I'm neither Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox.

In spite of the things that are Protestant like about me, I have come to reject the Protestant understanding of "Justified by Faith not works".  Which is the one thing all branches of Protestantism have in common, Lutheran, Calvanist, Arminian, Wesleyan, and the Free Grace Eternal Security that was my original Soteriology when I started this blog.

Justification in Romans is NOT the same thing as Salvation, the true Soteriology of Paulian Theology is laid out in Romans 5 and 11 where Justification is no longer the focus at all.  And when Paul speaks of us being Saved By Grace through Faith in other Epistles, the Faith in question is of Jesus not us.

So does that make my view of Justification the same as the Catholic and Orthodox view?  Maybe, but must still be understood in the context of my firm belief in Universal Salvation.  

However what prevents me from simply going back and rejoining any Ancient Church is that I firmly reject Episcopal Polity and the Authority of all Church Councils besides the one attended by the Apostles themselves in Acts 15.  My position on Church Polity is Congregational first and foremost but with elements of Presbyterianism.

So many Catholic and Orthodox clerical arguments against Protestantism are founded on a belief there needs to be some tangible continuity between a valid modern Church and the Churches of antiquity  And I can't help but be reminded of the things Jesus said specifically to rebuke that way of thinking.

"From whom did John get his Authority to Baptize?"-Matthew 21:23-27

"Who isn't agaisnt us is with us"-Mark 9:40

The Church was never meant to be an Organized Religion but a decentralized association.

Evangelical Protestant Soterology

American Evangelicalism, and to an extent Protestantism as a whole, has gotten it into their heads that being Saved is synonymous with not being punished for your sins.

That's why they can't accept the multiple Scriptural witnesses about God's Punishments being for Correction, or YHWH promising Israel He will Save them AFTER He Punishes them.

The reason they can't even entertain any alternative theory of Atonement to Penal Substation is because to them Penal Substitution is what the word Atonement itself means.  But the truth is in Ancient Israel the idea behind making a Sin Offering or Trespass Offering was never that you aren't being punished because the Goat is being punished in your place, the idea was losing this Goat, or the money you had to spend to obtain it, was your punishment.  It was essentially a ritualiezed way of paying a Fine.

Salvation is about not being punished for our sins in a sense, in the sense that the original required punishment for eating the fruit was death, and likewise the Torah throwing around the Death Penalty pretty liberally.  Because of Jesus's Death and Resurrection we are all saved from that maximum sentence.

But that's another thing, even though these Evangelicals will quote verses about "the wages of sin is death", they don't' actually believe that, they think the modern concept of "Hell" is what "death" actually means when Paul says that.

Now you can be forgiven for your Sins, as Ezekiel 18 lays out forgiveness is a result of Repentance.

I was accused recently of "denying repentance" because of my current Soterology.  But the truth is it was before I believed in Universal Salvation, or at least while I was still transitioning into it, that I made posts on this blog agaisnt repentance.  Where I argued you did not need to make a serious attempt to change your ways for God to forgive you.

That's why I find it really offensive when Evangelicals accuse advocates of my Soteorlogy of denying that actions have consequences when they are the ones who think the point of believing in Jesus is a Get Out of Hell Free Card.

I believe that unrepentant sinners will be punished.  But I also see more then one passage in The Bible that implies Believers will be punished more then Unbelievers (like Luke 12 and Ezekiel 16), because we're without excuse, we can't claim we didn't know what the rules were.

Now some particularly Eternal Security believing Evangelicals do have some nuance on this issue.  Kent Hovind I believe once said that Sin is a "legal matter" if your an unbeliever but a "Family Matter" if your a believer.  Because they feel God only considers believers His Children.

But Paul said at the Sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 that all Human beings are Offspring of God. 

Meanwhile how can Sin ONLY be a Legal Matter for exactly the people who never consented to this Law Code in the first place?  Certain American Christians keep saying "consent of the governed" is a Christian Principal yet they don't actually think God operates that way.

Purgatory???

Purgatory as it's traditionally defined in Roman Catholic theology is a false doctrine I aboslutly reject.  And since Medieval Catholics coined the term you can kind of say that means I reject the concept altogether.

But there is a tendency in Protestant and Evangelical circles to use the word "Purgatory" to smear any suggestion that how the After Life and the Resurrection works isn't as simple as "Good go to Heaven and Bad go to Hell", however that view of the After Life comes from Zoroastrianism not The Bible.  But since Purgatory is a Catholic term, in circles often raised to think the Pope is the Antichrist suggesting a vaguely Catholic association is a good scare tactic.  And that includes using it against aspects of the arguments of Universal Salvation, like when we quote Malachi 3 as teaching that the Fire of God is for purifying and purging, and Matthew 5 and Luke 12:19 being clear that God's punishment isn't endless..

The problem with the Medieval Catholic Purgatory doctrine was how they used it as a form of Spiritual Extortion.  Telling people their loved ones are in Purgatory and in need of lots of Prayers to help them get out.  And so people would pay the Church money for special prayer services.

This is also the issue behind debates about "Praying for the Dead".  Someone outside Christianity might be confused why that's even controversial.  When we discus the doctrine of Prayer for the Dead, Protestants and Evangelicals are opposing the notion that the dead need our prayers to help them into Heaven, they believe our eternal destiny is decided once we die.  And I now believe in Universal Salvation so there is nothing to worry about at all.  Praying to say Goodbye if that helps you deal with your grief is not what we're talking about.

This Catholic Purgatory doctrine only really began to develop with certain teachings of Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory The Great.  But the term as we know it wasn't coined till the 12th Century.

Attempts by Catholic Apologists to find precedent for Purgatory in Pre-Nicene or even Pre-Augustine Early Church Fathers include Tertulian's view of the after life built on his flawed understanding of the Luke 16 parable and the Fifth Seal in Revelation 6.  And vaguely similar views from Irenaus which all agree no one reaches their final destination till the final Judgment.  And others talking about Fire purifying souls of Sin, often drawing on 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, which is specifically about believers who are Saved but their bad works are consumed by fire.

Basically, the same teachings of the Church Fathers I looked to as a basis for my old Independent Baptist style Free Grace Eternal Security soterology.  But now as an Evangelical Universalist the Biblical Passages behind them I view as supporting the teaching that even the Fires of the Lake of Fire are a Fire of purification.

1 Corinthians 3:15 was important to how I made my old Eternal Security argument even before I knew it had been tied into the Purgatory doctrine by Catholics.  It proves that references to believers facing ramifications for their sins doesn't mean they lose Salvation.  Along with my arguments for the Outer Darkness and Hebrews 6 being about loss of Inheritance and thus being outside New Jerusalem.

However the Achilles Heel to my old Soterology that I wasn't aware of at the time since no one made the argument to me, is the repeated references to a backsliden or apostate believer's judgment being worse then a non believer's.  That's an implication of Matthew 18:34, and the clear teaching of Luke 12:47-48 and some things said in 2 Peter and Jude where Apostasy is viewed as the theme.  And Jesus talking about Tyre and Sidon not having it as bad on the Day of Judgment as the Israelites who heard his message and rejected it.  1 Timothy 5:8 is another witness to that.

You can't reconcile that with a belief that unbelievers face Eternal Endless Torment while believers are definitely promised our Judgment will be temporary and not undo our Salvation.

All this is another reason that Universal Salvation is the most coherent interpretation of the fullness of The Scriptures.

There were a variety of views in The Early Church

Back when I just believed in Eternal Security, I expressed annoyance at those who act like a view didn't exist in the Early Church if apparently no "Early Church Fathers" advocated for it.  When those same people refereed to lots of views existing besides their own.

There is no Biblical support for a notion that the majority will be right.  But even so who's to say the Church Fathers were the majority?  The warning against the Doctrine of the Nicolatians tells me that those who'd obtain that title should not be inherently more trusted.  But they were the only ones who could write and so their sides of the arguments are what were preserved.  We have no way of knowing how much the people in their own flocks even agreed with them.

I want to quote from a "Church Father" who I disagree with possibly the most of anyone, who's soterology certainly is not mine, being the prototype of Calvinism.

 St Augustine (c.354-43): "There are very many ('imo quam plurimi', which can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c. 29)

This is backed up by Basil.

St. Basil the Great: (c. 329-379): "The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." (De Asceticis)

Augustine of Hippo in his work City of God: Book 21 Chapters 17-22 describes six views on eternal punishment he disagrees with.  The first two are forms of what we would today call Universal Reconciliation.  The next three are forms of "Once Saved Always Saved".  The last one is something of a works salvation view.

Chapter 17.— Of Those Who Fancy that No Men Shall Be Punished Eternally.

I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or that all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man's sin. In respect of this matter, Origen was even more indulgent; for he believed that even the devil himself and his angels, after suffering those more severe and prolonged pains which their sins deserved, should be delivered from their torments, and associated with the holy angels. But the Church, not without reason, condemned him for this and other errors, especially for his theory of the ceaseless alternation of happiness and misery, and the interminable transitions from the one state to the other at fixed periods of ages; for in this theory he lost even the credit of being merciful, by allotting to the saints real miseries for the expiation of their sins, and false happiness, which brought them no true and secure joy, that is, no fearless assurance of eternal blessedness. Very different, however, is the error we speak of, which is dictated by the tenderness of these Christians who suppose that the sufferings of those who are condemned in the judgment will be temporary, while the blessedness of all who are sooner or later set free will be eternal. Which opinion, if it is good and true because it is merciful, will be so much the better and truer in proportion as it becomes more merciful. Let, then, this fountain of mercy be extended, and flow forth even to the lost angels, and let them also be set free, at least after as many and long ages as seem fit! Why does this stream of mercy flow to all the human race, and dry up as soon as it reaches the angelic? And yet they dare not extend their pity further, and propose the deliverance of the devil himself. Or if any one is bold enough to do so, he does indeed put to shame their charity, but is himself convicted of error that is more unsightly, and a wresting of God's truth that is more perverse, in proportion as his clemency of sentiment seems to be greater.

He mentions Origen, but distinguishes Origen from most who hold views like this for reasons partly similar to what I expressed in the supplemental part of the post I made yesterday.

Now when I had long ago on forums dealt with enemies of Eternal Security on the subject of the parts I'll get to later, one who emphasized the "Pre-Nicean Fathers" said Augustine is post-Nicean.  In this case we see with Origen that who he speaks of existed before Nicea and Constantine.  And expressed things in a way where it seems like Origen's version didn't come first, since he went further with it.  If Origen came before the others he'd have said they didn't go as far.

There is no source outside Augustine for saying Origen was condemned for this.  He wasn't formally condemned at all till later then Augustine.  And Origen's earliest critics were far more concerned with his other more Platonic teachings.  It is in those areas that Augustine rather resembles Origen suspiciously enough.

Chapter 18.— Of Those Who Fancy That, on Account of the Saints' Intercession, Man Shall Be Damned in the Last Judgment.

There are others, again, with whose opinions I have become acquainted in conversation, who, though they seem to reverence the holy Scriptures, are yet of reprehensible life, and who accordingly, in their own interest, attribute to God a still greater compassion towards men. For they acknowledge that it is truly predicted in the divine word that the wicked and unbelieving are worthy of punishment, but they assert that, when the judgment comes, mercy will prevail. For, say they, God, having compassion on them, will give them up to the prayers and intercessions of His saints. For if the saints used to pray for them when they suffered from their cruel hatred, how much more will they do so when they see them prostrate and humble suppliants? For we cannot, they say, believe that the saints shall lose their bowels of compassion when they have attained the most perfect and complete holiness; so that they who, when still sinners, prayed for their enemies, should now, when they are freed from sin, withhold from interceding for their suppliants. Or shall God refuse to listen to so many of His beloved children, when their holiness has purged their prayers of all hindrance to His answering them? And the passage of the psalm which is cited by those who admit that wicked men and infidels shall be punished for a long time, though in the end delivered from all sufferings, is claimed also by the persons we are now speaking of as making much more for them. The verse runs: Shall God forget to be gracious? Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies? His anger, they say, would condemn all that are unworthy of everlasting happiness to endless punishment. But if He suffer them to be punished for a long time, or even at all, must He not shut up His tender mercies, which the Psalmist implies He will not do? For he does not say, Shall He in anger shut up His tender mercies for a long period? But he implies that He will not shut them up at all.
And they deny that thus God's threat of judgment is proved to be false even though He condemn no man, any more than we can say that His threat to overthrow Nineveh was false, though the destruction which was absolutely predicted was not accomplished. For He did not say, Nineveh shall be overthrown if they do not repent and amend their ways, but without any such condition He foretold that the city should be overthrown. And this prediction, they maintain, was true because God predicted the punishment which they deserved, although He was not to inflict it. For though He spared them on their repentance yet He was certainly aware that they would repent, and, notwithstanding, absolutely and definitely predicted that the city should be overthrown. This was true, they say, in the truth of severity, because they were worthy of it; but in respect of the compassion which checked His anger, so that He spared the suppliants from the punishment with which He had threatened the rebellious, it was not true. If, then, He spared those whom His own holy prophet was provoked at His sparing, how much more shall He spare those more wretched suppliants for whom all His saints shall intercede? And they suppose that this conjecture of theirs is not hinted at in Scripture, for the sake of stimulating many to reformation of life through fear of very protracted or eternal sufferings, and of stimulating others to pray for those who have not reformed. However, they think that the divine oracles are not altogether silent on this point; for they ask to what purpose is it said, How great is Your goodness which You have hidden for them that fear You, if it be not to teach us that the great and hidden sweetness of God's mercy is concealed in order that men may fear? To the same purpose they think the apostle said, For God has concluded all men in unbelief, that He may have mercy upon all, Romans 11:32 signifying that no one should be condemned by God. And yet they who hold this opinion do not extend it to the acquittal or liberation of the devil and his angels. Their human tenderness is moved only towards men, and they plead chiefly their own cause, holding out false hopes of impunity to their own depraved lives by means of this quasi compassion of God to the whole race. Consequently they who promise this impunity even to the prince of the devils and his satellites make a still fuller exhibition of the mercy of God.

This view seems to be based on saying no one even temporarily enters the Lake of Fire.  The logic of it I do like and understand and can play a role in my argument.  But I'm still more like the first group.

Augustine seems to be confused by the notion of allowing Universal Reconciliation to all humans but not including The Devil and Fallen Angels.  I'm not entirely sure what I think on that issue.  But the difference between them and Human Beings is Human Beings are Blood Relations of Jesus as children of Adam.

Chapter 19.— Of Those Who Promise Impunity from All Sins Even to Heretics, Through Virtue of Their Participation of the Body of Christ.

So, too, there are others who promise this deliverance from eternal punishment, not, indeed, to all men, but only to those who have been washed in Christian baptism, and who become partakers of the body of Christ, no matter how they have lived, or what heresy or impiety they have fallen into. They ground this opinion on the saying of Jesus, This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that if any man eat thereof, he shall not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If a man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. John 6:50-51 Therefore, say they, it follows that these persons must be delivered from death eternal, and at one time or other be introduced to everlasting life.

Chapter 20.— Of Those Who Promise This Indulgence Not to All, But Only to Those Who Have Been Baptized as Catholics, Though Afterwards They Have Broken Out into Many Crimes and Heresies.

There are others still who make this promise not even to all who have received the sacraments of the baptism of Christ and of His body, but only to the Catholics, however badly they have lived. For these have eaten the body of Christ, not only sacramentally but really, being incorporated in His body, as the apostle says, We, being many, are one bread, one body; 1 Corinthians 10:17 so that, though they have afterwards lapsed into some heresy, or even into heathenism and idolatry, yet by virtue of this one thing, that they have received the baptism of Christ, and eaten the body of Christ, in the body of Christ, that is to say, in the Catholic Church, they shall not die eternally, but at one time or other obtain eternal life; and all that wickedness of theirs shall not avail to make their punishment eternal, but only proportionately long and severe.

Chapter 21.— Of Those Who Assert that All Catholics Who Continue in the Faith Even Though by the Depravity of Their Lives They Have Merited Hell Fire, Shall Be Saved on Account of the Foundation Of Their Faith.

There are some, too, who found upon the expression of Scripture, He that endures to the end shall be saved, Matthew 24:13 and who promise salvation only to those who continue in the Catholic Church; and though such persons have lived badly, yet, say they, they shall be saved as by fire through virtue of the foundation of which the apostle says, For other foundation has no man laid than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day of the Lord shall declare it, for it shall be revealed by fire; and each man's work shall be proved of what sort it is. If any man's work shall endure which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. But if any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 They say, accordingly, that the Catholic Christian, no matter what his life be, has Christ as his foundation, while this foundation is not possessed by any heresy which is separated from the unity of His body.  And therefore, through virtue of this foundation, even though the Catholic Christian by the inconsistency of his life has been as one building up wood, hay, stubble, upon it, they believe that he shall be saved by fire, in other words, that he shall be delivered after tasting the pain of that fire to which the wicked shall be condemned at the last judgment.

Now to the people I alluded to before who say this doesn't prove Eternal Security existed before Nicea.  Well for one I have a quote of Origen I'd mentioned in an old post where he attacks people who seemed to believe in some form of Eternal Security.

But I'd also say that Augustine wasn't that long after Nicea, it's silly to suggest three different forms of this could develop entirely in that short a period of time and become significant enough for Augustine to find worth addressing.

Chapter 22.— Of Those Who Fancy that the Sins Which are Intermingled with Alms-Deeds Shall Not Be Charged at the Day of Judgment.

I have also met with some who are of opinion that such only as neglect to cover their sins with almsdeeds shall be punished in everlasting fire; and they cite the words of the Apostle James, He shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy. James 2:13 Therefore, say they, he who has not amended his ways, but yet has intermingled his profligate and wicked actions with works of mercy, shall receive mercy in the judgment, so that he shall either quite escape condemnation, or shall be liberated from his doom after some time shorter or longer. They suppose that this was the reason why the Judge Himself of quick and dead declined to mention anything else than works of mercy done or omitted, when awarding to those on His right hand life eternal, and to those on His left everlasting punishment. Matthew 25:33 To the same purpose, they say, is the daily petition we make in the Lord's prayer, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. Matthew 6:12 For, no doubt, whoever pardons the person who has wronged him does a charitable action. And this has been so highly commended by the Lord Himself, that He says, For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: but if you forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15 And so it is to this kind of almsdeeds that the saying of the Apostle James refers, He shall have judgment without mercy that has shown no mercy. And our Lord, they say, made no distinction of great and small sins, but Your Father will forgive your sins, if you forgive men theirs. Consequently they conclude that, though a man has led an abandoned life up to the last day of it, yet whatsoever his sins have been, they are all remitted by virtue of this daily prayer, if only he has been mindful to attend to this one thing, that when they who have done him any injury ask his pardon, he forgive them from his heart.

And that last one is a works Salvation view basically.  Easy enough to refute.  But Augustine's objection to it is the opposite of mine.

Chapters 23-27 are Augustine giving his counter arguments to these.  I don't feel like addressing those here, maybe in a future follow up post.  Needless to say much of it comes down to Augustine not knowing Greek and going by flawed Latin translations of Aionion as Eternal.

My objective today is just to show that a variety of views existed.

The Gospel According to JaredMithrandir Olorin

I'm a Univeralist, an Evangelical Universalist to be exact

I've been hesitant till today (November 9th 2016, Central Time Zone) to go fully Public with this.  Because until I was a Universalist I had no view you could label Theologically Liberal, I was a Theologically Conservative Social Liberal and Political Libertarian with Communist leanings.

The most important project on this Blog to me has been advocating for rethinking the traditional views on Sexual Morality especially Homosexuality.  And in the sense that that message is for Christians skeptical of the idea I was afraid of someone going "He's a Univeralist so of course he says anything goes", even though the main dissertation and the vital post on Plato and Augustine were all made before I became a Universalist.

However, I have decided that in terms of it as a message for LGBT people.  I decided it helps the Gospel to open with that you are not going to Burn for Eternity.  Regardless of if you agree with my theology or not.  I'm just asking that if you are open to being a Christian and an assumption about what The Bible says about Homosexuality is one of the main things holding you back.  To give my dissertation a read, others have made the argument before, but my argument is different, I never result to not taking The Bible literally.

I will be making more posts on the subject of Unviersalism.  Talking about ways my own take on it may differ from others.

I shall chronicle all posts relevant to this topic on the Universalism page.

Am I an Arminian?

There is a lot of confusion out there about what the definition of Arminian actually is.  The most surprisingly thing to me was to learn that Eternal Security is not inherently incompatible with Arminianism.  I know I'm not a Calvanist because I've always rejected all 5 points of Calvinism.  But most Eternal Security preaching preachers simply assume Arminians is lordship salvation when they mention it.

I shall copy/paste here from The Society of Evangelical Arminians.

Survey: Are You an Arminian and Don’t Even Know It?

February 28, 2013, posted by SEA

Over the centuries, Calvinists have so successfully vilified Arminianism that people who are Arminian are afraid to say so. This is true even though Arminianism is the default theological position of Christian Protestantism; indeed, many people are Arminian and don’t even know it, and even deny it. Arminianism is so widespread that even the strongest Calvinist churches are filled with Arminians. It is ironic, then, that people are afraid to say they’re Arminian; for example, many Independent and Southern Baptists are typically Arminian, but nonetheless often call themselves Calvinists!

The purpose of this survey is to help people who have an Arminian theology realize that they are Arminians and to help them understand that it is okay to be Arminian. The questions deal with the most pertinent issues which define Arminianism and distinguish Arminianism from Calvinism.

1. Do you believe that Jesus died for every human being?
• If you answered yes to the question, then at least you agree with one of the central tenets of Arminianism, and you would be generally unwelcome in Calvinist circles
• This is perhaps the most glaring issue which divides Calvinism and Arminianism
• Most Calvinists believe that Jesus died only for certain people, although there is some debate whether Calvin himself held this view
• If you believe that Jesus died only for those who would eventually believe, then you truly are a Calvinist and not an Arminian

2. Do you believe that humans are so depraved that they can do nothing to earn salvation and that they cannot choose to believe in Jesus without the intervention of God’s grace?
• If you answered yes, then you agree with Arminius and Arminianism
• Calvinists affirm the same doctrine, but often claim that Arminians do not, despite near, if not complete unanimity among Arminian theologians in affirming the doctrine

3. Do you believe that a person can resist the convicting power of God’s grace?
• If you answered yes, then again you affirm another one of the central tenets of Arminianism, as reflected in Jesus’ words, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often I have longed to gather your children together…but you were not willing” (Matt 23:37)
• Calvinists argue that God has determined which individuals will believe; to make their faith possible, he calls them to salvation in such a way that their own wills are overpowered so that they cannot possibly resist the call to salvation
• Arminians believe that God truly wants every one to believe; but when God enables a person to believe, he does so in such a way that the individual still can resist the convicting power of the Spirit–faith is not a necessary outcome of God’s enabling grace

4. Do you believe that you are born again when you put your faith in Jesus?
• If you answered yes, then you hold to a major tenet of Arminianism and you probably are not a Calvinist
• Calvinists believe that God must first give a person new life to enable faith; without first being made to share the new life, they think that a person cannot believe
• Arminians argue that people are not given the gift of the new life until they believe
• Arminians hold that when a person believes, he is united with Christ and only then does he partake of the new life and is born again; a person does not share in the new life without first being united with Christ by faith, for “whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16)

5. Do you believe in election?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• Calvinists believe in an election independent of faith
• Arminians believe that election is “in Christ;” i.e., anyone who is “in Christ” is elect, but that faith is essential to become united with Christ. Therefore, election is conditioned upon faith

6. Do you believe in predestination?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• Arminians assert that believers are predestined to final salvation, not that people are predestined to believe

7. Do you believe in eternal security?
• The issue is whether people who truly believe in Jesus for salvation can possibly shipwreck their faith and forfeit their salvation, or conversely, once people have genuinely put their faith in Christ, whether their final salvation is unconditionally guaranteed
• If you answered yes and do believe in eternal security, you might be an Arminian
• There is some question of whether Arminius himself ever actually taught that believers may make shipwreck of their faith and so forfeit their salvation
• The Remonstrants—the early Arminians, people who sided with Arminius in the theological debates of 17th century Holland—originally took no position on this issue, though they ultimately came to the conclusion that believers can make shipwreck of their faith and so perish
• If you answered no and don’t believe in eternal security, then you affirm something which many Arminians strongly affirm, and you certainly would not be welcome in the Calvinist camp
• The official statement of faith of the Society of Evangelical Arminians only affirms that “persevering in faith is necessary for final salvation,” without commenting further on the possibility of making shipwreck of one’s faith.
• All Calvinists believe in unconditional eternal security (some without qualification and some because they think that faith and its continuance is due to unconditional election).
• Most Independent and Southern Baptists base their claim to be Calvinists on this sole issue and the traditional inclusion of the possibility of apostasy for genuine believers as an essential part of Arminian theology. However, in light of uncertainty among early Arminians on this issue and the fact that such Baptists agree with the Arminian position against the Calvinist one on every other point of disagreement, eternal security should not be a determining factor in the question of whether one is an Arminian or a Calvinist

8. Do you believe in the penal satisfaction view of the atonement?
• If you answered yes or if you answered no, you might be an Arminian
• The penal satisfaction view of the atonement asserts that Jesus’ death entailed a payment for sin. It assumes that the justice of God requires that sin be punished and that the just wrath of God was diverted away from deserving sinners and poured out instead upon Jesus as their substitute
• This view is held by most Calvinists and by a majority of Arminians (especially those who claim the nomenclature “Reformation Arminianism”), although some Arminians reject the notion that God punished his Son Jesus
• Arminius affirmed the penal satisfaction view of the atonement

9. Do you believe that God exhaustively knows the future?
• If you answered yes, you might be an Arminian
• Calvinists and most Arminians believe that God exhaustively knows the future.
• Some Arminians think that a denial of this doctrine is a rejection of basic Christian Theism, and that those who deny the doctrine cannot therefore be Arminian
• The Society of Evangelical Arminians affirms the doctrine, and one cannot belong to the society unless one is in agreement with it

10. Do you believe in the sovereignty of God?
• If you answered yes, then you might be an Arminian
• All Calvinists and all Arminians affirm the sovereignty of God, but they differ on God’s endowment of freedom to human beings
• Some Calvinists define sovereignty as God ordaining and predetermining all things and events, so that human choice is merely an illusion
• Some Calvinists don’t explicitly deny human freedom, but attempt to redefine it to fit their view of sovereignty
• Arminians affirm basic free will and that humans really do make genuine choices, undeniably affirming human culpability in sin
• The Arminian view of Sovereignty is that God has the power and authority to do anything he wants, and nothing can happen unless he does it or allows it;
• Arminians believe that God is sovereign enough to endow his creatures with free will
• The Arminian view of Sovereignty and human freedom is motivated by its understanding of the character of God as being holy so that 1) God is not the author of evil; and 2) humans are culpable for their sins

In summary, you can be an Arminian and believe
• the doctrine of unlimited atonement (Jesus died for everyone)
• the doctrine of total depravity (people are incapable of believing in Jesus apart from the intervention of God’s grace)
• the doctrine of resistible grace (God dispenses grace in such a way that people may resist his convicting grace)
• the doctrine of election (all those who are “in Christ” are elect)
• the doctrine of predestination (believers are predestined)
• the doctrine of eternal security or the alternative view that true believers can turn from their faith and so perish as unbelievers
• the doctrine of the penal satisfaction atonement (God punished Jesus for the sins of the world)
• the doctrine of omniscience (including that God foreknows the future perfectly)
• the sovereignty of God (God can do whatever he wants, including endow humans with a free will)

As I stated earlier, the default position of Christian evangelicalism is Arminianism. And as can be seen in this brief outline, it is okay to be Arminian.

For more reflection on these issues, read Roger Olson’s Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities, which sets forth classical Arminian theology and debunks 10 myths about Arminianism.

Arminian Baptist
James M. Leonard
jl502.cam.ac.uk
arminianbaptist.blogspot.com

I don't want to get into the peculiarities of what was said there.  I just want to say of these 10 questions I answer Yes to all but 2 and 4.  But I shall also clarify my position on 7 somewhat.

For 2, my position on Original Sin is only that it is a Genetic predisposition to Sin.  I believe all have sinned and fallen short and that we can't earn Salvation, we are saved by Grace through Faith alone apart from Works.  But I disagree with the notion that even the Faith is given by God.  The verses misused on that subject others have addressed.

For 4, my saying no is in no way based on a Calvanist definition.  I've discussed on this blog before that we are Born Again at the Resurrection.

For 7, What makes me not a Calvanist even on their Fifth point is that I believe a believer can and many have made a shipwreck of their faith but that will not result in losing Salvation.  Including if they die in Sin and/or unbelief like Saul and Solomon did.

I will leave it up to others to judge if I qualify, either way it's not how I'd ever identify myself because I base my beliefs on The Bible not Arminus or any other reformer or pope or patriarch or pastor.

What I will say hypothetically is my response to those that might say "if Free Will is the foundation of Arminianism that how can Eternal Security be compatible? Shouldn't you be able to choose to lose faith if you choose?".

My answer is in the parable of the Prodigal Son, we are God's Children and we can choose to forfeit our inheritance but our actions will never make us cease to be God's Children.

I'm rethinking Universalism

I made a post on Universalism before.  Where I argued against it.  My admitting to on some level wanting to believe it gives a certain context to my changing my mind on it.  The reason I wanted to believe though is because I feel the way 1 Peter 3:9 said God feels, it is His preference that none shall perish.  Still at this moment I'm still not willing to consider myself entirely convinced.

Really the word Eternal was the main thing keeping me from becoming convinced.  And while I argued in my prior post about the whole Ageless analogy for the meaning of Aionion, I had no evidence for it, and in other areas I've been aware that ending with an "on" in Greek tends to be a way of making a word plural, more then one age is not the same as ageless.

Only that the same word is used to describe our Eternal Life was my argument.  Because as much as I want to believe in Universalism I am equally certain the Life promised to Believers will never end.  Well I looked at this thread on a Universalist forum where they discussed the word.

People there argued that a word can refer to something Eternal without meaning Eternal.  And suggested lasting as a more accurate translation.  I later made my own thread on that forum about Lamentations 3:31.  Lots of interesting pro Universalist arguments were made.

Then there is this Blog post.  He does not consider himself a Unviersalsit but holds a view that can indeed be described as Universalist.  He makes lots of good arguments particularly about how to define what being Lost means.

But the reason he does not consider himself a Universlaist is because traditional Christian Unviersalists believe that everyone will EVENTUALLY by Saved.  He believes in terms of eternal Salvation everyone already is, and everyone referenced as "Shall be Saved" in The Bible is about physical death or punishment in this world.  He does not believe in an "After Death Gehenna" and believes Revelation is all allegories so does not take the Lake of Fire seriously at all.

It is absolutely true that many uses of "Shall be Saved" are about physical salvation, particularity in the Olivite Discourse.

But Jesus told certain people "They Faith has Saved thee" that makes no sense to be about something Physical.  When Paul talks about us being Justified by Faith, and Saved by Grace through Faith, he is talking about us being saved from the Second Death.  And I firmly believe when you accept Jesus you are Saved from ever entering The Lake of Fire at all.  How permanent being in the Lake of Fire is is a separate debate.

His insistence that believing you need Faith is itself a work is Biblically invalid, it may by logical to Secular Logic but not Biblical logic.  Because every time Paul talks about Faith and Works is all about differentiating them and contrasting them virtually as opposites.  But indeed it is not intellectual belief that Saves us, it is a change of Heart.

I return again to 1 Corinthians 3:15.  "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."  This is the Bema Judgment, and this proves some Believers will fail to earn rewards but are still Saved.

This is used as a verse supporting Purgatory sometimes, and that affiliation is why I think many Protestants avoid it.  But the Catholic view of Purgatory is all about getting people in this world to think their prayers and money can effect the fate of people already dead.  That has no Biblical support at all.

A Universalist who has a different chronological view of Prophecy then me may argue that the Bema and White Throne Judgments are the same and this proves you can enter the Fire but still be Saved, because it does refer to Fire.  I will even agree that this Fire and the Fire of The Lake have the same source, God Himself, which I argued for in a post I'll link to later.

The difference is for the Saved person at the Bema Judgment this Fire won't be painful, or at least.... well.... ya know what I'm going to use Game of Thrones to make an illustration here, Season 1.  It's like the difference between Viserys Targeryen and Daenerys Targaryen.  One is Burned by fire, the other is not.

Chronologically I feel Revelation 11 clearly places the Bema Judgment after the 7th Trumpet, the White Throne Judgment is after the Millennium and the Gog-Magog War.  I do theorize both Judgments will take place on Yom Kippur.

In my prior Universalism post I linked to my Outer Darkness post.  I did not really refute the Unviersalist usage of Revelation 21:27, just provided an alternate explanation.

A number of Bible verses do imply different states of damnation among the damned.  Jesus said it would be better for the Men of Sodom on the day of Judgment then it will be for the Pharisees.  He makes similar statements about Tyre and Sidon.  Sometimes though it's not how evil someone is but how much of an opportunity to believe they had that makes the difference, which is an odd thing for Calvinists to deal with.  In fact we're told certain people would have believed if they'd seen what the Jews of Jesus day saw, is it really fair to permanently damn those people?

If the Judgment on the Unbelieving is Eternal Fire, it's hard for me to comprehend the Judgment being different, that the flames are somehow more or less hot in different parts of the lake is difficult to see mattering if it's Eternal.  But if the matter is how long they are in the lake, that makes more sense.  The worst human sinners, The Beast and The False Prophet, entered it first and are still there when Satan is cast in at least one thousand years later.

For many Christians the rejection of Universalism seems to come down to "what's the point of the Great Commission then?", "Why bother spreading The Gospel".  Well for starters I think saving people from entering The Lake even momentarily is a big deal.  Even if for most it is only an hour, being burned a whole hour by even normal fire is an unimaginable pain, and even after it's over it'd be psychologically scarring besides physically.  But the Fire of God?  Imagine how much worse that is.

But there is a benefit to Believing too.  What we are supposed to be doing is recruiting people for The Kingdom.  Not all Believers will even get the rewards, but you have to be a Believer to be eligible for them.  We have the opportunity to Co-Rule with him.

So a lot of it comes down to different statuses we'll have in the New Heaven and New Earth (or for some the Millennium but I believe The Church skips that), and the Unsaved who die before that are also not Resurrected till after.

The difference between Church Age believers and other ages is mostly geographical, there is more to it then that but that how it's easiest to explain here.  We of The Church are New Jerusalem, but there are Nations of The Saved outside New Jerusalem.

Believers who aren't of the Church either because of when they were Saved or perhaps losing inheritance will dwell in other Nations, some ruling, some not.  Israelites in the other parts of Israel outside Yahweh-Shammah, and Gentiles in other lands.  In the lands promised to Abraham but not included in the Tribal allotments of Ezekiel are where the Ishmaelites and other Abrahamic saved will live.  And beyond that Isaiah 19 describes a special arrangement between Egypt and Assyria.

Based on the Parable of the Sower I argued the Saved have at least 3 Categories.  Those who earn Crowns will be Co-Rulers, Kings and Priests with him.  Believers who are in mind in 1 Corinthians 3:15 will not be Co-Rulers but will not lose Sonship.

There is a possible difference even between Believers who were just worldly and didn't do much works, and those who fell away.  While neither can lose Sonship, it's possible there could be a further distinction between that and losing your Citizenship of The Kingdom.  Meaning there are at least 3 basic statuses.

All that is just what I believed as someone still firmly NOT a Universalist, but someone who as much as I wanted to believe that still thought it was impossible.

In light of what I'm considering now, it could be for the Christians who fully lose their Citizenship by falling away, that their status once in the New Creation is not any better then the best of those who never believed, but they still will never enter the Lake of Fire.  It can also be possible to have different social statuses even among the non citizens, which means even the unbelievers could earn something from the good they do.

Going back to the idea of how long people are in the Lake of Fire being different.  A major skepticism of the Unvierslaist view is that Revelation 20-22 don't seem to show anyone getting released from there.  I've argued before that I think the White Throne judgment happens on Yom Kippur, and that New Jerusalem descends on the first day of Tabernacles, and on the Eight day of Tabernacles is when Time (as we know it at least) ends.  All of that is something to consider.  Yom Kippur was also supposed to be the day the Jubilee happened, which among other things included debts being forgiven and slaves being set free.

It could be the perception of time is different within The Lake of Fire, it comes from God who is timeless after all.  And so maybe to the perspective of those outside it all happens on Yom Kippur.

One disagreement among Universalists is if Satan, the Fallen Angels and Demons will also be saved eventually too.  I'm inclined to believe that our eligibility for Salvation is possible only because of our kinship with Adam and Eve.  It's interesting that the Fire is defined as being for The Devil and his Angels, that men will be cast into it is merely something extra.

My mind remains unmade on this now, so if anyone wants to offer their own arguments for or against feel free to leave a comment.

Update: September 5th 2015

Jude 1:7 describes God's Judgment on Sodom and Gommorah as Aionion Fire, same term Jesus used in Matthew 25.  But Ezekiel 16:53-55 says Sodom will be restored to her former estate.

Sodom being restored is a pretty telling example.  Sodom had no survivors, Lot was a stranger living among them to start with, and his descendants became their own nations, Moab and Ammon.  So it's not a City being restored to future descendants of Sodom.  It must be the same people God destroyed, not one of whom was Righteous, that are being restored.

Actually the Sheeps and Goats Judgment is the only place that Aionion Fire is used in a clearly eschatological sense.  And I like others have seen that as a Judgment of those still living after Armageddon has happened, before The Millennium.  But maybe I was wrong on the timing of that and it is the same as the White Throne Judgment, but a less literal depiction being a parable.

Thing about the Sheeps and Goats Judgment is that Goats are still Levitically clean Animals, acceptable offerings to God.  There is no Biblical Basis for representing Satan as a Goat, Satan has claimed the Goats because he wants to claim title of Jesus, Jesus is the Yom Kippur Sin Offering (a Goat) as much as he is the Passover Lamb.

Maybe it's even a wrong assumption that everyone who waits til the Second Resurrection to be Resurrected goes into the Lake of Fire.  It says all who's names are not written in the Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire.

In the past I'd rejected the view that the Book of Life and the Old Testament Book of The Living are the same, but maybe I should change my mind on that.  Believers have a promise our names won't be blotted out in Revelation 2-3.  But maybe that doesn't mean we're the only ones who's names don't get blotted.  I still of course believe having your Part taken out (in Revelation 22) isn't the same as being . Blotted out.  They are in the same book, if they meant the same thing the same term would have been used.

There is a difference between having your name in the Year Book (which itself requires graduating) and having accomplishments under your names.

That PureUnadulteratedGrace Blog has a study on Luke 16 and the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, arguing it's a parable.  Good argument but I must reject his mention of saying Satan/The Devil isn't a literal entity, The Bible is unambiguous on them being real.

Update: September 7th 2015

This video has an interesting discussion of Universalism that starts at 43 Minutes in, it's Rob Skiba interviewing John Gabrielson.

Update: September 12th

I started another thread on that Forum about Judas, and had a pretty interesting discussion.

Update 2016:  I have a follow up post on Universalism now.

Eternal Security and Homosexuality

I haven't yet discussed Homosexuality with someone who agrees with me on Eternal Security.  I'm sure most Eternal Security supports hold the traditional view, but it seems the people who feel compelled to conform me on not viewing Homsoexuality as a Sin for even the most casual allusion I might make to it are people who think Salivation can be Lost, or Calvinists or that they can tell I'm not truly saved over such a disagreement.

If you hold the correct view on Eternal Security, then no matter what you think of Homosexuality you think it's possible for a Homosexual to be a truly saved person and continue being engaging in homosexual acts without losing his/her Salvation.  Because Repenting of Sin is not required for Salvation.

If you don't hold the right view on Eternal Security then I frankly don't even consider your thoughts on Homosexuality worthy of listening to, because you don't even have the right Gospel.  You have bigger problems.

Discussing the Homosexuality issue with people who aren't right on Eternal Security inevitably dovetails the issue to Eternal Security, because they question my Salvation.  It amazes me, all the incredibly theologically conservative views I lay out in my Statement of Faith, yet they think this issue addressed in 5 random verses is worth labeling an apostate.

I'm not a Homosexual even, just  Ciz-Het white male defender of Homosexuals against tyranny, who they assume must be Gay to even consider defending them.

So for once I'd like to try and discus the issue with someone willing to concede from the start that I am a fellow Believer.

Is believing in Eternal Security a license to Sin?

First of all I want to say I'm really annoyed at all the people who claim to believe in Eternal Security, but undermine it with some variation of misunderstanding the point of works as evidence of faith in order to get around this accusation.

If they aren't engaging in some full "Perseverance of the Saints" doctrine, they will still try to insist believing in Eternal Security is itself a motivation to do good out of appreciation.  Even suggesting the Christians who do fall into Sin probably aren't believing in Eternal Security.  But we should not bet on that.

The accusation of this post's title is not a valid criticism at all, it is irrelevant to if Eternal Security is true.  The purpose of The Gospel is not to inspire good behavior, it's to inform people of what Jesus did.  It's the religions of men that want to use the threat of eternal hell-fire or annihilation to keep people in line.

What should be our chief incentive to try and be faithful obedient Christians is that it will help spread The Gospel and get people Saved.  The great commission says in the Greek to "Be a Witness".  Evangelism isn't all about door to door soul winning and street preaching.  Only certain people are called to be full time Evangelists.  Hebrews 11 and James Epistle is about us justifying our faith to others.  Being credible witnesses so people will consider our beliefs credible.  Yet today it's popular to insist that you're NOT a good Christian if non believers don't hate your guts.

Let me give Biblical Proof to fellow Eternal Security believers that yes, some who are right on Eternal Security will take the License to Sin attitude even though they shouldn't.  And that we therefor should not waste time trying to prove to our critics that none will.

I know it's popular to try and make Laodicea in Revelation 3:14-22 characteristic of Liberal Christianity.  But reading the account without bias I have no doubt that one thing this Church does get right is Eternal Security.  Doctrine is not exactly why they are doing so bad.

What I would say to those who'd use the message to Laodicea against Eternal Security is that their problem isn't being secure in their Salvation, but being Secure in their Reward.  While Paul made clear in 1 Corinthians 3 some of the Saved will have no rewards.

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

When Jesus speaks of spitting them out of his Mouth it's not Hell but the Outer Darkness.

As I've said before I do believe there are ramifications when a Believer Sins.  That is our second incentive.

Some who are right on Eternal Security even without the fifth point of Calivnism error, and acknowledging believers can sin.  Want to limit those ramifications to only this world.  Who take offense to the obvious fact that not all of the Saved are in New Jerusalem.

That is an error, and one that has allowed some Christians to become very hateful.

Jesus Words Only

During Jesus ministry the Pharisees seem at face value to be the main adversaries of Jesus (mainly to those who don't know the Priests were Sadducees at this time).  But throughout Acts the persecution of the young Church came mainly from the Sadducees, the few exceptions (last one being Saul/Paul himself) were very early on.

The difference between the two is often defined by their views on the Resurrection, but it goes deeper then that.  The Pharisees added to God's word with their Oral Torah now passed on by the Rabbis.  But the Sadducees limited God's Word to only the Five Books of Moses.  That's why they could sorta get away with denying the Resurrection, they gave no credence to Isaiah 26, Ezekiel 37 or Daniel 12.  But Jesus in Matthew 22:32 did prove the Resurrection to them from The Torah.

There is a "Jesus Words Only" movement out there, seeking to deny that Paul was inspired or a true Apostle, and that we should build our doctrine on Jesus words alone (though they generally feel the non Pauline Epistles don't contradict them).  There is a tendency for them to favor Matthew and John over Luke, but the main website I've viewed of them seeks to defend Luke against the accusation that he was a Paulian and insists the Jesus in Luke was consistent with the Jesus in Matthew and John.

I'm glad frankly that there are enemies of Salvation by Faith Alone and Eternal Security who admit that's what Paul taught.  Now they slander Paul by saying he taught Calvinism and other Gnostic things.  As far the Calvinism I addressed that here.

The basis for saying Paul was a Gnostic is argued by lots of enemies of The Bible, the problem with this movement's premise is the case for Paul being Gnostic is slightly weaker then the case for John being Gnostic (all that talk about The Logos, The Light and the Archon of The Kosmos).  The Gnostics borrowed language from both of them, as well as Philo.

To me all of The Bible is Jesus words, because Jesus is The Word.  But at any-rate Jesus dealt with the Saducees by sticking to their ground rules, fortunately I feel my job here is easier then Jesus was.  But first I want to clarify something.

Faith Alone and Eternal Security get treated as separate issues, to me they are not, believing Salvation can be obtained without works but then lost based on them is absurdly illogical.  And for that reason everything Paul said on Faith Alone proved Eternal security.  But as far as the Bible verses I use against those who insist they can be separated, there is really just one or two key things from Paul.  Frankly the strongest verses on specifically Eternal Security to me do come from what is often printed in Red.

Now, to begin.

These people like Catholics do not deny Faith is also needed, no one who doesn't believe in Jesus is gonna be saved by their good works.  They know Jesus said he is the only way in John 10.  So I won't be quoting every verse that mentions Faith.

I don't want to hear those people responding with talk about active ongoing belief vs one time moment belief.  Those semantics are used to deny Paul taught Faith Alone as Evangelicals understand it also.  Any verse where that interpretation of what belief means is plausible to me I won't be using.

John 3:14-18

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.  For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.  He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 Perhaps people think my view of these verses are undermined by what follows about men who do evil deeds hating the Light, and those who know Truth being drawn to the light.  That discussion perhaps tells us something about what kinds of people become Believers, but not about Salvation itself.  Verse 19 is clearly meant to be a slight change in subject.

On the subject of specifically Eternal Security, no one has Eternal Life if that salvation was latter lost.  Which brings me to John 11:25-26

Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die."

Believing makes Death impossible, that is the plain reading of that statement.

John 10:28-30

I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.  I and my Father are one.

 John 17:12

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Now the first part of this verse is popular for those of us who believe in Eternal Security.  Those who believe Salvation can be lost feel the statement about Judas disproves Eternal Security.  Regardless of one's view on if Judas was ever truly Saved.  He is defined here as the absolute one and only exception. And it's part of fulfilling Scripture, he is the Idol Shepherd of Zechariah 11.

Verses from John used against Eternal Security or Faith Alone may include 4:36-37.  That is about earning rewards not Salvation.  Mostly they would be the verses that mention his Commandments.

Enemies of Faith Alone love John 14:15

If ye love me, keep my commandments.

First of all loving him is a work, he defined Loving God elsewhere as the greatest commandment.  There are I believe Saved people who during their walk fail to Love him adequately.   Similar statements are used from John's Epistles and I respond the same way, none say the person who doesn't Love him either never was or is no longer saved.

I'm more concerned with how this is used by Legalists to support using a rigid interpretation of Scripture to judge the validity of one's walk with God.  They ignore the context of what comes next.

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

This is tied in with The Prophecy from Jeremiah we are reminded of in Hebrews. The Law is no longer written in Stone but on our Hearts by The Holy Spirit.  He gives us our commands now, and we should read Scripture because among other things that is part of how the Spirit communicates with us.  But God's intents for different people are different as Romans 14 and the various times Jesus did things on The Sabbath shows.  We are under the Law of Liberty.

Statements from Matthew tend to be what's most often used against Faith Alone.  Matthew perhaps does stress it the least of them in a sense, that is why we have more then one Gospel.  But what's used from Matthew against it is stuff that is meant to show the impossibility of earning Salvation.

The Sermon on The Mount makes God's Laws stricter then how many understood them.  But the point of the Sermon is in Chapter 5 verse 20.

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

This is about the impossibility of earning Salvation by our own righteousness.  We are supposed to obtain it by Jesus righteousness.

Most uses of the word Saved in Matthew's Gospel are when talking about surviving Persecution, those verses aren't on Eternal Salvation yet enemies of Eternal Security as well as Calvinists continue to misuse them.

Matthew 7:21-23

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 Verse 21 gets cited without what comes next to try and contradict Faith Alone.  Sometimes Faith Alone and Eternal Security advocates will out of laziness or brevity quotes 22-23 without the prior verse, then the critics of Faith Alone will complain about our "ignoring" the context of verse 21.

The way this is constructed clearly defined verses 22-23 as defining what is meant by verse 21.  The "Will of my Father" is clearly meant to be Knowing Jesus not doing good works.  On the subject of Eternal Security it's important to note all of these NEVER knew him, there is no acknowledgment of such a state as being one who formally knew him not being allowed into the Kingdom.

Now this "Jesus Words Only" movement will argue that because Iniquity in the Greek is Amonia which means Lawless that Jesus is describing Paulian Christians.  They are deemed Lawless because they choose to be judged by the works of The Law.  Paulian Christians, who believe Faith Alone and Eternal Security would never say "Lord, Lord, look what we've done", we would say "Lord Jesus, we Believed in you".

There is no getting around that these were people seeking to be judged by their works.  Whatever your view on the Old Testament Law, what these people were bragging about doing was what Jesus told followers to do.  Anyone trying to justify themselves by the Law will be deemed Lawless.

The references to "Outer Darkness" I've explained in another post.  It's not Hell or the Lake of Fire but being outside New Jerusalem in the New Creation in Revelation 21-22.

The Sheep and Goats Judgment in Matthew 25 is not about Eternal Destiny directly.  It's neither the Bema Judgment or White Throne Judgment, it defines itself as being when he returns to establish his Kingdom.

Those who were already Saved before this are neither the Sheep or Goats, they are his Brethren he is referring to.  The post Rapture Believers who were facing Persecution were the "least of his bretheren" since they were to late to be part of The Church, and are at this moment already Resurrected.

I don't think they include those that took the Mark either, those were killed at Armageddon.  This is simply those who managed to stay neutral all through the Revelation 13-19 period, they are getting a second chance based solely on how well they treated those who were Believers being persecuted.

Or maybe that view is wrong and it is the White Throne Judgment, still demands that the Brethren are separate from either group.  That it is framed as a parable shouldn't be forgotten.

Matthew 19:17 gets misused by many people, I've even seen it refereed to as an instruction to the Disciples which it was not.  In verse 16 the rich young ruler asks "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?", he asked the wrong question.  Jesus demonstrates how high the standard is to earn Eternal Life,

When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, "Who then can be saved?"  But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

This alone doesn't settle the matter of how Eternal Life is obtained.  This is similar to other incidents like with the Lawyer who we are told tried the justify himself, and the man Jesus rebukes for calling him Good when thinking he was only a man.

Matthew 20:21-22 isn't about Salvation, it's about being able to rule as Jesus right hand and left hand.  Not all of the Saved will co-rule with him.

Matthew 21:28-31 isn't really about works, that's merely an analogy in the parable.  It's about it not mattering if you do the Father's will right away or not.

The only thing unique to Mark really relevant to defining Soterology I addressed in my Baptism study.

Now to Luke, starting with Chapter 8 verses 12-15 where he explains the parable of the Sower.

Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.  They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.  And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.  But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

The word "Saved" is used only to describe the first category, which tells me there is something distinct to them about how that word related to them.  The popular thing is to interpret this as saying only the last category are truly Saved.  But I disagree, without using Paul to influence my interpretation at all.  Only the first group are categorized as not being Saved.

The next are those who Believe but Fall Away, Matthew 7 allowed no room for former believers among the damned, and John says Belief period gets you Eternal Life.  So yes I see this as proof that truly saved people can Fall Away but not that they lose their Salvation from it.

The third group are believers who don't fall away but are worldly.

Only the fourth bears Fruit.  They and they alone are those who will receive great Rewards and Co-Rule with Jesus in New Jerusalem.  But there are also Nations of The Saved outside New Jerusalem.

Luke 18:42 And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy sight: thy faith hath saved thee.
Luke 7:50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

Revelation is a coded book.  At face value it doesn't seem interested in Faith Alone, you have to understand what being written in the Book of Life means.

Now that I feel that is settled.  One more amusing thing, the main Jesus Words Only website also insists that Luke's account in Acts was ignorant of Paul's by Faith Alone doctrine or else Luke wouldn't have spoke so highly of Paul.  Acts 16:29-32

Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?  And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."  And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

On an issue other then Faith Alone, they insist that Jesus contradicts the doctrine that Yahweh no longer lives in a Temple made by Man.  I suggest they read John 4.

The Doctrine of The Nicolaitanes

Was not named after a man called Nicolas.  The Nicolas of Acts 6 is mentioned in a positive context.  We don't need to go outside scripture to determine what this doctrine was, it's deduced from the etymology of the name.

Nico-, combinatory form of nīko, means "victory" in Greek, and laos means "people", or more specifically, "the laity"; hence, the word may be taken to mean "lay conquerors" or "conquerors of the lay people".

It was early Church Fathers who were guilty of this sin like Ignatius, Victorinus of Pettau,  Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret who started claiming the name came from a person called Nicolas, and sought to identify it with various views they didn't like, particularity some form of "Antimonianism".

There are people out there who want to deny that the Pre-Nicean fathers were guilty of this.  JesusWordsOnly (which wants to label Paul a heretic) says it was only in Rome that monarchical church hierarchy existed prior to Constantine.  Their documentation that the the church services during this period didn't revolve around sermons is interesting to me as a House Church advocate.  But that is irrelevant to this issue.  Terullian (one of their favorites as he was blatantly Hostile to Paul in Against Marcion) clearly believed in the Heresy of Apostolic succession.  In Perscripiton Against Heretics Chapter 32.

"Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed."

Their claim that Paul supported Hierarchical Church Structure I believe is false.

So this website wants to blame Paul for hierarchical and monarchical church structure.  Yet they believe it only caught on in Rome.  Not in Asia Minor and Greece where he founded countless churches..

Some sources make it seem like in Asia Minor the churches founded by John had multiple elders and one bishop, while the ones founded by Paul had multiple elders who were all bishops.

Their premise is dependent on saying the Doctrine of the Nicolaitanes only caught on in Rome, not in the Eastern Churches where they are specifically refereed to in Revelation.

In the letters to the Seven Churches in Revelation 2 and 3, this heresy is brought up in two of them,  Only the church in Ephesus is commended for totally rejecting it (which happens to also be the one of the Seven with the strongest ties to Paul, being visited by Paul in Acts and the recipient of one of his epistles, and when Timothy was when he received his Epistles).

Only Pergamos is condemned for having them, but Pergomas is not one of the two worst over all, nor is Ephesus one of the two best, so your position on this doctrine is not the be all end all of being a good church.

Why is it seemingly irrelevant to the other five?  I have a hypothesis.  Let's use HIV as an allegory for the Nicolatian heresy. Only Ephesus was HIV Negative, completely free of it.  Only Pergamos had full blown Aids.  But the other five all had the illness to some degree, maybe in some it was more benign then others.

The Jesus Words Only movement is also an enemy of both Faith Alone and Eternal Security.  It's refreshing to see an enemy of Eternal Security admit Paul taught it.  And he doesn't even question Paulian Authorship of select Epistles (Besides Hebrews which they say based on their reverence for Tertullian was Barnabas).

This desire to blame the evil of organized religion and Eternal Security on the same source is totally illogical.  Just imagine a power hungry Pastor trying to pound into his flock a belief that they must be obedient and submissive to his pastoral authority to be right with God.  But he also teaches that no matter what they won't lose their salvation.  Wow, that'll sure keep em in line.  Many Pastors do do that, to me that just shows that you can get salvation right and still be wrong in other areas.  But the two notions do not logically go together.

Calvinists and Augustine and others who say Salvation can't be lost but don't teach assurance of Salvation, or "if you're really saved you won't".  That belief has the exact same effect on a believer as thinking Salvation is by works or can be lost, it's just a matter of semantics.

But this website thinks Paul taught Calivnism, apparently so did Tertullian, and maybe Marcion (I'm skeptical of just how accurately Marcion's critics presented his doctrine).  Paul refereed to "Predestination" but not the Calvinist understanding of it.  Paul clarified we are Predestined by the Foreknowledge of God in Romans 8:29, consistent with Peter in Acts 2:23 and 1 Peter 1:2.

Paul taught in his depiction of the Bema Judgment in Corinthians that some will receive no Rewards but still be saved.  It's clear elsewhere he considered not sinning one of the things you get rewards for.  He refereed to being afraid of losing his own rewards.  His response to Antimonian attitudes in 1 Corinthians 6 and Hebrews 6 was to warn of a loss of Inheritance, which Revelation 21-22 also alludes to, not all the Saved are in New Jerusalem, that is the Outer Darkness of Matthew.  Laodicea's problem was not a belief that Salvation couldn't be lost but a belief that their Reward couldn't be lost.  Romans 4 refers to him that worketh not but is still saved.

None of that is good for the 5th point of Calvinism, it's all material that Calvin and his followers are uncomfortable with and tend to avoid.  Everything people use to try and make it seem like Paul didn't teach Eternal Security, does prove he didn't teach Calvinism.

There is perhaps a variation of the fifth point that says it's only actual Apostasy a saved person can't commit.  Apostasy means "falling away", that's the term in Greek every time you see that phrase in the KJV of the New Testament.  I feel no matter which NT author is using it it's illogical to suggest any fake believer truly qualifies as apostasy.  So the existence of the term means it can happen.  Paul predicted it in II Thessalonians 2.  The issue is can you lose salvation from it?  Surely Paul doesn't think so.  But you can lose your inheritance.

Questioning someones Salvation based on how much they agree with your interpretation of The Bible

Some fellow believers in Eternal Security won't fall into the trap of questioning someone's Salvation based on behavior.  But they may insist that a Truly Saved person won't hold views that disagree with The Bible.

They base it mainly on verses like "Everyone who is of the Truth hears my voice" in John 18.or John 8:47 "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.".

The danger of this view is that it's very strongly based on opinion.  Yes I believe every Biblical question has only one correct answer. But the Brain is still of the Flesh.  The Faith that saves is of the Heart, not an intellectual belief.  The thief on the Cross didn't even expect his Belief would save him.

Basically this view says a Saved person can be mistaken on something at first, but if you show them from The Word the truth and they don't believe it they aren't Saved.  They may add that a Saved person can be stubborn on maybe 1 or 2 issues, but if they do it repeatedly they're not Saved.

The main Pastor I saw teaching this, tied into it his view that the Disciples (most anyway, not Judas who was never Saved) were already Saved all through Jesus' ministry.  Saying they were Saved before Jesus called them.  Well the Disciples repeatedly refused to accept what Jesus told them, that he had to be killed and rise again.

In my view, if someone outright doesn't care what The Bible says then maybe it can be logical to question their Salvation.  But if they clearly care what it says, if they're doing mental gymnastic to get around a clear teaching.  Or just insisting that you must be misusing that verse without an argument at all, then it sounds to me like they are hearing The Word, just struggling with accepting it like the Disciples did.

I think It's pretty difficult for an unsaved person to even believe The Bible is infallible.  One might say they view it as God's Word but have some qualifiers to that which make it fall short of true infallibility.

The World makes it pretty hard to simply see The Bible as Infallible.  Historically when someone has come to the conclusion that The Bible is a perfect book for purely logical reasons, they get Saved almost immediately.

Reason why I'm so annoyed about all these tests Christians throw out to prove someone isn't Saved, is that the Bible is far less ambiguous on what Proves someone IS Saved.

1 John 4:2 says " Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God".  And verse 15 says "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.".

Romans 10 says "All who call upon the name of The Lord shall be Saved" no qualifying statements.

1 Corinthians 12:3 says "that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.".

Those who take the verses on "knowing a tree by it's fruits" to say an Unfruitful Christians can't be saved are misunderstanding the verse.  BUT if a believer has borne visible Good Fruit, then that person's Salvation certainly should not be questioned.

I would also never question the Salvation of anyone who died for their Faith in Jesus.  Yet many Catholics have done that, especially during the French Revolution.  And none are more doctrinally wrong then Catholics.

Outer Darkness is Outside New Jerusalem

I've mentioned that view of mine before, why do I believe that?

For starters the term is only used in Parables.  You have to be careful building Doctrine off Parables, things aren't always what they seem.

First of all, to fellow believers in Eternal Security (True Eternal Security, without any Calvinist or Repentance based qualifiers) who are uncomfortable with this suggestion for whatever reason, read Matthew carefully.  There is no way to get away with saying the people Jesus describes being sent there were never saved.  In 22:13, 24:51 and 25:30 they are servants, the unsaved are never servants of God, they're in rebellion against him. The people sent there are contrasted not with all believers but those who receive rewards based on their works.

And in 8:12 they're among the "children of the kingdom".  Most people want to in this context make that phrase refer to Israel.  But it's only other usage in Matthew 13 clearly identifies them as the Saved.

Now the frequently linked "Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth" is an idiom of grief and sorrow.  That is sometimes likened to the Judgment of the Unsaved (I never think it's actually Hell directly), like in it's one appearance in Mark.  But it certainly is not required to always be in that context.

Jude 13 also refers to the people being in the darkness of blackness forever but not being tormented.

It can make sense to describe damnation as "Outer Darkness" if you accept the Un-Biblical yet popular idea that Hell or the Lake of Fire is "eternal separation from God".  But not if you believe what The Bible says.  Revelation 14:10 describes the Lake of Fire as being in God's presence.  The fire and brimstone that burns the damned emanates from God's presence in Isaiah 30:33 and II Thessalonians 1:8-9.  God Himself is called a consuming fire in  Deuteronomy 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29.  And Deuteronomy 32:22 also defined the fire of judgment as coming from God.  So it's neither "outer" nor "darkness".

New Jerusalem is defined as where the Light is in Revelation 21:23-25.  Then verse 26 contradicts those who insist all the Saved are the Lambs Wife, it says there are Nations of the Saved outside New Jerusalem.  The people listed here though still get to come to New Jerusalem to worship it seems.

Revelation 22:5 returns to discussing how New Jerusalem is where the Light is.

People who are Universalists of some kind like to point to Revelation 22:15, where it seems to them like the same people sent into the Lake of Fire earlier are now merely outside The City.  And you can't argue the Lake of Fire is outside the City because I already showed it is The Presence of God. 

People who teach Salvation can be lost (or the fifth point of Calvinism/false repentance doctrine) love to use 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:21 and Ephesians 5:5.  All these are vice lists warning that those who continue in those sins will not Inherit the Kingdom, and they're clearly warnings to already Saved Believers.  But they do not say salvation can be lost, only inheritance.  Like the Prodigal Son a Believer can squander his inheritance but he'll never lose his Sonship.  They are the believers not allowed to enter New Jerusalem.

The Bema Judgment will not be a Judgment where anyone is really scolded or punished for their Sins.  It is a handing out of Rewards only.  But one of those Rewards is for keeping your Flesh under control, the Imperishable or Incorruptible Crown.

Luke 8's account of the Parable of the Sower divides people who hear the word into four groups in verses 12-15.  Only the first, those who never believed, are described as unsaved.  There are people who will believe for a little while and fall way, I discussed Hebrews 6 elsewhere.  Also there are those that are believers till the end but are also very worldly.  And then those that are fruitful.  Only the Fruitful I think will really be New Jerusalem.