could be remembering that wrong.  It was about The Blaok Moon Saga of Sailor Moon and comparing different versions of it.  Now for this saga I am mostly in agreement that the 90s Anime version was a failure.  But this issue came up in the context of how they don't like the redemption of the Spectre Sister because it's passive redemption, and their redemption arc is one of the few aspects of the 90s Anime version I like.  Now in fairness the 3 episodes that cover their redemptions are not all equal, the forcing Calaveras and Petz to share the same spotlight episode again was ill advised, and Bertheir's felt uninspired.  But the Koan episode is one of my favorite episodes of the series and like most good episodes during this saga was written by Katsuyuki Sumisaya.

Ya know how there was this variation of Universal Salvation that framed it as those in Gehenna being let out when the Saints themselves ask Jesus to show Mercy?  Augustine alludes to it in City of God as the second most popular soteriology he doesn't like, and it's the form presented in the Apocalypse of Peter.  Well the Koan redemption episode of Sailor Moon really works as an analogy to that version of Universal Salvation.

Now there are many variations on this anti-Forgiveness attitude out there.  Lily Orchard is not representative of most, but I feel I have to bring her up because she's the most extreme, she is very vocally Revenge is Good actually and it's kind of insane to see a supposed Leftist being this in love with Retributive Justice, she kind of just debunks her own worldview by actually saying it out loud.

Free Will and Personal Moral Responsibility.

On the issue of Free Will vs Determinism I am a type of Compatibilist, I reject hopeless Fatalism but also believe there are enough mitigating factors in the world to render no one truly ultimately fully responsible for their own actions.

My perspective on this has changed some but this is no complete reversal of any prior post I've made on the subject.  This is somewhat true of me in the past but it's especially true going forward that when I seem to speaking as a pro Free Will person I'm speaking agaisnt Calvinist Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace or Augustinian Original Sin or the Reprobate Doctrine as it is taught by some Arminians.  And I've also argued against Free Will being inherently incompatible with Universal Salvation.

However when I seem to be anti Free Will I am advocating a form of Determinism not Calvinist Predestination.  Determinism is what any Atheist who says they reject Free Will is talking about, but it's not only Atheists, if you're any type of Materialist then you're also some type of Determinist.

Determinism has unfortunately become a contentious topic among many people it shouldn't be.  Much of what I'm arguing in this post is controversial not just among my fellow Christians regardless of their politics but also among fellow Leftist regardless of their religious affiliation.

For example some Leftists think because we reject Scientific Racism and Eugenics then we should also reject any conception of "Biological Determinism" or inheritable traits.  The specific claims of those pseudo sciences are both factually wrong and morally repugnant.  But it's still true that we are the way we are in part because of how are brains are wired.  And acknowledgment of those factors should be a cause for sympathy and understanding not a justification for hate and discrimination.

Here's one good YouTube video on Determinism, but it is by someone not as Left Wing as I am and probably not as Compatibilist either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0GN4urbA_c

And all of that is just one aspect of Determinism, we Leftists also care about Historical Materialism, Material Conditions and Systemic Oppression and so on.  

As a Christian Compatibilist it is my position that when people do good they are by the Grace of God acting in their own Free Will.  But when they do Evil it is them falling victim to their conditions in some way.  That is equally as true of both the morally best people who've ever lived as it is of the morally worst.

To many in the Ancient World including Socrates and I firmly believe every author of the New Testament, it was oxymoronic to even consider debating if a evil act someone committed was or wasn't committed by their own free will because they believed Humans are innately Good and so any Evil deed one commits is by definition a deviation of their true nature and not something they could have possibly done of their own free will.  

To Socrates it seems it is chiefly Ignorance that is to Blame, and that can be supported by what Jesus said on The Cross "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".  But also when Jesus called Matthew and some objected He said that Sinners are sick people who need a doctor not criminals who need punishment, so that implies other factors as well.  

Mark 7:11 and John 8:31-36 talk about Jesus making us Free, as does Romans 8 verses 2 and 32 and Galatians 5.  Grace is spoken of as a Free Gift by Paul because we don't have to pay anything for it, it is given to everyone, permission is not asked.  The only NT verses that seem to truly speak of metaphysical Free Will are in Revelation 21-22 in the New Heaven and New Earth.

In Ancient Greek Gentile schools of Philosophy it is surprisingly only Atheist Determinism I can't find.  The Epicureans were Atheist Existentialists and Objectivists, the Stoics were Compatibilists but often seen by their Platonist rivals as more Determinist, the only hard Determinist was Aristotle who basically invented Deism.  And the Theistic Existentialists were the Middle Platonists like Plutarch who wrote against the Determinism of the Stoics.

In Josephus's descriptions of The Sects of First Century Judaism, the Essenes seem like Middle Platonists or Neopythagoreans on everything but their position on Fate vs Free Will, while the Sadducees seem like Aristotleans on everything but Fate vs Free Will.  It looks like Greco-Roman era Jews for some reason swapped that one part of those two ways of thinking.  However the Pharisees out of whom came the Zealots and Early Christians seemed to agree with the Stoics on both Fate vs Free Will and other metaphysical issues, the Stoics merely lacked knowledge of The Resurrection.

Pelagianism is a trend in Christianity that already existed before the person for whom it is named (in Early Arianism it's shown how the Arians were proto Pelagians).  That trend is the bizarre notion that it's because Humans are innately Good being made in the Image of God and given Life by the Breath of God that we are supposed to believe in Absolute Free Will and that each human is personally responsible for their moral failings.  It's actually absurd to believe those two things at the same time, but because Augustine normalized The Latin Church taking the exact opposite position on both those things Christians were conditioned to think they go together.

However I feel a lot of modern Internet SJWs are basically Secular Pelagians.  They claim to believe in the innate goodness of Humanity at least when they're refuting the Authoritarian Philosophy of Thomas Hobbes.  But then turn around and are very against allowing "excuses" for the people they consider evil.

Like for example the notion that suggesting someone's Mental Illness or Trauma was even partly to blame for their wrongdoings is offensive to the people with the same issues who didn't do anything like similar.  And I wish they could see how that same Logic is applied to Economics by the Right.  Conservatives who keep thinking they can refute everything about how inherently unfair our current system is by pointing to "Rags to riches" stories of people who succeeded in-spite of their disadvantages.  And we correctly explain how that probably had as much or more to do with Luck then it does Merit.

Instead of jumping to call it Ableist to suggest that Crimes are a result of Mental Illness we should start considering that there is no such thing as a person not Mentally Ill, we just haven't diagnosed all the illnesses we have yet.

But another factor is how many of them have the same Vengeful Emotional Desire for Retributive Justice that leads to Conservatives attacking Democrats for being Soft on Crime have, simply directed agaisnt "The Nazis".  And make no mistake it is better to direct your desire for Righteous Vengeance agaisnt those with real Power, but at the end of the day it's still an unhealthy mindset.

We should be seeking to dismantle our current Criminal Justice System entirely, not redirect it.

Too many of the people who've figured out how Evil Capitalism is, are still buying into parts of it's justifying ideology.  Meritocracy, Individualism and Personal Accountability are all vital fundamentally linked to each other pillars of neoliberal ideology, believing in one of them will always eventually lead to the others.

In Platonist Philosophy 80- BC to AD 250 by George Boys-Stones chapter 12 talks about how the Middle Platonists and Stoics disagreed on Free Will, it's not prefect as the author seems to be on the Platonist side in this chapter.  He notes how the Platonists didn't even believe God is All Knowing, so even Bible Verses on God knowing the End from the Beginning (like Isaiah 46:9-11) make it more compatible with Stoicism then Platonism.

He says one of the problems with Stoicism is that it "removed moral responsibility" and doesn't explain why that's a problem, that conclusion is as an argument itself.   It reminds me of In Praise of Shadow's YT video on Lovecraft, after an hour of basically utterly debunking the notion that Lovecraft had Free Will he suddenly asserts that "he chose" to be a Racist.  Personal Moral Responsibility is such a given in our Capitalist Society that even many who say they oppose Capitalism refuse to question it.

Update April 2023: I've since learned that most Epicureans were not strictly Atheists but just as Deist as Aristotle.  So the Sadducees can then be viewed as Jewish Epicureans.  

The Essenes I think were ultimately more Pythagorean then Platonist and so that could explain why they had such a different position on Free Will from Middle Platonists.  

The Sects of First Century Judaism

This is what Josephus has to say in Antiquities of the Jews Book 18 Chapter 1.

2. The Jews had, for a great while, had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves. The sect of the Essens; and the sect of the Sadducees; and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees. Of which sects although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish war;¹ yet will I a little touch upon them now.

3. Now for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the contract of reason: and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do: and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years: nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced. And when they determine that all things are done by fate,² they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit: since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament; whereby what he wills is done; but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. They also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them: and that under the earth there will be rewards, or punishments; according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life: and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison; but that the former shall have power to revive and live again. On account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people: and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction. Insomuch, that the cities give great attestations to them, on account of their intire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives, and their discourses also.

4. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this; that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them. For they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent. But this doctrine is received but by a few: yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves. For when they become magistrates; as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be; they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees: because the multitude would not otherwise bear them.

5. The doctrine of the Essens is this; that all things are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls: and esteem that the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for. And when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices: (3) because they have more pure lustrations of their own. On which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple: but offer their sacrifices themselves. Yet is their course of life better than that of other men; and they intirely addict themselves to husbandry. It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness: and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor Barbarians, no not for a little time: so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common: so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth, than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way: and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants: as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust; and the former gives the handle to domestick quarrels. But as they live by themselves, they minister one to another. They also appoint certain stewards to receive the incomes of their revenues, and of the fruits of the ground; such as are good men, and priests: who are to get their corn, and their food ready for them. They none of them differ from others of the Essens in their way of living: but do the most resemble those Dacæ, who are called Polistæ. [Dwellers in cities.] (4)

6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaick notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty; and say that God is to be their only ruler and lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death; nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends: nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immoveable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no farther about that matter. Nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved: but rather fear that what I have said is beneath the resolution they shew when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus’s time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper; who was our procurator; and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it, by the abuse of his authority; and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy.

Based on the Metaphysics it's clear that the sect of Judaism to which the Early Christians at least nominally belonged was basically the Pharisees.  That can be difficult for a moderner to wrap their head around given how much the word "Pharisee" is colloquially treated as synonymous with being the "Bad Guys" of the Gospels.

Often people who clearly qualify as Christians but exist outside the mainstream will simply refer to what they oppose as "Christianity", I personally try not to do that even though I have greater disagreement with the mainstream Church then some who do, but it is a thing.  

Josephus also tells us here that most of the common people were basically with the Pharisees, so those mass crowds of people Jesus attracted must have been made up of lots of Pharisees. And then Josephus suggests a lot of people in positions of power were really Sadducees merely pretending to follow the popular religion.

There are hints in The Gospel narrative itself that Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees are really criticisms from within directed at their leadership.  

In the first three verses of Matthew 23 Jesus tells us two things about the leaders of the Pharisees.  The seat they sit in makes them legitimate heirs of Moses, this to me confirms that the Sanhedrin of the Greco-Roman period as an institution does have unbroken continuity with the Council of Seventy Elders ordained in Numbers 11:16-25.  

The other appears to be that what they preach is correct, they simply don't practice what they preach.  Other things Jesus says about them may seem inconsistent with that, seem absolutely about what they teach.  But I think "from a certain point of view" how you practice what you preach can include how you teach it and interpret it.  The point is Jesus couldn't have said that if He disagreed with the core definition of being a Pharisee.

Luke 7:36-50 features a Pharisee named Simon who Jesus is on pretty good terms with.

In Acts 23:6 Paul identifies himself as still a Pharisee on simply the grounds that He believes in The Resurrection of The Dead.  So likewise all of Christianity can claim the same.

According to the timeline that can be inferred from The Talmud, Shammai was head of the Sanhedrin from about 20-30 AD.  Some have observed similarities between the teachings of Jesus and Hillel the Elder, the head of the School that Shammai opposed.  This particular internal disagreement within the Pharisees doesn't come up in Josephus, possibly because in his time the Shammai school was already mostly defunct.  But the time period I and many others place the ministry of Jesus is at the height of Shammai's influence, so the Pharisees who are the bad guys of the Gospels could be mainly him and his followers.  I do think certain people online overstate the similarities between Jesus teachings and Hillel's to suit various misguided agendas of their own.  But it's interesting because modern Rabbinic Judaism also descends not only from the Pharisees but specifically Hillel's school.  Perhaps Shammai should have filled the role of the made up Zerah (played by Ian Holm) in the 70s Jesus of Nazareth miniseries.

However even in Josephus's brief description of the Pharisees there is at least one apparent disagreement with The New Testament view of The Resurrection, and that's how it seems ONLY the "Righteous" will be Resurrected.  1 Corinthians 15,  Acts 24:15, Revelation 20 and Jesus in John 5:28-29 are all clear that everyone no exceptions will rise again., and The Hebrew Bible agrees with the NT on this in Daniel 12.  Now as a proponent of Universal Salvation I disagree with most mainstream Christians on exactly what it means that the unjust will face "Judgment" after their Resurrection, but we do all still agree that they will also rise again to a literal bodily Resurrection.

And that last point is key to why I wanted to discus the Doctrine of the Resurrection in the context of 1st Century Judaism.  Some people try really hard to abuse certain details of 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 to suggest Paul and other NT writers must mean by "Resurrection" something that is actually functionally the same as what either the Essenes (we live forever as immortal souls without a body) or Sadducees (no real after life at all) believed.  However we see here that people who believed those kinds of things in first century Judaism didn't use the language of Resurrection, so it's silly to think Paul or Peter or Jesus would if that's what they meant.

Another interesting observation I can make from Josephus's description is how there was a familiar debate about Human Free Will vs Divine Sovereignty.  With the Essenes being like Augustine and the Calvinists, while the Sadducees were more like Pelegius or the Arminians.  The Pharisees however have a more nuanced take on that tension that again I feel is closer to what The New Testament is actually saying, but could also be compared to the Stoic position on Free Will vs Fate in Greek Philosophy.  I also feel like the Sadducees are functionally Deists, what we today call Deism began in Greek Philosophy with Aristotle and then the Epicureans.

Many people want to connect the Essenes to the origins of Christianity based on their practicing a voluntary communalism similar to the Early Church in Acts.  But they did it for a different reason, they had inherited a Pythagorean notion of the Immortality of The Soul, and indeed Classical Pagan Pythagoreans also practiced a sort of Voluntary Communalism, but for both it was about viewing the physical world as a Prison they seek liberation from.  Early Christians lived this way to be a light within the world and salt of the earth.  The Early Christians were true Communists, the Pythagoreans were more like Strasserists or NazBols, they were in bed with totalitarian governments in Samos and Crotone, and likewise I have argued that those Josephus called Essenes were those Matthew 22 called Herodians.  Philo's description of the Essenes also repeats that they had the support of many "Great Kings".  I've also talked about the Pythagorean role in the origins of Puritanical Sexual Morality, and the Essenes seem to have been the same way on that too, as well as their Misogyny, I think the Essenes were basically Herod's Proud Boys.  The Zealots were the Revolutionary Anarchists, and they were also originally a sect of the Pharisees.

Update: Of course much Confusion about the Essenes exists because of how they are conflated with the Dead Sea Scrolls.  Many have questioned that connection for reasons that have little to do with why I'm skeptical of it.

I partly reject it, I don't think the Scrolls all have a common origin.  Even if they did all come from that one settlement called Qumran, maybe the assumption everyone living there was all of the same sect is wrong.  Some Scrolls do seem fairly consistent with how Josephus described the Essenes, but other Scrolls mention the Resurrection, and also clearly have an interest in Eschatology and The Messiah.

Roman A. Montero in All Things In Common says the Pythagoreans weren't like the Essenes or Early Christians because they weren't Messianic or Apocalyptic.  But the thing is from what Josephus tells us, Eschatology was inherently the purview of the Pharisees, people with Essene or Sadducee views on the After Life would be just as uninterested in the Future as most Pagan Greeks were.  He also mentions how the Pythagoreans were a purely upper class phenomena, and again based on the Herodian connection I think the real Essenes were too.  It's possible at Qumran the Essenes were the Bourgeoisie who owned the place while the Pharisees were the Proletariat.

Update: "Everlasting Prison".

The "everlasting prison" in the above translation of Josephus's description of the After Life view of the Pharisees might in some other translations read "eternal prison".  In this case Eternal/Everlasting is Aidios which in a real sense does mean that, not Aionios which never actually means that.

Some of my Universal Salvation allies make much out of the Pharisees here using different language then Jesus who used Aionios and not that particular word for "prison" either, saying Jesus would have used the same word if He also meant a punishment with no end.  But I feel we overstate our case on that one a bit.

First of all Jesus was not speaking in Greek, and what ever main doctrinal statements the Pharisees had that Josephus got this from probably weren't in Greek either, they were either Hebrew or Aramaic. I am also with those who believe Matthew's Gospel was originally written in one of those languages not Greek.  The possibility that Josephus and the New Testament are sometimes translating the same Semitic expression into Greek differently can't be ruled out.

However even the Greek words in question can have nuance to how they are used.  Jude used "Aidios chains" to describe an imprisonment that is clearly defined as having an end.  And in my view those Angels are not Supernatural Angels but those who were swallowed up by the earth with Korah and Dathan.  So the Prison in the Pharisees eschatology could be Aidios in the same way Jude's chains are.

Maybe my prior assumption that Josephus or the Pharisees he got that from were absolutely precluding the Unrighteous from future Resurrection was mistaken.  Maybe the contrasting language there is like those Bible Verses that seemingly contrast "Life" and "Judgment" at the Resurrection. The Pharisees Jesus was most often in conflict with certainly seem like the kinds of people who wouldn't like Universal Salvation.  But I doubt the very idea was inherently unheard of in Pharisee circles.

In Josephus's description of the Zealots when he says they refuse to "call any man lord" for God is their only Lord, I do think that is a different Greek translation of the same sentiment Jesus expressed in Matthew 23:8-10, one says "Master" the other says "Lord" but the gist of meaning is the same.  

Usually when someone suggests Jesus and the Early Christians were Zealots it goes hand in hand with saying the Pacifist parts of His teachings were a later Romanized white washing.  However I have come to see the Zealot movement as like the Anabaptists of the 16th Century and Secular Anarchists of modern history (and Petr Chelčický could be considered the Pacifist Taborite), they included Violent Rebels like Thomas Muntzer, absolute Pacifist Separatists like those the Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish descend from, and many gradients in-between.  With the reputation of the violent rebels often used to justify not believing the pacifists when they claim to be non-violent.

Existentialism is basically Atheistic Arminianism

I'm not going to similarly compare any secular Determinist Philosophy to Calvanism because what being Predetermined means is fundamentally different under an Atheist model.

But the way Existentialism stresses Free Will while molding Morality around that concept makes a fascinating comparison to Arminianism.

The Passion of The Nerd's videos about Buffy The Vampire Slayer on YouTube often stress Whedon's Existentialism, the main introduction to the subject is in the video on Lie To Me (Season 2 Episode 7).  I also watched a video about Man of Steel being Existentialist, I think that was on VIMEO.  There is also a YouTube video on Batman and Existentialism.

One of the things about how this applies to Buffy is that it often manifests in villains denying their Free Will, saying they didn't have a choice but the moral judgment of the story rejects that excuse insisting they did.  This is why I'm pretty sure Peter Coffin is not an Existentialist, he rejects that doctrine of personal accountability considering it inherently Capitalistic.

I'm pretty sure this is the basic moral outlook of a lot of people making media analysis and critique on YouTube whether they'd know to use the term or not.  I say this because that's clearly the frame work of feeling Kylo Ren was somehow beyond redemption after The Last Jedi, that once he chose to continue on The Dark Side after no longer having Snoke's manipulations as an excuse he crossed a line that you shouldn't be able to come back from.

That is basically exactly how Arminian Christians justify their Reprobate doctrine, like the Pastor I do not like to name.  That Pastor doesn't consider himself an Arminian but he's a non Calvinist who believes Hell is endless torment, broadly speaking that makes you Arminian whether you agree with every detail of an Amrminian Confession or not.  He argues that once a person rejects the Gospel after fully understanding it, having no more excuses, they become no longer eligible for Salvation, and things like Homosexuality are evidence of being such a Reprobate and thus he calls for them to be executed by the government.  Now most Arminians do not go to that extreme, but the gist of it is the same.

I also believe in Free Will in a sense, that's why I'm not a Calvanist, not even one single point.  However no one in the Ancient World defined Free Will how we do today.  The Ancient understanding was that Sin was man's natural state, and it was only through Divine Grace man ever has the Freedom to not Sin.

In a way that makes my Christianity in agreement with Nhilism, which sees that many factors of the natural world make it impossible to truly hold anyone entirely responsible for their bad choices (this is something Digibro has ranted about).  It's just that Christians unlike Atheist Nihilists believe we have a Savior who has come to give us True Freedom.

Matthew 9:10-13 tells us to view Sin as an illness that needs healing, not a choice that needs to be punished.  And that is why I agree with Brad Jersak, as well as Thought Slime.

Monothelitism and the Sixth Ecumenical Council

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, also known as the Third Council of Constantinople, condemns two "heresies", Monoenergism and Monothelitism, and in turn affirmed Duoenergism and Duothelitism.  In laymen's terms, they decided that Christ had two Energies (Divien and Human) and two Wills (Divine and Human), and condemned teaching He had only one of either of those.

This is probably the least talked about of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.  The first two are about the beginning of Christianity as the mainstream religion of Western Civilization and a State Religion, the next two are about Schisms that still exist to this day.  The fifth exists in the context of those schisms and the internet's favorite Byzantine Emperor and is often alleged to be relevant to the debate about Universal Salvation. And the Seventh and Final one is a dispute the protestant reformation reignited.  However the sixth is about things modern English speakers have trouble even comprehending what they're talking about.

It seems people who do comment on it feel this decision was the logical follow up to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon, where it was decided Christ had two Natures (Divine and Human).  However the Calcedonian Definition also says Christ is one "Person", as in "Personality". indeed Chalcedonians and Miaphysites base their condemnation of Nestorious and Theodore of Mopsuesta on the accusation that they split Jesus' Person in two, that accusation however is false.

While it might be correct to assume one's position on Christ's "Energy" should be the same as His Nature (I have no idea what "Energy" even means in this context).  I feel one's "Will" is definitely part of their Person not their Nature.

Both these controversies had their origins during the reign of Heraclius and his Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius.  Monoenergism came first, and indeed when arguing for it Sergius added that "the doctrine of two energies could lead to the erroneous belief that Jesus has two conflicting wills".[9] Suggesting that the default position before anyone disputed it was Jesus having One Will.

I stumbled upon an Orthodox Blog insinuating that Calvinism basically teaches a form of Monothelitism (while assuming it's condemnation as Heresy was valid).  However I feel both Calvinism and Arminianism are founded upon an erroneous assumption that Divine and Human Will conflict with each other, and only disagree on which Will prevails in the end.

In my view Jesus has One Will, that All shall be Saved.

Update November 2019: Energy or Action?

Doing some more reading on this I've seen "Energy" in reference to this dispute being alternatively translated "activity" or "operation".  As if while one issue is about Christ's Will, the other is about how He Acts on said Will.

If that's what it's about then I definitely feel I should take the same stance on Monoenergism as I do on Monotheletism.  Like Duoenergism is how Arminians can agree with me that God Wills everyone to be saved but can still act in opposition to that will because of Human Will.

But again I'm unsure what "Energy" even meant in these contexts.

Update August 2020: If however "Energy" means the same thing Sailor Moon is talking about when it talks about Energy, that it would make sense to take the same position on as you would Christ's Nature.

Update October 2020: from looking at the New Testament's usage of various forms of this word and how it gets translated the Activity and Operation meaning seems to be correct.  

So I have to say I'm willing to identify as both a Monothelite and a Monoenergist.

Why I say Universal Salvation and not Universalism or Universalist

Currently anyway, I used to use those latter two terms more.  The issue is those terms do not clarify what it is I think is Universal.

I don't think "all religions lead to God", I believe Zero religions lead to God.  We are not Saved by finding God, we are Saved by The Good Shepherd finding His Lost Sheep.

I can't say with certainty that I think everyone's Ultimate Fate is exactly the same.  What I teach with certainty is that everyone will be Saved, and will ultimately be Happy with whatever their life in the New Creation winds up being.

By being Saved I mean we will be Resurrected, Body, Soul and Spirit, and won't be Annihilated and whatever Judgment/Punishment we may receive will be finite and for correction not endless.

You see people want to use against Universal Salvation verses that say certain people won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But what they're blind to is that not everyone who's Saved enters the Kingdom (at least not right away), in Revelation 21-22 the Kingdom is New Jerusalem, and we're explicitly told that there are Nations of the Saved outside New Jerusalem.

The notion that Universal Salvation somehow contradicts Free Will is predicated on thinking Salvation equals being in New Jerusalem, it doesn't.  I don't think God will be "taking love that isn't freely given", I believe He's not going to punish people only for rejecting Him.  His invitation is for everyone and that invitation will never be rescinded, Revelation 21:25 makes clear the Gates of New Jerusalem are never shut.

A number of people seem to be insisting they don't believe in Universal Salvation, but then argue for "Hell" not being literally a place of Torment but simply Separation from God.  So if you think the Unsaved will still exist and are not really being tormented, how are they NOT Saved?

C.S. Lewis explicitly rejected the Universalism of George MacDonald who he admired, but in both The Great Divorce and The Final Battle he paints a picture some Universal Salvation preachers like Peter Hiett see as pretty compatible with their views for two reasons.

1, He allows After Death repentance, a doctrine clearly taught in 1 Peter.

2. He basically presents "hell" as simply not being in Heaven, and seems to think the only thing keeping sinners out of Heaven is their own choice not to enter.

Mormonism basically teaches a form of Universal Salvation (at least the scenario depicted in Doctrine and Covenants 76 does).  Yet most Evangelicals prefer to criticize them from the opposite direction, insisting they teach very few people are Saved, they read that scenario and act like you're only Saved if you're in the Celestial Kingdom, which ironically is the one level depicted here I see as not having an analogue in Revelation 21, the Celestial Kingdom is where you become a god starting your own Universe.

Perhaps this bizarre perception of what it means to be saved is why so many people think Zach Snyder's Superman never saves anyone?

I am optimistic that eventually everyone will accept the invitation to enter New Jerusalem.  But my point here is that's not what Salvation is and so is not what I'm certain about.

The Free Gift of Grace

Grace is a Free Gift by definition.  Many Protestants and Evangelicals are good at correctly pointing out that it isn't "Free" if you have to earn it or can lose it.  Yet they've taken on a mistaken notion that it's not a "Gift" if it can't be rejected, that you have to willingly "receive" it.

If a doctor finds a man beaten, bleeding and unconscious on the road and then chooses to heal him without charging a medical bill, is that not a Free Gift that that the man did not have to take any part in receiving?  That is in fact how Jesus presents Mankind's predicament.

The phrase "Free Gift" appears in the King James Bible only in Romans 5 verses 15-18, not once is any notion of someone needing to "receive" it mentioned.  Quite the contrary it says the Free Gift came upon All, no exceptions.

Paul reiterated repeatedly that Grace is entirely about Jesus with no assistance from us lest we should boast.  Even saying we have to "receive" it undermines that Gospel.

As many have argued before, when Ephesians 2 says we are saved by Grace through Faith, the Faith being refereed to there is of Jesus not our Faith.  In Paul's writings our Faith Justifies us but doesn't Save us, those are different things.  Justification is necessary to receive Citizenship in New Jerusalem and potentially Rewards.

It is actually only Jesus who ever refers to people being saved by their faith (Luke 7:50 and 18:42), and those contexts were in more immediate senses, they do not make Faith necessary for ultimate Salvation.

I affirm Free Will, but my understanding of Free Will is neither a Calvinist or Arminian one.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/free-will-is-not-argument-agaisnt.html

Free Will is not an argument agaisnt Universal Salvation

I know this is like my third blog post on this subject, but it's important.

I watched Brad Jersak speak in a video on YouTube about some Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians who taught "Hopeful Inclusivism" but felt they couldn't rule out Endless Torment because of "Free Will".  Well, I'm getting tired of the notion that Universal Salvation proponents are the ones who need to explain away Free Will.

Because I know quite a few unbelievers, and none would ever choose Eternal Endless Hopeless Fiery Torment in Hell.  Any edgelord who says they want to go to "hell" are not viewing hell as any Christians views it, they're seeing it as an endless orgy rock concert or a realm like Mordor.  The problem is many people don't feel like they'd be happy in the Heaven of a God who would torture people forever.

When Calvinists and Arminians are just arguing with each other pretending Universal Salvation isn't an option.  Calvinists accuse Arminians of not believing God is Sovereign, and then Arminians respond with "we're not saying God can't override Human Free will, we're saying he chooses not to, he chooses to respect human Free Will."

The problem is there is more to respecting someone's Free Will then just not using your Magical Mind Control powers on them.

If I proposed to a woman and said "If you say no I won't force you to marry me, but I will have to torture you to death for the offense of rejecting me" did I respect her free will?

What I'm saying is in my opinion only Evangelical Unviersalsits can truly believe God respects Human Free Will.  Whether your view of God is someone who hypnotizes us to accept Him like a Hollywood vampire, or someone who puts a gun to our head is ultimately no different, the end result is still not respecting Free Will.

Origen, Methodius of Olympus, Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia all affirmed Human Free Will and condemned Predestination as a Gnostic Heresy.  And they are also the pillars of the Ancient Precedent for Universal Salvation.  It was Augustine who first popularized Predestination while also opposing Universal Salvation.

In my theology God is going to respect our choices.  Actions will have consequences, sins will be punished, but they will be for Correction (Habakkuk 1:12) and not endless (Matthew 5:26, Luke 12:59 and Matthew 18:34).

He will not however force anyone to join His Kingdom, His Family, against their will.  But the invitation will never be revoked.  The Gates of New Jerusalem are never shut during the day and there is no night there.  There are benefits to joining now rather then later, but the door will still never be shut.

The Outer Darkness I still view as being outside New Jerusalem.  But I now think the only people flat out not let in at first are Believers who messed up, they'll be the ones wailing and gnashing their teeth, and maybe I'll be among them, I have no confidence I've been an ideal Ambassador of the Kingdom.  Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth is a Hebrew idiom of remorse and disappointment.  Jesus' references to that and the Outer Darkness in Matthew are all about Children of the Kingdom.

But I think even those could be let in eventually, after being cleansed by the River and healed by the leaves of the Tree of Life.

Jesus says in John 12:32 that He Will draw all Humans unto Him.  But they will come willingly, even if it takes a long time.

Pelagius was in error but it wasn't Free Will.

I've already shown that Free Will was taught by the Church before Pelagius.  And then contemporary with Pelagius, and not likely to have been influenced by him was Gregory of Nyssa who also taught Free Will.  And also Theodore of Mopseustia wrote against Augustine's understanding of Original Sin.

Calvanists love to use the condemnations Pelagius received from Councils against the doctrine of Free Will, and indeed Theodore was also condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (the Justinian Council as I call it) because of his association with Nestorianism.  But the seventh and last Ecumenical Council called Gregory the Father of Fathers and a Champion of the Faith.

I feel my fellow Protestant supporters of Free Will are a little too quick to seek to exonerate Pelagius.  Proving it existed before him is sufficient.  I in the past had been reluctant to say much one way or the other on Pelagius himself, but I've now done more research.

It is true that the views of Pelagius were often misrepresented by his critics.  Here is a quote from a letter he wrote to Augustine explicitly denying certain beliefs attributed to him.

Letters of Pelagius

“That Adam was created mortal, and that he would have died whether he had sinned or not sinned. That Adam’s sin
injured only himself, and not the human race. That the law, no less than the gospel, leads us to the kingdom. That
new-born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before he fell. That, on the one hand, the entire human
race does not die owing to Adam’s death and transgression; nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise
again through the resurrection of Christ. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich men,
even if they are baptized, unless they renounce and give up all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done,
nothing of it reckoned to them; neither shall they possess the kingdom of heaven.”

“All these statements have not been made by me, even on their own testimony, nor do I hold myself responsible for
them.”

The first Red Flag that Protestants should be weary of him is that he's clearly saying he does believe in Infant Baptism.  A subject which comes up again in his letter to Pope Innocent.

"[I have been] defamed by certain persons for [supposedly] refusing the sacrament of baptism to infants, and
promising the kingdom of heaven irrespective of Christ's redemption.  [I have] never heard even an impious heretic
say this about infants.  Who indeed is so unacquainted with Gospel lessons, as not only to attempt to make such an
affirmation, but even to be able to lightly say it or even let it enter his thought? And then who is so impious as to wish
to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven, by forbidding them to be baptized and to be born again in Christ?"

Now he's not necessarily saying he thinks Unbaptized Babies who die in infancy burn in Hell for Eternity, which Augustine certainly believed.  Just that they can't enter the Kingdom, which I in both my former and current Soterology distinguish from Salvation.  I don't think Water Baptism is necessary to enter The Kingdom, but I suspect the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is.

These quotes show how widespread Infant Baptism already was during an era when Council affirming Protestants want to think Catholic error hadn't really taken off yet.

YouTuber Ryan Reeves in his videos on Augustine wants to emphasize strongly the things he taught that are similar to Calvin and Luther and modern mainline Protestants, ignoring his teachings on Infant Baptism and The Virgin Mary.  And he totally misrepresents City of God ignoring it's Amillennial Statist bent.

Gregory of Nyssa's teaching on Baptism has been interpreted as opposing Infant Baptism, but I'm unsure, even Gregory wasn't perfect.

We don't have Pleagius On Nature in full, just quotations of it, so maybe this was misrepresented, but if it's Authentic it's a pretty major issue.  It's quote number 42 on this web page.

[In regards to the passage which states ‘By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; in which all have sinned. As by the offence of one, upon all men [came a bringing] to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One, upon all men [came a bringing] unto justification of life (Rom. 10:3-4).’ I teach that] there can be no doubt that not all men are sanctified by the righteousness of Christ, but only those who are willing to obey Him, and have been cleansed in the washing of His baptism [thus there can be no doubt that not all men are sinners, but only those who are willing to disobey him.]"

For some reason, what I Copy/Pasted says Romans 10 when this quote of Paul is actually from Romans 5, verses 15-18.

Now I will say that Pelagius in a way is closer to being right on this passage then Protestants (especially Calvinists) who believe in Eternal Damnation.  He at least recognizes that you can't interpret the amount of people the word "all" refers to differently for Christ then you do for Adam, and you certainly can't make it a smaller number when it refers to Jesus.

I however strongly believe that yes ultimately all are Made Righteous by Christ, in agreement with Gregory of Nyssa.

Some might argue verse 19 supports Pelagius interpretation, as there we see many and not all.  But that verse also stresses that it is the Obedience of Jesus that matters.

I can maybe sympathize with Pelagius when he's just arguing against Augustine's pessimism towards the ability of Believers to live exemplary lives.  But the above quote does show that he's trying to wiggle around the clear teaching of "all have sinned and fallen short" so that he can propose a works based Salvation.

Defenders of Pelagius love to appeal to the Synod of Diospolis.  I agree it was unfair of Councils he wasn't able to defend himself at to Condemn him.  But we can read much of what transpired at the Synod of Diospolis.  And to some extent his exoneration here was a result of his being very slick.

First however, on the subject of Free Will itself.

Synod: Let another section be read.  [It was then read from his book that] ‘all men are ruled by their own will.’

Pelagius: This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when
sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.

Synod: Nor again is this opposed to the doctrine of the Church.

Wasn't even much of a dispute, this one was probably only an accusation because Augustine insisted on it.

The problems emerge in what is said next.

Synod: [Pelagius has written in his book that] ‘In the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and
the sinners, but they will be consumed in eternal fires.’  [To this Synod this statement seems to be worded in such a
way as to imply that all sinners whatever were to be punished with an eternal punishment, without excepting even
those who hold Christ as their foundation, although ‘they build thereupon wood, hay, stubble,’ concerning whom the
apostle writes: ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he shall himself be saved, yet so as by fire.’]

Pelagius: I made this assertion in accordance with the Gospel, in which it is written concerning sinners, ‘These shall
go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.’  [He] who believes differently is an Origenist.

Synod: [What you are saying then is] not opposed to the Church.

What's in [] here seems like it's added commentary from this website, which annoys me that they mislead me into thinking the Synod used that verse of 1 Corinthians 3.

Pelagius did not even really address the Synod's concern, or try to figure out what their concern was, and I suspect they backed down only because of his using Origenist as a slur.  Already people were using the other things Origen was wrong on to smear all Universalsim by affiliation.  The Synod should have responded by mentioning men like Gregory of Nyssa.

Pelagius was from the West, and so a Latin translation of Matthew 25 was probably the basis of how he understood it.

Basically the Synod should have grilled him harder on what his Soterology actually was.  There was no attempt to make sure he understood that Salvation is not by Works.  Instead they just allowed him to say his teaching had some basis in some Scripture.

Also what I quoted above from On Nature was not brought up in this Council or in the Statement of Faith he sent to the Pope to gain his approval.

The Council of Orange ultimately Condemned Augustine's Doctrine as much as it did Pelagianism.

It defined that faith, though a free act, resulted even in its beginnings from the grace of God, enlightening the human mind and enabling belief.^[4][5][6] However, it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, "We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema."

Still even that Council made rulings I disagree with.  I only bring them up because Calvanists keep acting like these Councils affirm Calvanism.

The Pelagius-Augustine conflict perfectly anticipates the modern Arminian-Calvanism dispute in that both begin with a false belief that some people won't be saved.