Baptists should believe in Universal Salvation.

The first reason is that many Baptists love to stress that Baptists have long been advocates of Religious Freedom aka Liberty of Conscience.  

Baptists have been at the forefront of it right from the beginning of the Baptists as we today understand them with Thomas Helwys and John Smyth.  Before them some notion of Religious Toleration had been proposed in the English speaking world by some 16th Century Puritans like Robert Browne, but for them it was just about disagreements within Christianity (or even just within Protestantism), it was these first Baptists who were the first to argue for Religious Liberty for even Jews, Muslims and Atheists.

And this tradition continued with Leonard Busher followed by Richard Overton, the real ideological brain of the Levellers, and then Roger Williams and John Clarke who founded Rhode Island.  Then Isaac Backus and John Leland during the era of the American Revolution.

My reason for arguing Universal Salvation should naturally go with belief in Liberty of Conscience is not quite what you’d probably first assume.  The relationship between Religious Freedom and Evangelism should be the argument that conversions made under force or coercion simply will not be sincere.  

I believe Jesus Christ should be viewed as the model for Human morality, not as a Sovereign who doesn’t hold Himself to the same rules as His subjects.  So if it’s morally wrong for us to persecute, torture or kill people for holding the wrong beliefs, it’s an absurd contradiction to then say that is ultimately exactly what Jesus will do when He returns.

For the Scriptural Reasons Universal Salvation is true, start by checking out my Six Points of Universal Salvation page, then read other posts with the Universal Salvation tag where I go more in depth.

Now my fellow Universal Salvation believers in Pedobaptist denominations may argue that since Salvation isn't only for a select few; why not just Baptize the babies automatically?  Well as an Evangelical Universalist I still see a meaningful distinction between those who are in The Kingdom already and those who aren’t yet.  Water Baptism is a ritual performed to symbolize choosing to become a full Citizen of The Kingdom.  

But returning to why specifically Baptists should rethink any knee jerk rejection of Universal Salvation is the fact that Baptists who came to that conclusion appeared very early on.  And were even important players in getting the ball rolling on modern Universalism in the first place.

They start at least with the 17th Century Bell Alley General Baptist Church of Thomas Lambe, Henry Denne and Samuel Oats.  And in her book The Reformation of The Heart: Gender and Radical Theology in The English Revolution starting on page 69 Sarah Apetrei highlights the women of that Congregation who were important voices of Universal Salvation like Elizabeth Attaway.  They were an influence on first Gerrard Winstanley and then The Quakers.

The Everlasting Gospel by Georg Klein-Nicolai is a German book on Universal Salvation that seems to have its origin among the Schwarzenau Brethren also called the Dunkers and German Baptists.

The rise of Universal Salvation in the American Colonies in the late 18th Century that led to the foundation of the Universalist Church of America involved several Baptists and people of a Baptist Background.  Elhanan Winchester would probably be the most orthodox to modern Baptists, but there’s also Adams Streeter and Hosea Ballou who also each had been Baptist Pastors, Caleb Rich who was born into a Baptist family, and Giles Chapman who married a German Baptist.  

James Murray and his mentor James Relly never had actual ties to any Baptist Church, but they came to a view on the Sacraments basically the same as the Quakers and like Gerrard Winstanley and the early Quakers a Baptist perspective on the Pedobaptism vs Credobaptism debate plays a role in how they got there.

The Universalist Church of America as a denomination never had a uniform policy on Baptism, but they were always consistently Congregationalist.

George MacDonald had been a Congregationalist, so not a Baptist but someone who'd agree with us on Church Polity.

The main contemporary Baptists who believe in Universal Salvation are the Primitive Baptist Universalists in Appalachia, who are more theologically liberal then other Primitive Baptists (and myself) on a number of things.  I'm hoping writing this can help change that.

The Seventh Day Baptists are partly known for being one of the most allowing of divergent doctrinal views within its denomination.  And I do agree that the Sabbath was never changed to Sunday, that idea is based on a misunderstanding of two verses.  So it does disappoint me that when I read the Statement of Faith on their official website the only belief of mine that is in potential conflict with any part of it is Universal Salvation.  

I also see a logical relationship between Sabbatarianism and Universal Salvation.  Believing that Sunday supplanted the Sabbath goes hand in hand with the mainstream Christian view that God permanently divorced Israel to take a new wife.  I'm not a Dispensationalist or strictly speaking a Two House Theology advocate.  Rather for me God’s determination to restore Israel no matter how far they fall is a specially emphasized part of His refusal to allow any to perish.  

And going back to Sarah Apetrei's book, there is documentation of the wife of John Belcher an early Seventh Day Baptist as Pastor of a Church at Belle Lane in the 1660s believing in Universal Salvation.

I know a lot of Baptists are among the most strict KJV Onlists so I should also link to this old post of mine.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2017/05/kjv-only-universalism.html

And for the Landmarkists who think the Novatians were ancient Baptists, there is evidence they may have believed in Universal Salvation.  It was their critic Cyprian who popularized the idea that there is no Salvation outside The Church which went hand in hard with how he was also the first to really stress making Infant Baptism obligatory.

Novatus, or as he is often called, Novatian, an eminent presbyter of Rome, who contested the bishopric of the church there with Cornelius, advanced something like Universalism. He extolled in the highest, though in general terms, the unbounded goodness of God (De Regula Fidei, cap. ii., prope finem, edit. Jackson, Lond., 1728, pp. 23-25); and maintained that the wrath, indignation, and hatred of the Lord, so called, are not such passions in him as bear the same name in man; but that they are operations in the divine mind which are directed solely to our purification (De Regula Fidei, cap. iv.). In short, he asserted the peculiar principles of Universalism; but whether he pursued them out to their necessary result does not appear.

https://universalistchristian.org/books/ancient-history/

Constantine and the Edicts of Toleration

The Great Man Theory of history is discredited but sill influences popular History, and with no one is that more apparent then Constantine.  Both people who like Constantine and people who hate him love to paint him as a singular nexus point for why the centuries following him seem so different from the centuries preceding him.

The AD 313 Edict of Toleration wasn't made by Constantine alone, it was co-authored with Licinius, Constantine didn't rule the East, where most of the persecution was happening, till a decade later.  Licinius would be accused of backing off on this toleration later but most historians now view that as propaganda, he actually possibly became a Christian himself at some point, that's Absolutely the impression Lactantius gives in his account.  Also there is no Evidence of Licinius being worshiped as Pharoah in Egypt even though he controlled Egypt for over a decade directly succeeding Maximinus Daza from Egypt's Perspective.

But more then that the first Edict of Toleration was the one issued by Galerius on April 30th AD 311.  Galerius was one of the chef architects of The Great Persecution to begin with so it making him synymous with how it ends is pretty awkward.  But this edict was made over a year and a half before the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

After Galerius died Maximinus Daza revived Persecution in the East, but he didn't rule all the East, it was shared with Licinius, exactly who controlled the Province of Asia is hard to determine with sources I can easily find online.  And claims that Maxentius persecuted Christians are even more provably false then Licinius, Lactantius in Of the Manner in which The Persecutors Died in chapter 43 refers to Maximinus Daia (what he calls Daza for some reason) as the only adversary left even though Maxentius was still in power in Rome at the time referred to.

Galerius seems to have genuinely believed in the Christian God in some capacity when he made his Edict.

"Wherefore it will be the duty of the Christians, in consequence of this our toleration, to pray to their God for our welfare, and for that of the public, and for their own; that the commonweal may continue safe in every quarter, and that they themselves may live securely in their habitations."

There is evidence some regions were on the way to booming majority Christian already before the Diocletian Persecution started.  And Paganism still thrived in certain regions into the fifth century.  

One ruler's fixation alone would never be enough to entirely change a nation's religious destiny.  Akhenaton tried to completely change Egypt's religion and it failed utterly with everything he built falling apart as soon as he died, same with Aurelian's Sol Invictus protect in the 3rd Century.

I don't think Nero Persecuted Christians

Few Extra-Biblical traditions of Early Church History seem as unquestionable.  Nero's supposed Persecution of Christians is treated as the next chapter of Church History right after the narrative of Acts ends.  Hollywood movies depicting it are called Biblical Epics, and I will continue to enjoy those movies in-spite of how fictional I now view them to be, but there were also certain things I always felt they got wrong.

The thing is, the closer to Biblical History a tradition is, the more likely it is evidence in The Bible itself could work against it.  I already did a post arguing that Peter never went to Rome, which included my deconstructing the assumption that the Ascension of Isaiah was talking about Nero at all.  (And now I have this follow up post.)  I even already there questioned the assumption that Paul was Martyred in Rome, though he certainly did go there.

Here is a fact that is somewhat little known, the trail before Caesar (we know Nero was Caesar at the time because it's after Felix's time as Governor of Judea ended) Paul was awaiting when the narrative of Acts ended, is kind of recorded in Scripture elsewhere.  2 Timothy 4 verses 16-18, often considered the last of Paul's Epistles to be written.

At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.  Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.  And the Lord shall deliver me from every evil work, and will preserve me unto his heavenly kingdom: to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The implication of these verses is clearly that Paul was acquitted.

Now plenty of scholars are aware of this.  But some insist Paul returned to Rome a second time later and was killed then, by the very same Emperor who had acquitted him before.  Sometimes specifically saying 2 Timothy 1:16-17 refers to this second imprisonment, but to me the context of the letter clearly makes that the same imprisonment he records the resolution of quoted above.

Now some have interpreted the above verses as being about Paul's escapes recorded in Acts. But the way he says "out of the mouth of the Lion" makes me think he's referring to The Seat of Caesar, to the Beast that yes I do still view as being in a sense the Roman Government.  I've also seen it argued that what Paul said elsewhere in that chapter is implying he's about to die.  Well he could have been dying of old age, but I don't necessarily think that verse is implying immanent death.

The only authentic Epistle of Clement of Rome says in chapter 5 that Paul went to the "Extremity of The West" (or "limits of the west" in Bart Ehrman's translation).  Many strangely quote this passage as backing up Paul being martyred in Rome when in my view it does not, it seems on it's own without bringing our assumptions into it, to be saying the "Extremity of the West" is where Paul met his fate.

Now "extremity of the west" is an expression used in Secular Pagan Roman writings to refer to Spain, so this can be read as just confirming Paul fulfilled his stated desire to go to Spain from Romans 15:24&28.  

Maybe if Paul was martyred by a Roman Emperor it was a later one.  The second Emperor tradition says persecuted Christians was Domitian.  And sometimes people use against the Domitian persecution the same argument I'll bring up later against Neronian persecution, that Christians and Jews weren't distinguished in Roman law yet.  However that ignores that Suetonius records Jews being persecuted under Domitian, and unlike many other things Suetonius talks about this he was an eye witness to.

An overarching theme of the Book of Acts is that the Roman Governmental authorities under Claudius and Nero are the good guys during this era, Christian Persecution came from local mobs, which in Judea were often riled up by the Sadducees, but were Pagans in Pagan cities.  Tradition has chosen to vilify a Caesar that Paul was confident would rule in his favor.  

Also while Nero still ruled the Christians hiding in Pella were protected by Nero's ally Agrippa II according to Remigius, Bishop of Reims (437 – 533 AD) [Thomas Aquinas (1841). Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels; Collected out of the Works of the Fathers: St. Matthew. (J. H. Newman, Ed.) (Vol. 1, p. 799-816)].  Epiphanius of Salamis agrees with Perea also being part of where the Early Christians fled.

Under the Flavians, as well as the following emperors, it served the new Dynasty to vilify Nero for the same reason it served the Tudors and Stuarts to vilify Richard III during the time of Shakespeare.  And meanwhile during this same era and later many "Early Church Fathers" were trying to appeal to these same Roman Emperors (or their successors) and the people who supported them, often addressing their Apologies to them directly.  So at some point I think Christians like Tertullian wanted to pin the blame on Nero for the illicit legal status they had, and then Suetonius and (a redactor of )Tacitus listed persecuting Christians among the things they attributed to Nero because Christians were saying it, it was just another story going around.

Though maybe part of the desire of later Christians to see Nero as their Enemy came from how much they inherited from certain Stoics.  In the first century AD Musonius Rufus sounds like a modern American Evangelical on Sexual Morality more so then any New Testament author.  He was part of the Stoic opposition to Nero but later the only Philosopher Vespasian allowed to stay in Rome.  And Stoic criticism of Nero was continued by Epicetus.

The villainous reputation of Nero largely comes from Roman Historians of the Senatorial Class (chiefly Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio), who loved to slander the Julio-Claudians as depraved because of their semi-Plebian origins, but loved Vespasian-Titus and the "Five Good Emperors" because they came from their class and so were good to them.  Thing is the common people of the Empire were oppressed by heavy Taxes under those Senatorial Emperors.

There is plenty of evidence however that the common people were happy under Nero.  Even the Christian source John Chrysostom acknowledged that.  Plutarch in his allusions to Nero is also more favorable, as well as Lucan.  The biography of Appolonius of Tyana also records how Nero was loved by the Greeks in the Eastern Provinces.  And the Talmud has a favorable memory of Nero also.  In fact one reason many later Christians started thinking the Antichrist would be Nero resurrected somehow was because before then those who liked Nero had started believing he would come back to save them from Flavian oppression, he became Greco-Rome's King Arthur.

One purely modern detail of the traditions about Nero's persecution is the tying it into the bad reputation of Poppaea Sabina his second wife, it seems the Hollywood versions feel they need a Jezebel/Delilah figure.  Poppaea was depicted as a scheming Femme Fatale by those senatorial sources.  But Josephus who actually knew her personally paints a very different picture in his autobiography.  Josephus depicts her as practically a Proselyte and mentions among her Jewish friends an actor Nero was a fan of.

Now some have suggested Poppaea's Jewish associations are why her influence would have been against Paul.  But that would be the case only if the Jews who had her ear were Sadducees.  But based on Josephus being a Pharisee, and that I think his shipwreck was the same as Paul's, I doubt that. Plus Gentile Proselytes might have been inclined to like Paul's message even if they didn't fully become believers in Jesus and The Gospel.

Some histories are confused by how Josephus could possibly be talking about the same woman the other sources are, even if one or both is exaggerated to suit their bias.  I say just look at Anne Boleyn, to the Catholics of Tudor England she was explicitly compared to Jezebel, but Protestants sometimes paint her as a saint in for example the film Anne of the Thousand Days.

Acte was a mistress of Nero, archaeology has shown there were Christians in her household as either slaves or freedmen, leading some to speculate she herself may have been one.  Modern fictionalizations often place her in conflict with Poppaea, wanting to make her the Betty to Poppaea's Veronica.  But they were actually on the same side when trying to influence Nero, both being pro-Seneca and anti-Agrippina.  So for all we know they could have had a threesome.

Also the Gallio in Acts 18 was Seneca's brother, so that's further evidence Senaca's influence would have been against persecuting Christians or convicting Paul.

Some secular scholars have already questioned the historicity of the Neronian persecution.  But in a way they're not going as far as I am here, as they do think something happened, but distinguish it from a systemic persecution.

One of the arguments they do bring up is the lack of legal distinction between Jews and Christians before the time of Trajan. The early second century correspondence between Pliny and Trajan clearly show there was no prior policy on what to do about Christians, surely the Neronian persecution and accusation they tried to burn Rome would have been relevant to bring up here?  And the Roman persecution they did face before was a product of persecutions the Jews suffered under Domitian.  But since the evidence from the Talmud and Josephus show The Jews in Rome had it good under Nero, there is no reason to think Nero killed any Christians.

And these Secular critics have also pointed out that Tacitus account must be derivative of something he heard from Christians and not Roman legal records since he got the kind of Governor Pilate was wrong (he said Procurator when Pilate was a Prefectus).  And Suetonius was certainly willing to record things based on pure rumor.  His account of the death of Caligula and Claudius becoming emperor is clearly based on Josephus's account (he mentioned Josephus so was aware of him) but the differences are all the tabloid style scandals he spices it up with.

This effects Preterism because Nero is the only of the first century Emperors where any plausible way to make their name's Gemetria equal 666 exists, and even that is tortured since it uses Aramaic not Greek (read 666 cannot be Nero).  But also the assumption that Nero persecuted Christians is necessary to make it possible that John's exile to Patmos was under Nero, yet even the traditional view of the Neronian persecution makes it local in Rome only.  All the facts I laid out above make John's exile far more plausible under Domitian's Jewish persecution (if it was an Exile at all). 

Persecuting Christians isn't the only evil thing attributed to Nero that I think is slander.   But he is someone who became ruler of the world at a young age, and so could have cracked under the pressure a few times and certainly perfect. 

I think Poppaea probably died of a miscarriage and the claim Nero kicked her to death was probably another of Suetonius's tabloid rumors.  

I don't think Sporus was actually Castrated agaisnt their will (if at all), I suspect they were in fact what we'd today call a Trans Woman. The part about them resembling Poppea and Nero calling them by her name doesn't show up till Casisus Dio, even Suetonius doesn't report that and he certainly would have if the story was already around.

If the rumors of the Incest with Agrippina were true, he'd be the victim in that case, he was probably still a minor by modern standards when that started since he was only 17 when he became Emperor (and I think the Age of Consent should be raised to 20 at least).  However a book called Women of the Caesars (I'm not sure which book on Amazon with that title was the one I read, it came in Red) argues for a more positive portrayal of Agrippina and thus agaisnt such rumors, but it did so supporting the negative portrayal of Poppaea which I view as wrong.

So I feel there is a lot of evidence to re-evaluate how we view Nero.

I became aware of this Article thanks to Religion For Breakfast on Twitter.
https://www.academia.edu/26841558/The_Myth_of_the_Neronian_Persecution
There are differences between his view and mine, he does still think Paul was executed in Rome in the 60s, I think regardless of where Paul died he lived into the 90s and had been to Spain before then.  And arguing the term "Christian" didn't exist yet I view as wrong since I believe Acts to be true History. But it's still an interesting article.

The History for Atheists Blog has a post defending the authenticity and reliability of Tacitus accounts of the Fire and Persecution in which context he makes his reference to Jesus.
https://historyforatheists.com/2017/09/jesus-mythicism-1-the-tacitus-reference-to-jesus/
That defense of Tacitus remains the main weakness to my thesis here.  Though uncritically accepting Tacitus still doesn't change that we can't prove Paul was martyred in Rome, in fact it becomes odd that Tacitus didn't mention Peter or Paul if there were prominent leaders of this new religion killed here.

Still as much as I agree with this blog on many subjects regarding the Historicity of Jesus, I still view Tacitus as problematic.  The issue of being dependent on one very late manuscript and getting the kind of Governor Pilate was wrong I can't so easily write off.  And O'Neill's argument that people who just assumed Nero set the fire wouldn't mention Scapegoats I can't really buy either, his falsely blaming others for it would only make his tyranny look worse. I mean I get why Christian sources maybe wouldn't want to remind people they were accused of this, but the Pagan Roman sources shouldn't be leaving out such a vital detail.  And in my opinion the early Christians would not have been that afraid of it.  

Here is another Article from an Atheist Website deconstructing the arguments in defense of the Tacitus account.

https://vridar.org/2022/01/13/rome-burning-the-christian-problem-in-the-annals-of-tacitus/

The traditional dates for Paul and Peter's martyrdom also predate them ever being linked to the fire since they were AD 67.  Which interestingly is a year in which Nero wasn't even in Rome, he was touring Greece at that time.

Thersities the Historian has talked about how many Roman Persecutions are exaggerated.  Saying only the Diocletian (really Galerian's) persecution was as extreme as the Christians imagined the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century persecutions to be.  Many Emperors were labeled persecutors when really it was local persecutions that happened during their reign.  Tertullian who was a contemporary says Septimius Severus was well disposed to the Christians.

And the thing is, it's possible even the idea of Christian persecution being linked to being blamed for a fire has it's origins in the Galerian persecution because there was a fire in Nicomedia (which was Diocletian's capital in the east) that Galerius blamed on the Christians.

No account of the Neronian Persecution that can be proven to have existed before the 300s links it to the Fire of 64 AD.  Tacitus is the only one really even claimed to have existed that far back which does, and our oldest manuscript for Tacitus is Carolingian, and all younger manuscripts are known to go back to that one.

Here's a link where you can read Lactantius's Of the Manner in which The Persecutors Died. 

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0705.htm

The text in the later part of chapter 2 asserts that Nero persecuted Christian, I still believe that idea emerged in the 2nd Century maybe even late first, but he doesn't tie it to the Fire or anything like a Fire.  

Later in chapter 14 and 15 he is one of our main contemporary sources on the role the Fire in Nicomedia played in the Diocletian Persecution, he was a contemporary and had been in Nicomedia.  If the idea that Nero's Persecution was tied to Christians being blamed for that Fire already existed you'd think he's mention it, the Biblical way he's trying to present all this would be well served by pointing out ways in which History was repeating itself, but he doesn't.

When discussing Persecutions that can be blamed on Roman Emperors Lacantius skips right from Domitian to Decius meaning there was no Imperial Persecution under Marcus Aurelius or Septimius Severus or Maximinus Thrax either.

Even Eusebius still knows of no connection to a Fire in Rome when discussing the Neronian Persecution in Book II chapter 25 of Church History, in fact he doesn't cite any source older then Tertullian who says he's basing it on Roman Records but that could honestly just be Suetonius, but it's also the same text where Tertullian is claiming Tiberius tried to have Jesus added to the Roman Pantheon, a claim no historian takes seriously.  And Eusebius also records the Nicomedia fire in Book VIII chapter 6.

Update October 27th 2024: I've discovered another similar incident that could have inspired the Christians being blamed for the Fire of Rome Narrative.  Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book 7 Chapter 3 Section 3 talks about events in Antioch in AD 67 which include a persecution of the city's Jews based on accusing them of plotting to burn down the city.

You'd think if something similar had happened to what was then still a sect of Judaism in Rome only 3 years earlier it'd also be something Josephus would have noted somewhere.

Since Antioch is the other City that Peter is traditionally the first Bishop of and since his martyrdom was traditionally dated to AD 67, maybe he was actually Martyred as part of this Jewish Persecution?

That being the inspiration would allow the Tacitus account to be an authentic original part of that text with him simply already hearing a muddled version of the story that confused the two fires.

AD 67 as the original traditional date for the year of Peter's Martyrdom comes from The Liber Pontificalus which places the Martyrdom of Peter in the 38th year from the Passion which at the soonest was AD 30.  

It also fits a theory some scholars have that Peter was burned alive rather then Crucified, since that's what happened to certain Jewish leaders at Antioch according to this story.

https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/ch156-peters-fate

Update January 8th 2025: Here's a YouTube Video attempting to provide some Nuance to the discussion of Nero.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV1SlvWCjvk

Update August 2025: And now he has a follow up on Sporus.  Looks like there is more evidence for them being associated with Poppea then I originally thought, but I'm still skeptical.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WMlJ00aK4Y

Update January 2026: Here's a newer post i made on Peter.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2025/10/i-no-longer-support-supposed-simon.html

The Glorious Revolution was neither Glorious or a Revolution

[Update July 2026: I've become aware of some nuances that complicated my once simplistic view of this topic. Principally the fact that the one exception to Religious Toleration James made happened to be the by far more violent and deafly persecution actively going on and it did end with the Glorious Revolution due to resolving the core issue. That being the Killing Time directed at the Scottish Covenanters. Meanwhile the action of Edmund Andros in New England was all about centralizing Church organization, so the New England Puritans were right to be skeptical]

The Last Ecumenical Council

The Anglican Church is the only major Protestant Church that upholds all Seven Ecumenical Councils.  Coincidentally this isn't the only quality they have in common with the Eastern Orthodox, the way their founded on the King being the head of the Church fits the Emperor's role in Byzantine Christianity.

For most Protestants this is the only Ecumenical Council they really go out of their way to criticize. Calvin expressed general agreement with the first 4, ignored the next 2 and then went hard on the 7th.  Martin Luther himself didn't approve of iconoclastic tendencies, but still never specifically addressed any Ecumenical Councils after Chalcedon.

I perhaps have more sympathy for this council then most American Evangelicals and Protestants.  Literal Idolatry is not as pressing a concern under the New Testament era, civil leaders are no longer judged chiefly on how zealous they are about shutting down Polytheistic worship.  So I'm not an Iconoclast since I don't even believe in going out of our way to destroy actual Pagan Idols, like Roger Williams I feel NT Christians should follow the example the Religious Tolerance of Cyrus and Artaxerxes.

Still, Old Testament applications of the Second Commandment definitely include Images that were supposedly of YHWH, the worship of the Golden Calf was called a Feast to YHWH in Exodus 32:5 and Jeroboam's Idols were identified with YHWH, Jehu is depicted as a devout YHWH onlyist and yet he too was guilty of the Sins of Jeroboam.

I do believe certain things changed at The Cross, so the implications of the Incarnation on this issue should be considered.  NT passages that present Idolatry as still a concern are in the context of what Paul taught the Corinthians, it's about belief more so then actions.  This issue remains ambiguous because nothing in the New Testament either specifically condones Images of Jesus or prohibits them.  There is New Testament support for using symbols instead, like how Paul verbally uses The Cross as a symbol.

Ryan Reeves and others have pointed out how the Early Church used Art but didn't artistically depict Jesus even for awhile after Nicaea, Images of Jesus don't start to show up till the late 5th Century and increased in popularity during the reign of Justinian and again in the 7th century.  The Synod of Elvira was a Pre-Nicaea council that expressed a harsh view of using images.

The first "Iconclast" Emperor Leo III did not actually engage in any active persecution of those who insisted on keeping their Icons, it was his successors who started going that far.  Wikipedia says that poorer regions of the Empire generally supported Iconoclasm more then the wealthier regions.

The overturned pro-iconoclasm council was the ONLY early Church council to epxliclty affirm endless torment in hell and anathematize any who reject that doctrine.  That doesn't seem directly relevant to the issue at hand, unless the Iconophiles typically believed in Universal Salvation, like Gregory of Nyssa who the seventh council proclaimed a father of the fathers.  That would be a reason for me to feel inclined towards the Iconophiles, but I won't let that shape how I critique everything else.

Saying the Iconoclasts are wrong is one thing, but outright Anathamatizing the act was based on saying it is sinful agaisnt God to destroy an Image of God.  And that is the start of what makes this council Idolatrous.

But they went beyond just condemning the destruction of Icons.  One of the Anathamas reads "Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images", I don't care how you distinguish "salute" from "worship", telling me I'm accursed for not respecting your images makes you just as much of a judgmental zealot as the ones breaking them.  I for the record consider even Saluting the American Flag to be idolatry.

This council also affirmed the Veneration of Mary and the Saints and Images of them, not just of Jesus, and refers to praying to Mary.  This distinction Catholics insist on making between Veneration and Worship is amusing to me.  If you went back in time to before Christianity even existed and tried to explain to someone how your praying to a famous person who died before you were born isn't worshiping them, they would laugh at you.  It is solely Christians trying to justify un-Biblical behavior that has created this distinction.

The Council even affirms sacred relics in Canon 7 even saying you can't have Churches without them (The New Testament teaches that a church is any place where two or more believers gather together.).  The Brazen Serpent is a symbol of Jesus in the NT yet it had to be destroyed when The Israelites started "venerating" it.  And no I don't think The Ark's role in the Temple is a comparable kind of Veneration, because it was there to be the thing a proper cult Idol would be standing or sitting on top of in a normal Temple. 

This is as good a time as any to state that I disapprove of calling Mary "Theotokos", the technical accuracy of the term isn't the point, the title isn't Biblical, calling her The Virgin Mary is enough.  I agree with 100% of the gist of the Chalcedonian definition, and have no objection to 90% of the details, only this word, "before all ages" and I would say "Scriptures" in-place of "Fathers" at the beginning and end.

I've tried not to take the anti Theotokos position since I respect a lot of Greek Orthodox believers.  But there is no getting around it anymore.

A Synagogue was Vandalized by Nazis in my Home Town.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/graffiti-found-on-racine-synagogue-several-anti-semitic-vandalism-incidents/article_45092379-e7e4-5d6f-a62e-7dd91eb13836.html

This really upsets me.

I probably won't be able to attend the Inter-Faith service they're having on September 29th (which happens to be Michalemass, a holiday I think might be connected in origin to one of the Fall Holy Days).  I have family issues going on, and it's on the other side of town and my transportation options are limited.

But my Prayers shall be With Them, I teach on this Blog that Hate is the truly worst Sin and that The Messiah of Israel is still the Messiah of Israel first even though He has also Saved All The Nations.

Constantine and the Council of Nicaea

In Protestant, Evangelical and Hebrew Roots sects of Christianity it is popular to vilify Constantine.  I consider myself to some decree part of the last two of those groups.  Yet my view of Constantine is different.

I'm by no means inclined to view Constantine as the ideal Christian or an Ideal Ruler.  But I think the extent to which many people pin everything they don't like about mainstream Christianity on Constantine greatly oversimplifies things.

All the core doctrines of Catholicism had their seeds planted among the Church Fathers who came before Constantine.  The reverence for the Greek Philosophy of Plato, Aristotle and Philo had already started.  And to varying decrees so did the desire to reconcile Christianity with Rome.

Constantine did not formally make Christianity the state religion.  In fact the Edict of Milan was actually an edict granting Freedom of Religion to all Religions.

"When you see that this has been granted to [Christians] by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion."

The common statement that Christianity didn't become the State Religion till Theodosius I is also perhaps an oversimplification.  Christianity had certainly become a state sponsored religion before then.  But only Gratian removed the state sponsored status of any element of the old Roman Religion.

It is with Theodosius I that Christianity as the state religion to the exclusion of other faiths began.

The original Nicene Creed of 325 AD contains nothing I object to (I just did a post defending the Homoousion doctrine).  Nor anything I would expect to be objected to by most Protestants, Evangelicals, or other Christians who like to vilify Constantine and use Pre-Nicene and Post-Nicene to distinguish which Early Church Fathers they consider worth quoting.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. 

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]"

Later the Creed was revised at the Council of Constantinople of 381 AD under Theodosius I.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead. ; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

I don't mind the removing the Condemnation part.  As a former supporter of Eternal Security and now a Universalist, I have no desire to question the Faith of people I disagree with, even Arians.

It is mainly the last paragraph I object to, firmly establishing a terrestrially organized Church.

[Update: Turns out I do have another issue with this revision.]

The other differences seem to be influenced by the earlier Old Roman Symbol and Rule of Faith creeds that goes back to the Second Century.

The Donations of Constantine were a forgery made by the Roman Catholic Church, though it gets used by Papal Antichrist theorists.  That Constantine moved the Capital from Rome to Constantineople makes him if anything more a founder of the Eastern Orthodox Church more then the Roman Church.

Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion and outlawed other faiths with the Edict of Thesselonica.  I'm surprised more Historicists and other Papal Antichrist theorists haven't made a big deal out of that Edict being in the same city Paul directed his most Eschatologically concerned Epistles to.

However I feel Justinian's reign was equally important to formalizing what I consider corrupt mainstream Christianity.  It was under his reign that Universalism was first condemned as a Heresy.

Update Aprils 7th 2017: Thing is while I agree with the Nicean Creed, other decisions the Council of Nicea made I'm not too fond of. Like their further elaborating on Ingaitus Church Governmental Scripture. 

InspiringPhilosophy's video on Nicea is pretty good.