Cannabis in The Bible

I've already mentioned how The Bible proclaims no Plant Life unclean.  Thing is the Cannabis plant is mentioned in The Hebrew Bible as a plant used in the Worship of Yahuah.

The common view is that the word Cannabis is Scythian in origin, but it seems the Scythians had a decent amount of contact with Ancient Israel and Judah, they are refereed to in The Bible as Magog after all, and a Hebrew artifact was once found in the grave of a Scythian warrior woman.

Cannabis comes from combing the Hebrew words Qaneh (Strong number 7070) three times rendered in the KJV Calamus, and Bosem (Strong number 1314).  Qaneh on it's own could also be a reference to the plant in question, but Bosem just means sweet smelling or fragrance.  The actual Calamus plant does not have the qualities The Bible describes this plant as having.  Two other KJV occurrences render it Cane.

The usually cited first appearance is Exodus 30:23.

Take thou also unto thee principal spices, of pure myrrh five hundred shekels, and of sweet cinnamon half so much, even two hundred and fifty shekels, and of sweet calamus two hundred and fifty shekels,

This is from the instructions for The Tabernacle given by Yahuah himself.  This is probably one of the incense refereed to in Exodus 30:8-10.

Then there is the Song of Solomon 4:14.

Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices:

Definitely not a negative reference.

Next is Isaiah 43:24

Thou hast bought me no sweet cane with money, neither hast thou filled me with the fat of thy sacrifices: but thou hast made me to serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with thine iniquities.

Another clear reference to it being an incense offered to Yahuah.

After that is Jeremiah 6:20.

To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.

A negative passage, but still clearly consistent with it being an incense used in The Worship of Yahuah.

Finally is Ezekial 27:19.

Dan also and Javan going to and fro occupied in thy fairs: bright iron, cassia, and calamus, were in thy market.

It's part of the Prophecy of Tyre's destruction, referring to it as a plant Tyre traded.  Remember much of what was used in Solomon's Temple was available via his trade partnership with Tyre.

And this is the Dan and Javan verse I so often refer to.  Perhaps Dan is a factor in how the Scythians came to use the same term for the plant.

Most others discussing this topic think these five are the only verses.  Basically directly correlating to when the KJV renders Qaneh either Calamus or Cane.  Now the Strongs does have a tendency to classify things as the same word when they're really different forms of the same root, so it can be complicated, clearly many uses of 7070 seemingly are not a plant or herb.  Like when it's used of the Branches of the Menorah in Exodus 25.

Only three of the five also use Bosem ("Sweet" in the KJV).

It's actual first occurrence is in Genesis 41 where it is twice translated "stalk", in reference to Corn Stalks.  The Canibus plant also grows on stalks.

There is also 7071, a river in Israel called Kanah.  Mentioned in Joshua 16:8, 17:9 and 19:28, in the land allotted to Ephraim.

Now a lot of religions out there want to use these Biblical references to the plant for their own agenda.  It's important to note none of these references seem to refer to recreational drug use.

The point is, don't let anyone convince you Cannabis is an evil plant.

There are also possibly references to Hemp.

HEMP
(Cannabis sativa, Linn.)
“Thy raiment was of fine linen.”—EZEK. 16:13.

THE Hebrew word shesh or sheshi, translated “fine linen,” occurs, according to Royle, twenty-eight times in EXODUS, once in Genesis, once in Proverbs, and three times in Ezekiel. This fine linen was spun by women, as mentioned in Exodus 35:25, where it is said, “All the women that were wise hearted did spin with their hands, and brought that which they had spun, both of blue, and of purple, and of scarlet, and of fine linen.” Ezekiel says of Tyrus, “Fine linen with broidered work from Egypt was that which thou spreadest forth to be thy sail” (Ezek. 27:7). The material of which this fine linen was wrought is considered by many to have been the produce of the hemp plant. This is rendered probable also by the similarity between shesh and the Arabic word haschesch, which is applied to hemp. Hemp consists of the fibres of Cannabis sativa, a plant belonging to the natural order Urticaceæ or nettleworts. It is a native of Persia, and is now extensively cultivated in Europe as well as in India. The variety cultivated in India is sometimes called Cannabis indica, and is remarkable for its narcotic qualities. The dried flowering tops of the female plant from which the resin has been removed are used to form a medicinal extract and tincture. The resinous matter covering the leaves is called churrus; and the names bhang, gunjah, and haschesch, are given to the dried plant in different states. It seems likely that the hemp plant was cultivated in Egypt in ancient times as well as the flax plant; but accurate information on the subject is still wanting. The Hebrew word bad is also translated “linen.” Thus it occurs in Exodus 39:28, where it is said that they made for Aaron and his sons “a mitre of fine linen, and goodly bonnets of fine linen, and linen breeches of fine twined linen.” The Hebrew word butz or buz is also translated “fine linen” and “white linen,” as in 1 Chronicles 4:21; Esther 1:6; Ezekiel 27:16, etc. In the New Testament the Greek word byssus is translated “fine linen,” as in Luke 16:19; Rev. 18:12, 16, and 19:8, 14. (See also Flax.)
--

Balfour, John Hutton. The Plants of the Bible. London; Edinburgh; New York: T. Nelson and Sons, 1885. Print.

Update May 29th 2020: There seems to be some new News related to this issue archaeologically.
 https://twitter.com/MichaelDPress/status/1266369067499180038
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/28/world/tel-arad-shrine-israel-cannabis-study-scn/index.html
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03344355.2020.1732046
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-reveals-cannabis-frankincense-judahite-shrine.html

Is there a correlation between being Levitically Unclean and biologically Unhealthy?

The perception that there is is a popular argument of people who want to argue Christians are still required to follow the Dietary Laws.  And generally conceded by Christians who don't just so they can say "isn't the Bible's scientific knowledge awesome!".  And the latter fits my own personal bias.

And it's easy to make it seem that way when you single out Pigs/Swine/Pork among all Unclean animals.  And singling them out became popular during the Inter-testamental period.  But The Bible doesn't support it, neither Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14 lists pigs first when giving examples of unclean land mammals.  And they're by definition not the most unclean since they do fit one of the two requirements, but failing to have either is enough to be unclean.  And the story about Antiochus Epiphanes offering a Pig on the Altar is not in 1st or 2nd Maccabees, it shows up by Josephus giving it more antiquity then the Menorah legend, but Josephus was not above referring to urban legends as if they were facts.

But the thing is the Hare is one of the unclean animals listed before Pigs.  And Rabbit meat is considered healthy to eat.  My searches on the subject found the only disparaging thing said about it being that it's to lean to live off only Rabbit meat for very long.

Now there is some dispute about if Arnebeth being translated Hare is accurate, but Rabbits and Hares definitely fit the definition of chewing the Cud but not being Cloven Hoofed, no matter what a skeptic may try to tell you.

I could see the logic in Chewing the Cud having a correlation to being healthy or not, but I don't see how having Cloven Hoofs could mean anything in that department.

Meanwhile there are NO restrictions on eating plant life.  It's not just that the Torah never takes the time to forbid any, Yahuah specifically said all plant life we are allowed to consume, (including the ones used to make illegal narcotics).  Yet some are poisonous, like poison ivy.

You know what's interesting, Humans fit neither requirement for being clean, I wonder if that might be significant?

The Song of Solomon, who's who?

Well the first thing I'll mention on the subject of potential imperfections of the KJV translation of the Song of Solomon is that I think "undefiled" is a bad translation in 5:2 and 6:9, those are the only verses that Hebrew word is translated that way, it's usually translated "perfect".

But what I mainly want to discus here is what I heard about recently of an alternate reading of the Song where Solomon and The Beloved are not the same person.  And with that usually making Solomon a villain, maybe even a type of the Antichrist (1 Kings 10:14 does link him to the number 666).

One discussion of that possibly is called Solomon as the Antichrist.  Another is one called The Shulamite Woman.  The former has Solomon as only a small presence in the narrative, the latter has Solomon not The Beloved as the male voice talking throughout it, and thus manages to use that to demonize much of the Sexuality in the Song.  The latter view is totally illogical, clearly the male voice of the song is the Beloved.  The former is an interesting theory.

Another site mentioning it is this one.

So I went over the Song with this in mind, trying to pay attention to things that might often be missed.

First I concluded that absolutely The Beloved isn't Solomon.  In chapter 3 our Heroine is looking for her Beloved in the city, if the Beloved is the King the idea that he'd be so difficult to find is odd.  Also in chapter 7 verse 5 the Beloved is talking and refers to the King as a clearly separate person.  Likewise chapter 1 verse 12 has the woman talking about her Beloved and refers to the King it seems as separate.

What I'm not so convinced of however is that Solomon is a villain in the story, or in any way an alternate love interest.  Chapter 1 verse 4 is what gives the impression that she was added to his harem, but it could mean something else, like a Princess becoming part of the court now that's she's of marriageable age.  And the books of Kings and Chronicles seem to imply Solomon only married foreign wives and concubines, while this heroine is clearly an Israelite.

Overall I feel the references to the King/Solomon just tell us the woman is living in Solomon's house, and leaves at the end, seemingly receiving a dowry, the vineyards of Baalhamon.

It is often assumed the heroine of the Song has a humble background, often specifically a Shepherdess.  There are Shepherding references, but none that prove that's the protagonist's background.  It is equally likely the Beloved is the Shepherd.

In chapter 7 verse 1 the Beloved calls her a Prince's Daughter.

Chapter 6 verse 13 twice calls the heroine in the KJV "Shulamite".  This is a bad translation, the actual -ites in the Hehrew text have no T, this ends with a Hebrew letter for "th", the one that like Heh usually makes a word or name feminine when used at the end.  Don't be confused that "the" is used in the verse, in Hebrew and Greek the definite article is often used before personal names, it's just in English that it's considered grammatically incorrect to do that.  This translation issue has caused people to imagine a location named Shulam that appears no where else in Scripture.

Her name is Shulamith.  It's a feminine form of Solomon/Shlomo, which is why when assuming Solomon is the husband the name is sometimes taken as just poetically reflecting her as his wife.

Normally the feminine form of Solomon becomes in the KJV Shelomith (some males did have the name it seems, but it's first appearance in Leviticus 24 is clearly a Woman).  In the Hebrew the only difference between how Shulamith and Shelomith are spelled is Shulamith has a Vav between the shin and lamed.

Vav is a letter that in time came to often be used like a vowel, and so many scholars think after the captivity when the scribes became more concerned with representing vowel sounds that Vav and Yot started being used a lot more then they originally were.  So I feel confident in concluding that Shulamith and Shelomith were the same name.

In 2 Chronicles 11:20 a Shelomith is the daughter of Rehoboam son of Solomon and Maachah daughter of Absalom.  Rehoboam was 41 when Solomon's 40 year reign ended, and Solomon probably had Rehoboam at as young as 14 or 15.  So Rehoboam's daughter could easily not only have been born but reached adulthood while Solomon was still alive.

Maachah, wife of Rehoboam, is also called Michaiah daughter of Uriel of Gilead.  The Hebrew word for daughter can mean granddaughter, in all likelihood she was Absalom's granddaughter, since Absalom died before Rehoboam was born.  And 2 Samuel 14:17 tells us Absalom had one daughter named Tamar (probably after his sister).  This Tamar may have been the wife of Uriel of Gilead, which seems to be what Josephus implies in Antiquities 8:10:1.  But we're also told Absalom had 3 sons but the sons aren't named.

Abijah also called Abijam, the full brother of Shelomith, died (seemingly of natural causes) after reigning only 3 years as King, and Rehoboam reigned only 17 years.  We're not told how old he was, but I think it's safe to say he could have been 20-25 when Solomon died.

Shulamith speaks of having brothers in the Song, Shelomith likewise had three brothers by the same mother, and numerous others.  She would seem to be her mother's only daughter though, but not her father's, Rehoboam we're told had 60 daughters.

So I think it's possible that the protagonist of the Song of Solomon was Solomon's granddaughter, the daughter of prince Rehoboam, Shelomith.

Update November 2016:  I've now done a follow up post on Typology and Symbolism.

Gospel Portions are ready

This is a follow up to Gospel Portions.

On the Gospel Portions project. I have finished the basic outline, I know how to divide The Gospels up, I wound up with 52 weeks rather then 54.

I haven't named all the weeks are decided on half portions for most yet. I may be fine just totally leaving that part blank, allow different people wiggle room.

I'll be starting this in the Law Of Liberty Virtual House Church on the First Sabbath of Nisan.

Gospel Portions

Week 1: Immanuel

Matthew 1:1-2:23

Genesis 2:4-3:25, Exodus 2:1-10, Isaiah 7, Micah 5, Genesis 35:16-21, 1 Samuel 16:1-13, Hosea 10:9-11:12, Jeremiah 31

Optional if you have time. Genesis 38 and entire book of Ruth.

Week 2: Voice in The Wilderness

Matthew 3:1-4:22

Isaiah 40, Deuteronomy 6-8, Psalm 91, Isaiah 8:1-9:7

Week 3: Sermon on The Mount

Matthew 4:23-7:29

Exodus 20-23, Leviticus 18-19, Deuteronomy 5:1-21, Acts 15:1-29, Romans 13:8-15:13

Week 4:

Matthew 8:1-9:38

Week 5:

Matthew 10:1-11:30

Week 6:

Matthew 12:1-13:58

Week 7:

Matthew 14:1-16:12

Week 8:

Matthew 16:13-18:35

Week 9:

Matthew 19:1-20:28

Week 10:

Matthew 20:29-22:14

Week 11:

Matthew 22:15-23:39

Psalm 110

Week 12:

Matthew 24:1-25:46

1 Thessalonians 4-5, II Thessalonians 2

Week 13:

Matthew 26:1-27:10

Last Supper Portions
Genesis 14, Exodus 24:1-8, Psalm 110, Hebrew 7-9, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26

Judas Betrayal Portions
Psalm 109, Zechariah 11, Ezekiel 34, Jeremiah 32, Genesis 37, Acts 1:15-26

Week 14: Messiah The Prince Cut Off

Matthew 27:11-28:20

Genesis 22, Exodus 12 (Entire Passover account), Psalm 22, Psalm 88, Psalm 89, Isaiah 52:22-53:12,
Daniel 12, Isaiah 26, Ezekiel 37, 1 Corinthians 15, Acts 1:2-14

Week 15: The Forerunner

Mark 1:1-2:22

Malachi (Entire Book)

Week 16: Sabbath

Mark 2:23-4:34

Week 17:

Mark 4:35-6:6

Week 18:

Mark 6:7-7:37

Week 19:

Mark 8:1-9:29

Week 20:

Mark 9:20-10:52

Isaiah 65-66

Week 21:

Mark 11:1-12:44

Week 22:

Mark 13:1-37

Week 23:

Mark 14:1-16:20

Week 24:

Luke 1:1-80

Acts 1:1, Leviticus 16,

Week 25:

Luke 2:1-52

Micah 5, Genesis 35:16-21, Isaiah 9:6-7, Genesis 31:38-40,

Circumcision
Genesis 17, Exodus 4:24-26, Leviticus 12:1-8, Leviticus 26:39-41, Deuteronomy 10, Deuteronomy 30, Ezekiel 44, Romans 1-3, Jeremiah 31, Hebrews 8-10,

Presentation
Exodus 13:1-16, Numbers 18:14-19, Deuteronomy 18:1-5,

Week 26:

Luke 3:1-4:15

Week 27:

Luke 4:16-5:39

Isaiah 49

Week 28:

Luke 6:1-7:50

Week 29:

Luke 8:1-56

Week 30:

Luke 9:1-62

Week 31:

Luke 10:1-11:14

Week 32:

Luke 11:15-12:59

Week 33:

Luke 13:1-14:35

Week 34:

Luke 15:1-17:10

Week 35:

Luke 17:11-19:27

Week 36:

Luke 19:28-20:18

Week 37:

Luke 20:19-21:38

Week 38:

Luke 22:1-23:25

Week 39:

Luke 23:26-24:12

Week 40:

Luke 24:13-53 and Acts 1:2-2:47

Week 41: The Word

John 1:1-2:25

Week 42:

John 3:1-4:26

Week 43:

John 4:27-6:21

Week 44:

John 6:22-7:1

Week 45:

John 7:2-8:11

Exodus 23:14-19, Exodus 34:22-26, Leviticus 23:33-44, Numbers 29:12-40, Deuteronomy 16:13-17
1 Kings 8:1-66, 2 Chronicles 5:2-7:11, 2 Chronicles 31:7-21, Ezra 3:4, Nehemiah 8:14-18,
Haggai 2:1-9, Zechariah 14:16-21, Ezekiel 45:25, Revelation 15-16

Optional if you have time: Psalms 112-118

Week 46:

John 8:12-10:21

Week 47:

John 10:22-12:11

Haggai 2:10-23, Zechariah 4, Numbers 7-8, Acts 6-7

Week 48:

John 12:12-13:20

Week 49:

John 13:21-14:31

Week 50:

John 15:1-17:26

Week 51:

John 18:1-19:42

Week 52:

John 20:1-21:25

The notion that the Democratic and Republican parties switched

[Update: This is a post I don't stand by anymore.  Here's my newer better post on the topic.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2024/06/the-continuity-between-pre-civil-war.html]

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.

My position this election

[Update: I'm not a Libertarian anymore.]