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.

The Free Gift of Grace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Gospel According to JaredMithrandir Olorin

Questioning The Salvation of Fellow Believers

Seems to be a favorite pastime among Christians today.

Even a lot of believers who say they believe in Eternal Security, really simply mean by that the Fifth Point of Calvinism, or some variation there of.  That certain Sins, or Apostasy, or Bad Doctrine can be used as proof of a lack of true Salvation in a professing Christian.

Like people who believe Salvation can be Lost or in Works Salvation they will miss use verses there for the purposes of showing how impossible it is to earn Salvation.

But they will add to those verses, verses that are about Works as evidence of Faith. The Evidence of Faith in question isn't for other Believers, but about Witnessing.  The great Commission actually says in the Greek to "Be A Witness".  We should be credible representatives of God's Kingdom.  That is why Jesus told the Apostles that The World will Know them by their Love for one another.  And why Nathan told David he gave Occasion to the Enemies of The LORD to Blaspheme after he sinned with Bathsheba and killed Uria.

Faith without Works is Dead.  But you can't have Dead Faith if you never had Faith.

1 Corinthians 3:15 says "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."

Saul we know was Saved.  His Salvation was depicted before he became King.  Yet he backslid horribly and became a Villain of David's Story.   But when his Death was foretold Samuel said he and his Sons would be with him.  I know in the Old Testament, before The Cross all the Saved went to Sheol.  But in Luke 16 we're informed it has two distinct compartments for the Saved and Unsaved.  What Samuel said there isn't with him as in their both in the same place the same way someone in Racine or Milwaukee are both in Wisconsin.  It means they will be together.

Solomon also didn't Persevere to the end.  And Lot and Samson were both Worldly.  The latter each have New Testament verses confirming their Salvation.

Hebrew 6, and latter parts of Hebrew elaborating on the same Subject are controversial.  I agree with Chris White that the Sin in mind here is Apostasy (not bad doctrine, but renouncing your faith).  But he's wrong in taking the view that Apostasy is the one exception to Eternal Security.

I highly Recommend what Chuck Missler says on Hebrews 6, (he falls into the same traps Calvinists do on some other verses, but on Hebrew 6 he nails it).  He points out issues with the Greek Grammar that aren't easily carried over into English.  But mostly bases his point on going back to the Old Testament passage it draws on, Numbers 13-14, the Spies who rejected The Land.  God was very angry with them, but Moses Prayed for them and they were Forgiven, BUT they were not allowed to see The Land and that's why they wondered for 40 years.  Likewise when a Saved person commits Apostasy Jesus Prays for him just as he Prayed for Peter.

The Prodigal Son squandered his Inheritance but did not lose his Sonship.  When Jesus in Matthew refers to the "Outer Darkness" that is not Hell.  That refers to being Outside New Jerusalem, where The Light of God will be.  Some people refuse to admit that not all the Saved are New Jerusalem.  But Revelation 21:24-27 makes clear there are entire nations outside.  Many are simply because they weren't Saved during the Church Age, but there will also be Church Age believers who lose their Citizenship of The Holy City, but not their Salvation.

A certain pastor I don't want to name, who teaches Eternal Security, and preaches against all Five points of Calvinism, still loves to question people's Salvation based on Doctrine.

He says based on "My sheep hear my voice and follow me" that whatever problems they have, a truly Saved person will respond to God's Word.  This verse is about Salvation, and another one Calvinists might miss use to support their view of Predestination, but what their wrong on is the cause and effect.

This same Pastor agrees with me on using Saul to Prove Eternal Security, and also Solomon.  But both of them heard God's Word from anointed Prophets and Priests trying to turn them from their backslidden paths yet they did not do so.

The KJV Biblical Word most Calvinists I've seen view as what they mean  by "Persevere" is Overcome.  Mainly how it's used in 1 John and Revelation 2-3.  Overcome is used in many senses of many things in The Bible, plenty no Clavinsits thinks is about Salvation.

1 John 5:4-5 says

"For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.  Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?"

What John means here is clearly all the Saved.  And doesn't matter if you Persevered to the end or not, simply Believing means you overcome the world.

Some of the usages in Revelation 2-3 and 21:7 may or may not be using it specially of those who who don't lose their Inheritance.  I believe all Seven Churches, even the two worst ones, were congregations of Saved individuals, or else Jesus wouldn't have written to them at all.

You're saved if you Overcome, but not every saved person will Overcome to the end.

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

I'm not saying there are no professing Christians who aren't saved.  But those that are are people who were born in the faith, or who converted for the wrong reasons.  But everyone who understands they need a Savior and accept Jesus is Saved.

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." - Romans 4:5
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the

deeds of the law." - Romans 3:28
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8,9

Some advise for fellow Christians on moral law and how to discern it.

First off, study the context of any Bible verse condemning something, to see what the intent of the Law is. Cause Jesus saying "God made the Sabbath for Man not Man for the Sabbath" shows that he wants us to follow the intent of the law more so then the letter of it.

I've spent a lot of time arguing that Christians need to stop labeling things a Sin that I point out The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn like they think it does.

But one thought that may enter one's mind is, as big a book as The Bible is, can it really address every single hypothetical Sin that could possibly happen?

There are only three areas where I feel Sin can be defined broadly.

Any act of worship to a false god, or occult ritual, whether or not it's a pagan practice specifically addressed in The Bible is obviously a violation of the first Two Commandments, and of Jesus's Command to Love God with all our heart, mind, body and soul. Matthew 22:37-28.

Anything you do that harms another person, or violates their rights is a violation of the Golden Rule Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." and to Love our Neighbor as we Love ourselves, Matthew 22:39. The word translated "men" there is Anthropos, which means Man as in Mankind, it's not actually Gender specific, neither Greek or Hebrew used the same word for both those meanings as we do. So yes Jesus's wording of The Golden Rule applies to our treatment to women too. Which is why I recommend starting with that when arguing with Anti-Christians who think The Bible is pro-Rape.

Third, the fact that as a believer our Bodies are the Temple of God, because we have The Holy Spirit indwelling in us, means doing things harmful to ourselves and our own health can be sinful.

In summery, things that harm your relationship with God, with your fellow Man, or your own body are sinful, and you shouldn't need specific Bible verses thrown at you to figure that out if your trying to Follow the Law of Love and being led by The Holy Spirit.

As a Libertarian I believe the Civil Laws of government should address only category two.

And all the stuff in The Bible used to show that God judges even our thoughts. Are all references to thinking about things that are sinful. But that doesn't mean you've sinned as soon as your tempted, the sin is in indulging in those thoughts.

Thing is, pretty much all specific things The Bible condemns fit into one of those three categories as well. The exceptions being mostly the superficial aspects of the Mosaic Law which Christians are clearly not held to, from the Sabbath and Circumcision to Dietary Laws. But even those have potential health benefits.

And after that, some of the things Paul says that he never intended to be taken as outright Moral Law, but merely advise for how Christians should present themselves, but that a lot of modern Christian take as moral law anyway. Like the verses about men having short hair and gender specific dress codes.

Prostitution is the only major Moral Law that one could have trouble seeing how it fits into those three categories. But it does carry a health risk, as a Libertarian I know that the heath risks would be minimized a great deal if it was legal (and it was legal under the civil law code parts of the Mosaic Law). But they'll never go away completely, restaurants are legal and sometimes they get away with violating their health codes. Any time you have sexual relations with a complete stranger you're taking a risk, both in terms of STDs and other safety risks.

Which is why as open as my attitude towards sex is, I do still feel it's a bad idea to have random sex with strangers, paid for or not. It's best to limit your love life to people you know and trust.

And to fellow Christians, we should avoid getting sexually or romantically involved with unbelievers. Which leads to how prostitution is related to the first category, it is often referenced in The Bible as allegorical of Idolatry for a reason, your lover can be an influence on the way you think. And that can happen even if the unbeliever isn't intentionally seeking to influence their lover's religion. So no I'm not saying every non-Christian is like a stereotypical exotic pagan temptress from an old Hollywood Biblical Epic.

As I've argued elsewhere the intent of Adultery laws is to prevent children from being born without a family. And therefore I don't feel adultery laws should apply to non reproductive sex. However, if either spouse is uncomfortable with it or not aware of it that is a violation of trust.

All the things I argue against traditional convention as things that aren't sinful, or at least not the mortal wroth disfellowshipping someone over sins most Christians think they are. Are all things that can in no way fit into any of those three categories. Anything can be unhealthy if you do it too much, but it's also been scientifically shown that moderately engaging in masturbation actually has health benefits.

Anal sex has health risks, even if your certain your partner has no STDs it's been argued to be potentially physically damaging to the anus. But contrary to popular assumption Anal isn't the only thing Gay men can or do engage in. In fact studies at different times have suggested the majority don't even like it. Consensual sex between two adults who love and trust each other of the same gender can in no way be argued to violate the Law of Love. Nor can sex between two adults who love and trust each other but who aren't married.

Satan wants people to think God condemns things he didn't just as much as he wants people to think sins aren't sinful, maybe even more so.

That statement I'm sure is shocking to many. But let's go back and study the origin of Sin and Satan's deception of humanity in Genesis 3.

Commentaries of Genesis do a good job of pointing out how the first thing The Serpent does is misquote what God said. But what "conservative" commentators tend to avoid emphasizing is that his misquotation was for the purpose of making God's word sound more restrictive then it was. There was only one single tree they couldn't eat from, but the Serpent makes it sound almost like the exact opposite, as if it was very few trees they could eat from.

Then, commentators do a good Job of pointing out how Eve's reaction seems to imply Adam had incorrectly taught her what God said. But again avoid putting any emphasis on that her misunderstanding of the command likewise made the command sound even more restrictive then it was, as if they weren't allowed to even go near the tree.

In fact Christians are constantly encouraging this exact same attitude that laid behind why Adam probably taught it the way he did. Telling people that because of the commands against drunkenness we probably shouldn't even go in bars. Forgetting that Jesus eat with sinners (as well as the Pharisees who he really didn't approve of).

So keep that in mind next time you see the very fact that the World and/or the Occult is encouraging something your church told you to view as a sin, as further confirmation it is a sin. Consider that Satan might want to reinforce the wrong views on Moral Law that many Christians hold.

I'm tired of being told I'm the one interpreting God's Word loosely because I don't consider every single act of divergent behavior a mortal sin. When I'm the one who understands these passages as talking about specific things, in specific contexts, for specific reasons. I hold these interpretations because of the same Hermeneutic principles that lead me to be a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist, a PreMillennial Futurist, and to firmly believe in Salvation by Faith Alone and Eternal Security.

I absolutely still consider more then enough things sinful to justify "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", that can be demonstrated from the Sermon on the Mount. So don't act like I'm a moral relativist who rejects absolutes.

While Matthew 18, 1 Corinthians 5, and other places talk about disfellowshiping Christians who are habitually engaging in Sins that obviously violate the Law of Love (2 Corinthians 2 clarifies to forgive them and let them back in when they've fixed their issues). Or who teach Damnable heresies (not any incorrect doctrine, but one that effects Salvation, contradicting Justification by Faith Alone, or that Jesus is the only Way). Romans 14 also talks about not passing judgment on fellow Christians. Just because the Holy Spirit is convicting you personally to refrain from a certain activity, doesn't mean it's leading all believers to the same choice. He has different walks for each of us.

I've been kicked out of Christian Message Boards and Facebook groups for expressing my view that The Bible doesn't Condemn Homosexuality. But these same boards do have people expressing variant views on Salvation, including people who don't even agree with "by Faith Alone".

Likewise, that Christian dating website, ChristianMingle, won't let you sign up identifying as Homosexual or Bisexual. But you are allowed to identify as someone who drinks regularly, drinking alcohol is condemned in far more verses then all the supposed homosexuality ones.

In fact there is no other areas where their being restrictive, any denomination can qualify as "Christian" for that site, including Catholics. Even if there where verses, right in the Sermon on the Mount, declaring "though shalt not love the same gender" and defining it as something wroth disfellowshiping over. You'd still never convince me any devout Catholic is more of a Christian then a homosexual who believers in Salvation by Faith through Grace only, and Eternal Security.