Blog

I’ve begun to conclude that the whole concept of “free will,” particularly in discussions about soteriology, is simply an unnecessary distraction from the truth, and that it might be time to leave the phrase out of such discussions altogether in order to focus on what really matters.

While believers within the body of Christ know that “free will” doesn’t actually exist, most Christians don’t even know what the phrase “free will” means, often confusing the idea of “free will” with the ability to choose or decide things. Nobody in the body of Christ, however, even while denying the existence of “free will,” would ever claim that we can’t or don’t make choices (at least from a relative perspective; from an absolute perspective, of course, we know that God is ultimately responsible for everything), but the ability to make choices is entirely beside the point.

Now, when Christians talk about “free will,” what they’re almost always really saying is that the fault for a bad decision or choice (almost always referring to the choice to not believe the same things they do when it comes to matters of salvation) lies entirely with the one making the choice, and that the choice couldn’t possibly have been predetermined in any way whatsoever. There are other reasons too (such as self-righteousness and pride), but one of the big reason Christians want to insist that “free will” exists is to make sure that God doesn’t get any of the blame for a person’s bad decision or for their refusal to choose to “accept Christ” (or whatever it is one believes brings salvation), and to make sure that it’s clear the sinner in question is entirely to blame for whatever negative consequences this will result in.

The problem is, Christians rarely like to dig into a matter, and generally prefer to simply believe what appears to make the most sense “at first glance” rather than digging beneath the surface to find the foundation of the matter, so to speak. In this case it means that, because we make choices, most Christians believe we must be to blame for those choices because they think we could have theoretically made a better choice instead. The questions that really matter when discussing the topic of who deserves the credit or blame for a particular choice are, “What is the cause of the choices that people make?”, and, “Taking all the variables that were present at the time a choice was made into account, could a person have actually made a choice other than the one they did, and if so, how?”

In a recent online discussion with a Christian on this topic, when I asked those very questions, he simply responded by saying, “Nothing causes the choice except for the chooser.” Of course, this tautology tells us absolutely nothing about what really matters, which is why a particular choice is made, and it also ignores the second question altogether. (On purpose, I’m fairly certain, even if just on a subconscious level on his part, likely in order to avoid thinking about the topic from this perspective so that he couldn’t possibly end up discovering that he might be wrong about it.)

Even if we ignore all the passages in Scripture that seem to tell us God is ultimately responsible for everything, and put the credit and blame for choices entirely on “the chooser” instead, we’d then have to ask, “What is the chooser?” Well, a chooser is simply a person who makes choices using their brain, and one’s brain is made up of (among other things) neural connections which are wired differently in each person by a combination of their life experiences and their genetics (our nurture and nature, in other words). The different layouts of the neural networks in each of our brains result in different choices by each of us, and none of us gets to choose the way our brains are wired, because we didn’t get to choose the life experiences and genetics that caused our brains to be wired the way they are. This means that, at the end of the day (presuming God or other spiritual beings don’t interfere), it’s ultimately our life experiences and our genetics that determine what choices we make.

Although there’s no scriptural or logical reason to do so, at this point some will try to evade these facts by claiming that our mind isn’t actually generated by our brain, but instead somehow exists on a “spiritual” level (some will also get into pseudo-scientific talk about quantum realities as well, although I can guarantee you that few to none of them have any idea how quantum mechanics actually works). The problem is, none of this actually helps back up their ideas so much as it simply pushes the problem back a level. A supposedly “spiritual mind,” whatever that actually is, still has to be “made” out of something (out of whatever it is that spirit, or whatever it is they’re claiming a mind comes from, consists of) and still has to make decisions or choices based on what its “structure” is, so the questions of why a particular choice was made over another, and whether that other choice could have actually been made instead, are still the relevant questions that need to be answered, even if this were the case.

Basically, to simply stop at the level of “the chooser” without reducing things further to find out what the chooser consists of and why the chooser makes the particular choices they do is essentially to say that a specific chooser is simply either naturally good or naturally bad (or perhaps naturally intelligent and/or wise, or naturally unintelligent and/or foolish).

In fact, along those lines, someone else who was observing the aforementioned discussion added to the conversation by saying, “I believe Scripture is clear that is not about ability… but about the inner motives of the heart. Some people choose to not believe because they are lovers of themselves and not of God. They don’t wanna let go of their way of living life. They don’t want to believe. Evil suits them better. Or ignorance. This is not an ability. It’s a choice. And it’s reflecting the inner motives of the person.” (I corrected the punctuation of the quote, which I’m noting here in case she happens to see this post.) She is actually very close to the truth with her response, but like the person I was having the discussion with, she stopped just short of the important questions.

Yes, some people prefer to love themselves over God, and don’t want to let go of their current way of life. These facts don’t help the common Christian arguments either, though, since it’s still getting down to a matter of the nature of the chooser and ignoring the question of why the nature is what it is, with the ultimate blame (again, presuming God doesn’t interfere) being on that particular selfish and/or evil nature. And if it comes down to just that nature, it means they still couldn’t have ever made any other choices than the ones they did since that would go against their nature, which means the choice was ultimately predetermined by that preexisting selfish and/or evil nature which they had no say in being given to them because said nature was generated by their life experiences and genetics.

At the end of the day, there are two options and only two options, which is that our choices are predetermined (by one’s nurture and/or nature — and, perhaps, by outside influences such as God) or that our choices are random. Another way of putting this is that our choices are either caused or uncaused; if they’re caused, they’re predetermined by said cause, and if they’re uncaused, they’re random. Nobody has ever been able to give a third option that works within the realm of reality, and until they do, those remain the only two options available for us to work with.

But since this whole topic is almost always about salvation, let’s take this a step further and look at it from that specific perspective. I’ve written about this before, but instead of arguing about “free will” as it relates to this topic, the actually important question is, “What is it that exists within you that made you able to choose to accept Christ or believe the Gospel (in whatever way it is you believe one must in order to get saved) that is missing from everyone who doesn’t choose to get saved? Was it your superior intelligence that they don’t possess, superior wisdom they don’t possess, superior righteousness they don’t have, or superior humility they don’t have, or was it just plain dumb luck that you were able to do so when they weren’t? Bottom line, if you’re able to choose to get saved (however it is you believe one gets saved) and they weren’t able to, what gave you that ability that they lacked?”

Well, let’s break down the options:

• If it’s because you were smart enough to do so, it’s the intelligence you have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved you, which means that we’re ultimately saved by intelligence (what Christ did was only step 1, while we have to complete our salvation through step 2: making the right choice to believe the right thing, making us our own, at least partial, saviours).
• If it’s because you were wise enough to do so, it’s the wisdom you have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved you, which means we’re saved by our wisdom.
• If it’s because you were righteous enough to do so, it’s the righteousness you have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved them, which means that we’re saved by our own self-righteousness.
• If it’s because you were humble enough to do so, it’s the humility you have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved you, which means that we’re saved by naturally having the right amount of humility.
• And if it’s because you were simply lucky enough to happen to do so, it’s the good luck you have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved you, which means that we’re saved by good luck, or simply by random chance.

Whichever of those it is, though, it means that your superior nurture and/or nature is responsible for you making the right choice, and those who don’t choose to get saved must have an inferior nurture and/or nature because something inside them keeps them from making that right choice, which ultimately means salvation is based upon the superiority of specific humans who are able to make the right decision to believe the right thing(s), a decision which inferior humans just aren’t able to make. (At least based on the traditional Christian desire to place the responsibility on us rather than on God.)

The word “repentance” literally means “a change of one’s mind.” Under the Gospel of the Circumcision it can technically include a change of actions as well, but under Paul’s Gospel it simply means that you’ve changed your mind about being able to do anything at all to contribute to your own salvation, and have realized that only what Christ accomplished can (and did) save you (and everyone, at least from an absolute perspective).

Basically, when you truly believe the Good News of the Uncircumcision, it means you’ve repented of your previous mindset that you could help save yourself through your own works, meaning through any action(s) that you might think you have to do in order to be saved — even the work/action of having to choose to believe something specific, or having to choose to have faith that the Gospel is true, which is probably the hardest work one could possibly do, if it were even possible at all — because God has now given you the faith to believe that Christ already took care of salvation for everyone through His death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day.

Basically, if God gives someone the faith to believe that everyone will eventually experience salvation because of what the truth of Paul’s Gospel means (because of what Christ accomplished because of His own faith, in other words), it means they’ve also repented, because their mind has now been changed about the Gospel (which, of course, also means they’ve been saved from a relative perspective and will get to enjoy the ultimate experience of that salvation before the rest of humanity does).

Meanwhile, those who haven’t come to believe the Good News of everyone’s salvation because of what Christ accomplished haven’t actually been given “saving faith” by God, which means they also haven’t repented and have not been saved (from a relative perspective, under Paul’s Gospel anyway) and will likely miss out on what is referred to as ”eternal life” in the Bible, which is a figurative term that means getting to enjoy life in the Kingdom of God during the next two ages. Of course, in the end, they’ll still get to experience the salvation that Christ already won for them from an absolute perspective, but they’ll miss out on a lot in the meantime. (If you aren’t familiar with the different perspectives when it comes to salvation, please read this for more details.)

Most Christians believe that they can choose to believe the Gospel on their own, and in fact believe that one’s choice determines where they will spend eternity. The problem is, this idea is essentially salvation by works or salvation by self, and is really nothing more than humanism dressed up in religious garb.

Yes, the idea that “choosing to believe the Gospel on one’s own in order to be saved is actually salvation by works or salvation by self” goes against what most religious leaders have taught, but if you need to choose to believe something specific in order to be saved, how can that be anything other than a work? If you don’t agree with me, try choosing right now to truly believe in Thor as your lord and saviour. Can’t do it, can you? Forcing oneself to believe something that one hasn’t already organically come to believe (or that God hasn’t given them the faith to believe) is one of the biggest mental works a person could do, and it seems unlikely that anybody is actually capable of it. And if one has been given the faith to believe the truth then they already believe and have already been saved; this is a very binary concept with no middle ground: one either truly believes (which means they have been given the gift of faith by God to believe the Good News) and is saved, or they don’t (which means God hasn’t given them the faith necessary to believe the Good News) and aren’t. Now, one might try to argue that there isn’t compelling evidence to believe that Thor is our saviour, but pretty much all non-believers would argue that they don’t see compelling evidence to believe that Jesus is either (for that matter, most Christians don’t believe He is our Saviour either, but instead believe He’s only our potential Saviour, and that He only becomes our Saviour if we choose to let Him save us, which means they haven’t believed Paul’s Gospel yet themselves), and we have to believe they’re telling the truth because, if they were lying and actually did see the evidence, they’d have already believed the truth about Christ and salvation which would mean they were already saved.

Regardless, even if someone could somehow brainwash themselves into believing something they really didn’t previously believe, it would still be an action (even if just a mental action) they had to accomplish to save themselves (or accomplish to participate in saving themselves). Pretty much every denomination and cult out there teaches salvation by a combination of Christ’s sacrifice plus our own “free will” (aside from some Calvinist denominations, who at least sort of understand God’s sovereignty), but if salvation is by grace plus something else, it’s not by grace alone. (And yes, I know it’s by grace through faith; but that faith, just like the grace and the salvation itself, is not out of ourselves but is, instead, a gift of God — if that faith were something we had to build up on our own, it would be a work we could boast about, and it would mean we’d ultimately played a role in our own salvation.)

Basically, most Christians actually reject the free gift of salvation (despite mistakenly calling the salvation of their so-called “gospel” a free gift) because they don’t truly believe that it’s what Christ did that saves us (since otherwise they’d have to admit that everyone will be saved) or that salvation really is a free gift that has been given to all (okay, a few Christians will agree that He did give the gift to everyone, but they also teach that He’ll later take it back from people who don’t appreciate the gift enough before they die, although this strange understanding of salvation is believed by very few, thankfully), but rather most believe that Jesus saved absolutely nobody through His death and resurrection. Instead, they believe that salvation is an offer rather than an already existing fact (and that Paul’s Gospel is a proposition rather than simply a proclamation of that fact). They think that He only made it possible for people to save themselves by making the right choice with what He did there (although they’d feign humility by claiming to still give the credit to God and Christ somehow, pretending to believe that salvation is no merit of their own, all the while condemning others to hell for being too unmeritorious to choose to become Christians), and that it’s actually one’s acceptance of the gift of potential salvation that saves them (if they happen to be smart enough or wise enough to make the right decision, of course — people who believe that a “free will” decision is necessary for salvation ultimately believe that salvation depends on human intelligence or wisdom to make the right choice; only those people who are good enough, meaning smart or wise enough, not to mention humble enough, to reject their previous wrong choices and now make the right choice or choices are able to be saved, according to most Christians, ultimately making salvation a moral accomplishment we do for ourselves, completing our salvation through our righteous decision to seek after God after we understand the truth and believe in Christ, with Christ Himself merely accomplishing step one of our salvation through His death and resurrection).

If they accepted that it was entirely, 100% what Christ did that saved them rather than their own good and wise and humble choice, they’d also have to accept that Christ’s death and resurrection saves everyone regardless of whether everyone chooses to believe it or not, which is just unacceptable to most of those in the Christian religion. To be fair, yes, you do need to “accept that Jesus is our saviour” (please note that I didn’t say “your saviour”) if you want to experience what is figuratively referred to as “eternal life” in the Bible during the next two ages (which is limited to those who actually do accept the existence of the free gift, and believe the good news that everybody will eventually experience said gift, at least for those under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision). However, accepting Jesus as our saviour doesn’t mean choosing to allow Him to save you (which would mean you would have a role in your own salvation, even if just the small role of making the right decision). Rather, it’s accepting that He has already saved you (and everyone else) after you’ve been given the gift of faith to believe the good news of your (and everyone’s) already existing salvation because of His death for our (meaning everybody’s) sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection. Basically, most Christians put the cart before the horse, thinking they first had faith and were then saved because of this faith. Believers in the necessity of a “free will” decision for salvation might not realize it, but they ultimately believe it’s their faith that saves them rather than God’s grace, when it’s actually by grace we are saved through faith, not by faith we are saved if we accept grace. These people, in fact, have faith in their own faith for their salvation rather than simply having faith that it’s what Christ did for all of humanity that actually saves us all (our faith on its own can’t take away our sins or save us; grace is the horse and faith is the cart). So it’s actually that they were first saved and (if they were also elected for “eternal life” under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision) were then given faith by God to believe the good news of everybody’s already promised salvation and impending immortality (which is what salvation is from an absolute perspective), and are also given “eternal life,” meaning getting to enjoy life in the kingdom of God during the final two ages (which is what salvation is from a relative perspective).

As should be obvious at this point, most Christians actually teach that God and Jesus don’t really save anyone, but instead teach that it’s up to us to save ourselves, despite using scriptural-sounding language to disguise this fact (trying to make it look like they’re actually giving the credit to God and Christ, often even lying to themselves about it), making salvation — from both an absolute and relative perspective — rely on us rather than on God. But in order for one to be saved from a relative perspective, one has to already be saved from an absolute perspective, and entirely apart from any action on their part (at least under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision; under the Gospel of the Circumcision, salvation is more of a joint effort, with works indeed being required or else one’s faith would prove to be dead and useless, but that’s a whole other sort of salvation which we’re not talking about right now), including the act of believing, otherwise their salvation wouldn’t be real to begin with, and it would be their faith bringing a non-existent salvation into being rather than what Christ did that brings salvation. “For instance,” as Martin Zender put it, “what is the use of me asking someone to believe that I deposited a small fortune into his or her bank account if I haven’t actually done it? Would the person’s affirmative confession add money to an empty account? Neither God nor Christ would ever ask unjust God-avoiders to believe a fairy tale, let alone insist that such belief could change fairy tales into realities. In fact, why ask unjust God-avoiders to believe anything unless You were prepared to provide the necessary faith Yourself? This is just what God does: ‘[He] imparts to each the measure of faith’ (Romans 12:3). It’s the only way that anyone can believe. Is salvation real, or isn’t it? Or is it not real until human belief makes it so? But how can human faith make an unreality real simply by the act of believing? I may believe with all my heart that the moon is made of cheese, but it doesn’t make it so. This is madness. Only just people can do something so noble as seek God, but no one is just, not one. Thus, all avoid Him. These are Paul’s words under the inspiration of the holy spirit. Unjust God-avoiders believe and confess nothing concerning God, and even if they could, why pitch them a fable? The question then arises — Did Jesus save me, or didn’t He? If He didn’t, then what am I supposed to believe, even if I could believe? Am I supposed to believe that Jesus didn’t save me? What would be the use of believing a falsehood? If Jesus did save me, then I’m already saved and my subsequent belief — however it comes — affirms a truth, not a fable. Because honestly — who affirms a fable? Lies are to be denied, not affirmed. You Christians laud Jesus Christ in all your colorful brochures, heralding His death and resurrection as though it actually accomplished something — up until the time I must ‘believe or burn,’ at which time salvation turns from a done-deal wrought by a spectacular Savior into a job-op proposed by a Wanna-Be Hero. Jesus didn’t save me after all; it was false advertising. What you mean to tell me is that Jesus merely provided me the opportunity to save myself if I could somehow break through a God-enforced, Adamic stubbornness. Is that the exercise? Then present salvation as an exercise, not a grace. You misrepresent it. You’re hypocrites. You idiots really ought to make up your minds about salvation: is it real or a put-on? If it’s real, then present it that way. Stay true to your spectacular Savior brochures. Tell me what Jesus Christ did, and not what He hopes to do if only I can cooperate with Him. Tell me that I’m saved, and mean it. Do that, and my belief will become the caboose on the train of salvation that it truly is, rather than the engine. Jesus Christ on the cross is the engine, is He not? Unless, of course, I’m really not saved. If I’m not saved, then quit telling lies such as ‘Jesus saves.’ Jesus doesn’t save squat if I’m in the same position after the cross as before it. Before the cross I’m doomed, and after the cross — according to you — I’m still doomed. What the hell did Jesus actually do on the cross then? At best, Calvary is a proposition. If it’s merely that, then quit saying, ‘Jesus saves.’ Say instead, ‘Jesus tried.’ If I am saved, then tell me I’m saved and I’ll believe it, because why would I deny a fact? It’s not my habit. I’m into truth, not pretense, and certainly not duplicities. Give it to me straight, you deceitful people who say one thing and mean another.”

So, which is it? Did Jesus Christ save you, or did you save yourself? If you’re saved because of the fact of Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection, and because of that fact alone (regardless of whether you believe it or not), then it can indeed be said that Christ saved you (and that He saved everyone else too). If, on the other hand — after Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection — you’re not saved, because you haven’t believed the fact that He did the above, then it can’t be said that Christ actually saved you (because you haven’t actually been saved yet), nor can it be said that He is your Saviour (because someone can’t be said to be a person’s saviour without having actually saved that person first), and really, this ”gospel” can’t actually be called good news at all, at least not for most people.

And so, even though Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, most Christians teach that you still have to help yourself before God will help you, because there’s still something specific you yourself have to do in order to get saved, which is choose to believe a very specific thing. (And hopefully you were born smart enough and/or wise enough and/or humble enough, or at least have built up the necessary intelligence and/or wisdom and/or humility at this point in your life to be able to make the right decision to believe the necessary thing that saves you, because what Jesus did wasn’t enough on its own to save you without your belief in that specific thing, and if you can’t help yourself by bringing yourself to choose to believe that specific thing, you’re out of luck and God just won’t help you, so here’s hoping that whatever isn’t in those who can’t bring themselves to choose to believe the right thing is in you so that you can, or if it’s the other way around, hopefully whatever is in them that prevents them from choosing to believe the right thing isn’t in you so that you can.) Of course, some will also add certain actions — such as repentance of sin, confessing Jesus as Lord, and even water baptism, among other things — to the requirements for salvation, but for now let’s keep it simple and just leave it at having to choose to believe something very specific in order to get saved, especially since adding additional requirements on top of believing something specific won’t actually change anything about my point that the common belief is Jesus’ death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection, just wasn’t enough to save anyone without them having to add to what He did by choosing to believe something specific.

Simply put, having faith isn’t a work, but having to choose to have faith clearly is (anything that one has to choose to do on their own — be it having to choose to believe something, or having to choose to take a certain action after they’ve believed something — is, by definition, a work; the only thing that can’t possibly count as a work is something God gives us apart from us having to do anything to receive, keep, or enjoy it). Only God can give us the faith to believe the true Gospel of the Uncircumcision, though, because believing Paul’s Gospel is so difficult that even most Christians can’t do it since they refuse to believe what it actually means (that everyone will eventually experience salvation because of what Christ accomplished).

I watched a debate between a Christian and a member of the body of Christ the other night, over whether Universal Reconciliation was scriptural or not. There’s a lot that I could discuss about it, but one thing stood out in particular. The “against” debater pointed out that Jesus stated some people would not be saved. And you know what? He’s absolutely right. And yet, at the same time, the “affirmative” debater’s point that everyone will be saved was also true. But how could that be so?

Well, it’s similar to if I pointed out that, among a group of 4 people, they each had a quarter, but that at the same time only 1 of them had a quarter, and that both statements were equally true. It’s actually really simple how this could be the case: all 4 people had a piece of a pie, each an equal sized slice of the pie that made up the whole pie when put together, but only one of these people had a 25-cent coin in their pocket. You see, words can refer to different things, and the same goes for both the word “quarter” and the word “saved” (or “salvation“).

What few Christians are aware of today is that Jesus was talking about something very different from the salvation you’re likely thinking of when you hear or read the word. When Jesus walked the earth, He came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The Gospel He was proclaiming was the Good News of the Kingdom, which was the Good News that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, meaning it was ready to begin on earth (specifically in Israel), and was indeed already in their midst in the person of its Messiah and future king (Himself). In order to get to live in the kingdom when it begins in Israel (there is admittedly a little more to it than this, but this is basically what the salvation they were looking forward to was at its simplest; it had nothing to do with getting to live in an ethereal afterlife dimension called heaven as ghosts, and everything to do with getting to live in Israel when the kingdom begins in earnest there), His audience of Israelites had to believe that He is the Messiah and the Son of God (note that there’s nothing in that passage about them having to trust in His death for our sins) in order to be saved, but they also had to perform good works and endure to the end in order to maintain their salvation. In addition, those to whom Jesus spoke directly also had to follow Him, which is impossible to do today since He isn’t currently walking around Israel to follow, and the part of the heavens He’s currently in is much too far away to get to, so you can’t follow Him around whichever heavenly throne room He’s in either.

Those who didn’t believe and perform the required beliefs and required works weren’t saved, meaning they won’t get to live in Israel during the Millennium, and possibly not during the final age after that either (the references to “hell” in the KJV being primarily about missing out on the kingdom in Israel at that time because one is dead, and the figurative statements about fire generally referred to those who actually will be alive during that time, but who will be weeping and gnashing their teeth because they aren’t allowed to live with the resurrected patriarchs in the kingdom in Israel either, instead having to live in the “outer darkness” of the parts of the world that are far from the light of the kingdom).

After His death and resurrection, and ascension into the heavens, however, He gave a new Gospel known by various names, but perhaps best known as Paul’s Gospel, to the apostle of the nations (Paul), which is the Good News that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day (Jesus and His disciples couldn’t have been teaching this Good News while He walked the earth when they were proclaiming the Gospel of the Kingdom, because His disciples didn’t understand that He was going to die). As Paul explained in various places throughout his epistles, the result of this Good News is that everyone who is dying (and hence sinful) because of what Adam did will be quickened (made immortal, and hence sinless) because of what Christ did, but each in their own order: Christ the first fruits (meaning the body of Christ — excluding its Head, unless you believe Jesus was also directly suffering the effects of Adam’s sin — specifically the relatively small number of people to whom God has elected to give the faith to believe what Paul’s Gospel actually means), then those who are His at His coming (meaning the Israel of God, specifically those who believe what I wrote about the Gospel of the Kingdom in my first paragraph), and finally the rest of them (or “the end” of them, meaning everyone else who is still dying — as well as those who have died — because of what Adam did). God really is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe (not exclusively of those that believe). And yes, believers do get a special, earlier salvation from everyone else (and so when Paul wrote about people missing out on salvation, this is what he was referring to), known figuratively as ”eternal life,” but Paul was clear in 1 Corinthians 15 that all three groups of people will eventually experience salvation because of what Christ did, even though each in their own order.

It’s vitally important to realize that the Circumcision writings (basically anything that isn’t among the 13 epistles signed by Paul) were meant for the Israel of God (although they are still true and useful to those of us in the body of Christ), while the Uncircumcision writings (Paul’s 13 epistles) are the marching orders for the body of Christ.

If you’d like to learn more about what it means to rightly divide the word of truth (which is a term that refers to the Good News, not to the Bible), and what it was the opposing side of the debate didn’t understand, I wrote about it in detail in this article here.

“But God won’t force people to go to heaven to live with Him against their will,” he said when he found out I believed in Universal Reconciliation. “Forcing someone to do something against their will is called rape, and God wouldn’t do that.”

“I should probably point out that I’m not saying He’ll let them into heaven,” I clarified. “I’m saying they’ll be resurrected to live forever on the new earth instead. But that’s probably beside the point. More importantly, though, I should point out that rape is actually a form of sexual assault, and has nothing to do with forcing people to do things or go places against their will outside of one specific sort of action involving unwanted penetration of one’s body. For example, parents make their children go places they don’t want to go all the time, such as to church or to the store or to school,” I added. “Is that rape, or the equivalent of saving someone without them doing whatever it is that you believe is necessary to be saved?”

”Well, it’s okay for parents to do that, because the children don’t know any better, but it would be wrong for God to do something against someone’s will once they’re no longer a child,” he replied.

“So you’re saying it’s not rape when a parent does something to a child against their will? That a parent can’t rape a child? That only someone who is no longer a child can be raped?” I asked.

”Okay, I guess rape was a bad analogy,” he admitted. “But God still wouldn’t do something to someone against their will, like forcing them to spend eternity with Him when they don’t want to. That would be coercive of Him, and God’s a gentleman Who respects our wishes.”

”What if it’s someone who actually wishes to spend eternity with God, but they haven’t been convinced that they have to ‘accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour’ because they aren’t sure that Jesus even existed, much less rose from the dead?”

”Well, if they don’t believe the Gospel, they can’t be saved.”

”So what would happen to the person who wants to spend eternity with God but isn’t able to bring themselves to believe that Christ died for their sins, was buried, and rose again the third day?” I asked.

”Well, they’d have to go to hell, because they didn’t accept Christ,” he affirmed.

”What if they don’t want to go to hell, but want to go live on the new earth with God instead? Wouldn’t it be coercive of God to send them to hell against their will rather than let them live on the new earth like they want to?”

”Well, God isn’t sending them to hell, they’re sending themselves to hell.”

”What if they say they don’t want to go to hell and want to continue living on the new earth after their judgement, and refuse to walk towards hell?” I queried. “Wouldn’t God then have to force them, against their will, into hell?”

”I guess so. But it’s still their own fault for not choosing to believe in Christ before they died,” he insisted.

”But it would still be God forcing someone to go somewhere against their will rather than letting them live in the place they actually want to live,” I pointed out. “And you originally implied that making someone go somewhere they didn’t want to go was so bad that you compared it to rape.”

”But it wouldn’t be fair for God to save them at that point. Then they’d get the same reward as me, even though they didn’t make the same choice to accept Christ that I did.”

“You believe salvation is a reward for something you chose to do?” I asked. “Are you saying you’re deserving of salvation because you were smart enough to make the right decision but they aren’t deserving of it because they weren’t able to convince themselves to believe something they didn’t see any evidence for?”

“Well, no, I guess not, but the Bible says that they’ll end up in the lake of fire if they don’t accept Christ,” he insisted.

“First of all, if you take the context of the whole of Scripture into consideration, you’ll realize it actually doesn’t say that everyone who doesn’t accept Christ as their Saviour will end up in the lake of fire, which is a different place from the ‘hell’ the dead end up in, I should add,” I explained. “That idea is based on a serious misunderstanding of Scripture. Regardless, though, I actually do agree that God will send many people to the lake of fire against their will, in order to die a second time, which is why it’s called the second death. However, Paul also tells us that everyone who was made mortal because of what Adam did will also eventually be made immortal because of what Christ did, although each in their own order — first the body of Christ, then the Israel of God, and finally, much later, when Christ finally destroys death altogether, He’ll also resurrect everyone who died a second time in the lake of fire so they can also be made immortal to live with Him for eternity on the new earth.”

”But that’s not fair!” He complained. “They didn’t choose to accept Christ like I did, so why should they get to enjoy eternity?”

“You know,” I said, deciding to wrap things up, “it sounds like you don’t actually care about people ending up in places against their will so much as you care about people having to make the same wise choice you believe you made. At the end of the day, it seems as though you don’t actually care if God forces people to go somewhere against their will at all, so long as He doesn’t let them enjoy eternity against your will.”

Trying to refute the idea of the Rapture, I recently had someone tell me that Jesus only returns once, saying, “There’s nothing in the Bible that indicates Jesus will return from heaven to the earth twice.” And you know what? He’s absolutely right. Jesus only returns to the earth once. Yet, even with that statement being true, the doctrine of the Rapture occurring prior to the Tribulation (or by the middle of it at the absolute latest) also remains true.

How is it possible for us to believe both statements? Well, it all comes down to understanding what Jesus returning to the earth from heaven actually means. As we know, the word “heaven” in Scripture is simply a reference to everything that is “above” the earth, meaning the sky and outer space. So when we’re caught up to the clouds to meet Christ, He won’t have stepped foot out of heaven yet (He might be at its front door, having descended from outer space into the atmosphere of earth, but He’s still in the heavens at that point). Until His feet touch down on the Mount of Olives, He hasn’t actually returned to the earth, and that return will only occur once. (Sort of; there’s actually reason to believe He’ll go back and forth from the throne room in outer space to the earth throughout the Millennium, but His triumphant return will be a one-time occurrence.)

So the next time someone tries to disprove that the Rapture will happen before the end of the Tribulation by telling you Jesus is only going to return once, tell them they’re absolutely correct about Him only returning one time, but that the Rapture will still happen long before the Tribulation ends. Of course, odds are they’ll then try to assert any number of the other myths and misunderstandings about the Rapture that many Christians hold to, but if so, you can just send them to this post to learn more about what else they’ve gotten wrong about the topic as well.

Paul taught that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried (He was buried — not just His body, while He went elsewhere — which means He actually died, ceasing to exist as a conscious being), and that He rose again the third day (meaning He was resurrected from the dead in a physical body). Because of this, sin has now been dealt with for every human — past, present, and future — and so every human will eventually experience the type of salvation that Paul primarily wrote about (which means to be resurrected if dead, and to be made immortal and sinless; it has nothing to do with avoiding suffering in a fiery torture chamber), although each in their own order: first the members of the body of Christ, when Jesus comes for His body in the air, then the resurrected members of the Israel of God, 75 days after Jesus returns to the earth, and finally everyone else, at the end of the ages. And if God has elected to give you the faith to believe that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, and the understanding of what this actually means (because one can’t truly believe something they don’t actually understand), then you’ve been chosen by God to join the body of Christ, and you’ll be one of the first to enjoy salvation. But even if God hasn’t chosen to give someone the faith to believe this, Paul promises us that everyone will eventually experience salvation. And so, while those who outright reject this good news might miss out on getting to live in the kingdom of God during the next age or two, even they’ll eventually enjoy salvation. So please be reconciled to God (be at peace with God in your mind), because God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (which means He’s at peace with each of us), not imputing their trespasses unto them.

If you’d like to learn more about what Scripture really teaches about salvation, including the scriptural references for what I wrote above, please check out this in-depth study on the topic: Consistent Soteriology: What The King James Bible Really Says About Heaven, Hell, Judgement, Death, Evil, Sin, And Salvation

I’ve written about some of the street preachers of downtown Toronto before (see here and here), but I came across some of them again yesterday while on a walk, and once again the duplicity of the words they preached jumped out at me (although I believe they almost certainly had no idea how deceptive what they were saying was; they always seem quite sincere to me). Once again, they preached that there is nothing anyone in their audience could possibly do in order to be saved, then turned around and told their audience members what it is they have to do in order to be saved. They had no idea that they were contradicting the sentence they’d just finished speaking (if “there’s nothing you can do to be saved, now here’s what you have to do to be saved” isn’t a contradiction, I don’t know what is), and also that they were preaching salvation by superiority, not to mention salvation by works.

Now, I’m not going to get into the whole topic of why having to choose to believe something is a work again, since I’ve covered it sufficiently before, and it should really be obvious to anyone who thinks about it that having to choose to do something (even if that something is simply having to choose to believe a certain fact, or even having to choose to have faith in a certain truth or Person) is still a work anyway, but I did want to discuss the fact that they are also preaching (as does nearly every other preacher out there) that one must be superior to those around them in order to be saved, and that only those superior humans like themselves can actually be saved.

Remember, Christians, for the most part, believe that one can only be saved if they happen to choose to “receive the gift of salvation” that Christ offers them. They don’t believe that what Christ did already saved everyone apart from anything they can do or even believe. In fact, they don’t believe that what Christ did saved anyone at all, since Christ’s death for our sins, and subsequent burial and resurrection, didn’t actually guarantee anyone salvation if they don’t choose to also “receive the gift” (if they don’t choose to “receive the gift,” they haven’t actually been saved by Christ, according to their doctrines). The problem is, not everyone chooses to “receive the gift.” This might not seem like a big problem at first to most Christians, but if you ask them why they decided to “accept the gift” while others don’t choose to do so, the problem becomes a little more clear.

You see, every decision we make is based on a cause. You can’t have an effect — even an effect such as a choice to believe or “accept” a teaching (or to “receive the gift,” so to speak) — without a cause or a reason. So what is the reason that those other people who don’t choose to “receive the gift” don’t make that right choice, while the Christians did make the right choice to “receive” it? Was it that the others weren’t born as smart or wise or righteous or humble or lucky as they were? If so, was it their intelligence, their wisdom, their righteousness, or their humility, that saved them, or was it simply pure, dumb, random luck that they happened to make the right decision, while others weren’t fortunate enough to do so? Well, let’s break down the options:

• If it’s because they were smart enough to do so, it’s the intelligence they have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved them, which means that we’re ultimately saved by intelligence (what Christ did was only step 1, while we have to complete our salvation through step 2: making the right choice to believe the right thing, making us our own, at least partial, saviours).
• If it’s because they were wise enough to do so, it’s the wisdom they have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved them, which means we’re saved by our wisdom.
• If it’s because they were humble enough to do so, it’s the humility they have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved them, which means that we’re saved by naturally having the right amount of humility.
• If it’s because they were righteous enough to do so, it’s the righteousness they have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved them, which means that we’re saved by our own self-righteousness.
• And if it’s because they were simply lucky enough to happen to do so, it’s the good luck they have — which the unsaved don’t have — that saved them, which means that we’re saved by good luck, or simply by random chance. 

Whichever of those it is, though, it means that their superior nurture and/or nature (meaning the genetics they were born with and/or the life experiences they went through up until the point they decided to “receive the gift”) is responsible for them making the right decision, and those who don’t choose to “receive the gift” must have an inferior nurture and/or nature because something inside them keeps them from making that right choice. Either that or God just chose them to make the right choice (and made sure they did), as Calvinists teach, and left everyone else to suffer.

Of course, if you’ve been reading my website for any time at all, you already know the truth: That because Christ died for our sins, and was buried and rose again on the third day, everyone has already been saved from an absolute perspective, and is guaranteed to be resurrected and/or quickened (made immortal) by the end of the ages, and those of us to whom God has chosen to give the faith to believe this Good News now are also saved from a relative perspective and will be resurrected and/or quickened early, at the Rapture (and that those who believe the Good News of the Kingdom instead of the Good News of the Grace of God that Paul proclaimed will be resurrected and quickened 75 days after Jesus returns as well, but that’s a whole other sort of salvation). In fact, “receiving something” isn’t something one does voluntarily anyway. Paul talked about how five times he received “forty stripes save one,” and if you think receiving those lashes was something he had to first choose, you might want to reconsider a few things.

While Christians really have no ability to believe the true Gospel unless God gives them the faith to do so anyway, it is still sad to hear them proclaiming salvation by superiority whenever I hear them preach. (They truly have no idea just how hypocritical the false expressions they teach are.) Thankfully, even they’ll one day experience the salvation that Christ won for them on the cross, even though most of them will likely have to wait for the end of the ages for it. But, in the meantime, when you encounter a Christian who believes that he or she is saved because they made the correct choice to believe the right thing (or to “receive the gift”), congratulate them on being better than all those people who haven’t been able to bring themselves to choose to believe the right thing (or haven’t been able to choose to “receive the gift”).

There’s an important principle of Bible study that has been ignored by nearly all Christians, and because of this, Christianity is full of unscriptural doctrines.

You see, God defined what was considered to be sinful for Israelites in the Mosaic law, and basically told them everything they needed to know about life, death, and judgement in the “Old Testament” books in general as well. If something wasn’t taught in “the law and the prophets,” it wasn’t necessary for them to know, at least until the time Jesus began His ministry.

However, even after Jesus began His ministry, as recorded in the “New Testament” books, His teachings weren’t about new prohibitions that Israelites had to follow “or else.” If there was something God definitely didn’t want Israelites to do, He told them what it was in the “Old Testament” books; and if there were consequences for breaking any of these rules, He spelled them out in the “Old Testament” books as well (there is a sort of exception to this, but it wasn’t about sins with consequences the way most people think of them today, so I’m not getting into it here). Instead, the teachings of Jesus were primarily confirmation — and sometimes helpful interpretation — of the teachings given in the “Old Testament” books. Similarly, Paul didn’t give new prohibitions in his epistles either. Anything that he taught should be considered sinful would still be based on the writings of the “Old Testament” books (even if the body of Christ isn’t under the Mosaic law, and shouldn’t even be worrying about sin anyway, the “Old Testament” books are still useful for understanding what would be considered to be sin in the first place).

With that in mind, there are doctrines that are considered to be incredibly important to most Christians today which, if you were to go back in time and try to teach them to an Israelite during basically any time prior to Christ’s ministry, would result in confusion as to where you got these ideas from.

To give some examples of what I’m talking about, please consider the following questions:

• If you wanted to convince a man that he shouldn’t fantasize sexually about a woman, or enjoy the way the shape of her body looks (or even look at her naked), which passages from the “Old Testament” books would you use?
• Similarly, if you wanted to convince a woman that she shouldn’t fantasize sexually about a man, or enjoy the way the shape of his body looks (or even look at him naked), which passages from the “Old Testament” books would you use?
• If you wanted to convince someone that women shouldn’t interact sexually with other women, which passages from the “Old Testament” books would you use?
• If you wanted to convince someone that certain dead people might actually be conscious, and might even suffer without end in a fiery place called hell, which passages from the “Old Testament” books would you use?

Now think carefully about these questions. I’m sure you can come up with passages in the “New Testament” books that you might assume are talking about these things (such as Matthew 5:28, Romans 1:26, and Luke 16:19-31, among various others), but each of these passages has to be interpreted in light of what the “Old Testament” books actually taught.

For example, there’s no passage anywhere in the “Old Testament” books that I’m aware of which says desiring a woman sexually, or looking at her body with desire, is wrong (and the passage in Matthew 5:28 is only talking about men “lusting” after certain women — it doesn’t say anything about the “lust” that a woman might have towards men — so it can’t be used to condemn women at all), which means this passage has to mean something other than what Christians have commonly assumed it does.

Next, there are a couple verses in the Mosaic law which seem to imply that men shouldn’t have anal sex with other men, but even if this is what those verses are talking about (ignoring the debate about the meaning of these passages for the moment), it’s pretty obvious that there aren’t any follow-up verses talking about women lying with other women (and these verses are surrounded by other verses which spell out prohibitions for both men and women, so one can’t just say it’s implied by the verses about men), which means that Romans 1:26 has to be something other than a condemnation of sexual or romantic relations between women.

As far as a supposed afterlife goes, the “Old Testament” books talk about people “sleeping” in the ground rather than about the dead being conscious. There is a passage in Daniel that talks about a future resurrection to “everlasting contempt” (the word “everlasting” needs to be read very figuratively here, though, as explained here), but that’s talking about people who have been resurrected from the dead, not to a never-ending conscious state of those who are still dead and are supposedly in a fiery place called “hell.” Isaiah also talked about carcases being destroyed by worms and fire while being observed by certain people, but that was talking about dead bodies being looked upon with shame by living people here on earth at some point in the future, not to ghosts being chomped on by some sort of mystical, immortal worms or being burned (yet never consumed) by magical fire in an ethereal afterlife dimension. So assertions that Jesus was threatening His audience with never-ending torment after they die makes no sense at all when one considers the fact that nobody during “Old Testament” times had ever even been warned about such a horrific outcome (the worst possible consequence for sinning in the “Old Testament” books was simply physical death), which means one has to dig deeper to find out what it is Jesus must have actually meant by these scary-sounding threats.

There are plenty of other examples I could bring up beyond just those ones, but the above should explain what I’m getting at. Basically, to interpret the “New Testament” books, it’s important to make sure that you understand what they mean in light of what the “Old Testament” books said (or didn’t say, as the case may also be).

In my last post I hinted at the idea that the lake of fire will be relatively empty. This, of course, goes against the traditional ideas that most Christians believe, but then, so does nearly everything I write on this website, so that’s nothing new.

So who actually does end up in the lake of fire? Revelation 20 and 21 are the chapters where we learn about the lake of fire and who ends up in it, so we should take a look at what it says in order to find out, but of course we have to also remember to interpret it with the rest of Scripture in mind, which means we have to read it with the understanding that anyone who is a true believer in Christ (and has joined either the Israel of God or the body of Christ, which are two separate groups of believers) will have already been resurrected and/or quickened (made immortal) at least 1,000 years prior to the time anyone is resurrected for the Great White Throne Judgement and/or cast into the lake of fire, which means that the judgement at the Great White Throne isn’t about whether one has believed either the Gospel of the Circumcision or the Gospel of the Uncircumcision or not. Instead, John tells us in Revelation that the judgement people will face at the Great White Throne will be based solely on their works (meaning they’ll be judged for the good deeds and the evil acts they performed while they lived on earth — and it’s also important to know that they aren’t judged for their sins, since all sin was taken care of some 2,000 years ago on the cross). Of course, John then goes on to say that anyone whose name was not found in the book of life would be cast into the lake of fire. The question, then, is: Who are the people whose names won’t be found in the book of life?

Most Christians assume this refers to people who didn’t believe the Gospel and “get saved.” However, John tells us 8 verses later who, exactly, it is that will end up in the lake of fire when he says: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

The first thing most people will say is that John mentions the “unbelieving” as the second category in the list of people who end up in the lake of fire, so it must be talking about “non-Christians” there, but it’s the fact that this is the second category of people in a list of different sorts of people who end up there that tells us John isn’t saying what most Christians assume he is (the fact that it’s only the second category in the list rather than the first is also very telling). If the people whose names are not written in the book of life simply consisted of people who didn’t believe the Gospel, the rest of the list would be entirely unnecessary. So whatever it is the “unbelieving” are failing to believe, it can’t simply be referring to all “non-Christians” (or even to all non-believers in Paul’s Gospel).

This is also made clear when we look at the last category on the list, where it says that “all liars” will end up in the lake of fire. Every single human who has made it to the age where they can speak has told a lie at some point in their life, but we know that not every person on Earth will end up in the lake of fire since otherwise even all believers would end up there, so it would stand to reason that this is referring to habitual liars (such as certain politicians, for example).

Basically, the fact that there’s a very specific list of people who end up in the lake of fire tells us that not everyone who is judged at the Great White Throne will end up there. I would suggest that it’s pretty much just the worst of the worst (your Adolf Hitlers and Donald Trumps and Billy Grahams) who will end up in there. Everyone else, likely including most of your loved ones, will continue on to live on the new earth, albeit in mortal bodies (they likely won’t die again, since most will be kept alive by partaking of the fruit and leaves of the tree of life, although technically some people will still die on the new earth during the final age, as Isaiah 65:17-20 tells us, and their bodies will be burned up in the lake of fire too, but they’ll eventually be resurrected again at the end of the ages themselves).

In addition to that, the fact that certain people will have to spend time paying off “the uttermost farthing” on the new earth also tells us that getting to live on the new earth isn’t only for those who have “gotten saved.” And this doesn’t mean salvation is based on works, because they won’t experience salvation at the time they finish paying off their debt, since salvation is ultimately about being made immortal and sinless, and that won’t happen to them until the end of the ages.

And speaking of which, we also know from what Paul taught us throughout his epistles that everyone who hasn’t been quickened yet by that point (referring to those mortal and amortal humans living on the new earth, of course, but also to those who died and had their corpses burned up in the lake of fire but who will be resurrected when Christ destroys the final enemy: death — which has to include the second death) will be quickened at the end of the ages.