Blog

If the Mosaic law was created to get people to sin more rather than less, as Romans chapter 5 tells us it was, then it seems to me that the people who want the 10 Commandments posted in or around court houses and schools are actually encouraging sin rather than discouraging it. Which isn’t the end of the world, I suppose, since where sin abounds, grace much more abounds, but it does seem contrary to the whole point of the Christian religion (not that its followers are known for their consistency).

The 10 Commandments are only 1.63% of the whole Mosaic law, by the way (and yes, the 10 Commandments are a part of the Mosaic law, as Paul made clear by referencing the 10th commandment when he wrote Romans 7:7–9 as a part of his teaching that we shouldn’t allow ourselves to be placed under any parts of the law at all), and if you choose to obey one part of the law you’re then obligated to obey the whole thing, or so Galatians chapter 5 teaches.

Since those of us under grace no longer need the law, I’m quite happy to leave it behind the way I did my school teachers when I graduated. It served its purpose at one time, but to try to keep the 613 Mosaic rules now would be just as silly as following the rules of the classroom now that I’m no longer in school. I’m past the need to raise my hand when I want to speak, and I’m past the need to avoid bacon when I want to please God. Sure, some things just make sense to avoid, such as killing people or pushing people on the playground, but that’s because they’re not nice things to do (and might land you in prison), not because God is going to get you for doing so.

If you’ve read many of my posts, you know by now that one of the most consistent traits of Christians is that they’re not very consistent in their theological thinking. This is possibly no more obvious than in their views on the subject of abortion. Most evangelicals I know of, for instance, are extremely anti-abortion, and yet when I consider the issue I would think that they should be the most pro-abortion group of people out there.

Why?

Well, most evangelicals, aside from certain Calvinists, believe in a doctrine called “the age of accountability.” A child reaches the age of accountability when they are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and can be held accountable for their sins. Up until they reach this age, children who die apparently go to heaven (or so the doctrine goes) because they’re too young to understand the consequences of, and hence be held responsible for, their actions. However, once someone reaches this age (which supposedly varies from individual to individual) they will end up in hell forever if they happen to pass away without first becoming a Christian.

Now, I’d estimate that 90% or more of the human population will suffer in hell forever, at least according to the traditional view that this is the fate of non-Christians who die in their sins, so if never-ending torment in hell for non-believers past the age of accountability is true then perhaps abortionists should be considered the greatest missionaries there are since they’d probably be responsible for helping more souls avoid hell than all of the missionaries alive today combined. Not only that, shouldn’t those Christians who have babies be thought of as the greatest monsters there are, seeing as they’re willing to risk the eternal souls of their offspring simply to satisfy a desire (either for children, or simply for sex for those who believe that birth control is wrong)? Since there is a greater than 90% chance that your child will end up in hell if they reach the age of accountability (depending on where and when you happen to live the odds might vary, but they’re still pretty grim), wouldn’t you be much better off killing them before they get that old? If you believe in everlasting hell for those past this age then would not someone like Andrea Yates, who killed her children so they would be sure to avoid such a terrible eternal outcome, be one of the best examples of good motherhood we have? Sure, it might be a sin to commit murder, but sins can always be forgiven while you’re still alive, and her children are now guaranteed a place in heaven (or so the logic should go if traditionalists are correct).

If a parent allowed their child to participate in any activity where their kid has a 90% or greater chance of dying, or even just getting seriously injured, one would (rightly) consider that parent to be negligent and report that parent to the child protective agencies, and yet how many Christian parents are willing to gamble their children’s soul with a fate far worse, and infinitely longer, than simple death or injury?

No matter how horrible this might sound to you, I challenge you to show me where I’m wrong. I’ve made this challenge before and have yet to have anyone correct my logic, and I don’t expect to have it happen anytime soon either.

Just for the record, since I believe in Universal Reconciliation, I obviously don’t believe that anyone ends up in hell for eternity so I am not promoting murder here, nor is this a post in favour of, or against, abortion. This post is simply to challenge yet another inconsistency in Christian ideology.

Someone I know recently said that if Universalism is true then we don’t need Jesus and, since I’ve heard this statement too many times from too many traditionalists, I felt a need to give a short response to it here.

As a Universalist, I like to respond to assertions like this one with a parable in the form of a news article:

At 6:00pm, Friday evening, firefighter Joshua Christos died in order to rescue all 300 children trapped in Kosmos Public School as it was burning to the ground. However, because he saved all 300 students, rather than just 2 or 3 of them, we are forced to declare that Joshua’s death didn’t actually serve any purpose even though none of the children would have been saved had he not died.

I realize that Universal Reconciliation isn’t an easy doctrine to swallow, but statements like “If Universalism is true then Jesus died in vain” make me wonder whether most traditionalists are even trying when they argue against the idea.

Believe it or not, I find that there is a little bit in Calvinism to agree with, particularly the fact that they believe everyone whose sins Christ died for will be saved. There are some points where we disagree, however, because Calvinists don’t understand that Christ died for everyone’s sins, so I thought I’d give a biblical alternative to what they refer to as TULIP:

1. Total Sovereignty of God: God is in control of everything that happens, at least from an absolute perspective, although we’re still accountable for our actions from a relative perspective.

2. Universal Mortality and Grace: Mortality has passed on to all humanity thanks to Adam’s sin, and because of that mortality, everyone is guaranteed to sin at some point. However, where sin abounds, grace much more abounds, so every sin has already been taken care of (at least from a proleptic perspective), and all humanity has been promised an eventual experience of general salvation — meaning immortality and sinlessness — because Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, which is the Gospel/Good News that Paul taught.

3. Limited Special Salvation: While God promises an eventual general salvation to everyone because of what Christ accomplished, He elects to give a relatively small number of people a special, early experience of salvation, known figuratively as “eternal” life, meaning immortal life during the oncoming ages, as well as possibly getting to rule and reign with Christ in heaven during those ages. (Although, those who are instead saved by obeying the Gospel of the Kingdom — which is the Good News Jesus and His disciples preached during His earthly ministry — will also experience their own sort of special salvation, but that’s a form of salvation meant primarily for the Israel of God which involves getting to live in the kingdom of heaven, meaning Israel during the Millennium, and any Israelite who isn’t included in this will still enjoy the general salvation Paul taught about, although not for a long time.)

4. Inevitable Glorification: Anyone God has chosen for “eternal” life willbe justified and glorified, because the only qualification for this justification and glorification is being predestinated and called by God to believe the Good News Paul preached, which means He will give the gift of faith to believe the Good News to everyone He’s elected for “eternal” life, and once someone has faith, it means they’ve now believed (and hence have now been saved, at least proleptically).

5. Promises will be kept by God: God will save everyone by the end of the ages. This means that each and every human who was made mortal (and hence sinful) because of Adam’s sin will also be quickened (meaning made immortal/brought beyond the reach of death/given salvation from a physical, or eschatological, perspective) and made sinless because of what Christ did, although each in their own order (first the body of Christ at the Rapture, then the resurrected members of the Israel of God some time after the Second Coming, and finally everyone else at the end of the ages). So, while only believers will enjoy the special salvation, God will still save everyone eventually.

To learn more about how one experiences the various types of salvation, please read this study: Consistent Soteriology: What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, evil, sin, and salvation

It doesn’t matter what your theological views are, nor does it matter what denomination your church is; no matter who you are, you are considered a heretic by some other group of Christians out there. But, of course, your views and denomination are right and everybody else’s is wrong so it doesn’t matter what they think, does it?

It’s important to recognize that the definition of “heresy” isn’t “false teaching,” and that “orthodoxy” doesn’t mean “truth.” In fact, the word “heresies” in the Bible simply meant “sects” (or “divisions”), not “incorrect doctrine,” and “orthodox” only means “that which is commonly accepted” (and there’s always been plenty of commonly accepted error out there).

Remember, Galileo was technically a heretic because he taught that the Earth wasn’t the centre of the universe, but he was still quite correct that it wasn’t. Meanwhile, the Institutional Church considered their view that our planet was the centre of the universe to be the orthodox one, but they were entirely incorrect. So remember that just because something is “heretical” doesn’t mean it’s incorrect, and something being “orthodox” doesn’t make it true. In fact, both Jesus and Paul were considered to be heretics by the orthodoxy of their day, so consider yourself in good company when someone calls you a heretic.

I was recently reminded of a great old (possibly apocryphal) story about the 19th-century Universalist, Hosea Ballou:

Ballou was riding the circuit in the New Hampshire hills with a Baptist minister one day, arguing theology as they traveled. At one point, the Baptist looked over and said, “Brother Ballou, if I were a Universalist and feared not the fires of hell, I could hit you over the head, steal your horse and saddle, and ride away, and I’d still go to heaven.”

 Hosea Ballou looked over at him and said, “If you were a Universalist, the idea would never occur to you.”

In addition to making a point about Scriptural Universalism, this story also points out a common misunderstanding of salvation itself by many Christians. The Baptist in the story forgot that any Christian who believed in Eternal Security (the idea of “Once Saved, Always Saved”) could hit you over the head, steal your horse and saddle, and ride away, and still go to heaven. This concept isn’t limited to Scriptural Universalists; it’s relevant to any Christian who believes in salvation by grace alone.

Interestingly enough, I’ve had almost the exact same statement about Universalism made to me by more than one traditionalist Christian in the past, Christians who I know for a fact do believe in Eternal Security. Sadly, it seems that theological consistency is not considered a virtue among most Christians.

Always remember, just because something is labelled “orthodox” doesn’t mean it’s true. Heresy is often just the rejection of commonly accepted error.

This is the essence of my life philosophy, along with, “Question everything… even this.” As most people do, I began life accepting that most of the standard “orthodox” beliefs were true, be they theological, economic, social, or political beliefs. Thankfully, if there’s one thing that my parents taught me well (even if they didn’t always like it when I practised what they preached), it was to question authority and not just assume something is “good” or true just because a person who might be highly respected by certain people tells me it is. So, everything else aside, I am thankful to my parents for teaching me the value of investigating and examining truth claims for myself rather than just blindly following the crowd.

Throughout history, various heretics (not to mention infidels, apostates, and other non-believers in particular doctrines and dogmas) have been ostracized, persecuted, tortured, raped, and even killed for their particular beliefs (or lack thereof). Apparently we are often considered to be such a threat to the well being of society that if we are not eliminated (or at least harshly punished) we might actually be responsible for sending souls to everlasting perdition.

This fear, however, just goes to demonstrate the inconsistency in the theology of those who hold such a mindset. For those who believe in the idea of “free will,” the individual is a free agent and completely responsible for whatever punishment one happens to bring upon oneself. This means that, while a “heretic” might reveal methods of bringing punishment upon oneself, the heretic can take none of the actual blame for the choice to believe whatever the heresy might be. Likewise, for those who believe in predestination, there is nothing a “heretic” could do that would change God’s plan for one’s eternal destination. For a “heretic” to be at all responsible for somebody else going astray means that the heretic’s will is more powerful than the individual’s will or God’s will (depending on one’s stance on “free will” vs. predestination).

This means that, even if never-ending torment in hell were true (which I don’t believe it is), we heretics should be considered to be no threat at all, unless you believe us to be more powerful than both yourselves and God.

Lector: In the last post here, it was pointed out that if there is anything at all we have to do to “get right with God,” even if it’s simply “choosing to trust Jesus,” then salvation would be by works and not grace since it would be a transaction between us and God. So how does one get saved apart from some sort of transaction?

Auctor: The only way for that to work would be if faith came after salvation. The faith one has would be faith that Christ has already saved them, in other words.

Lector: So then what does faith do for us if we’re already saved?

Auctor: Why it saves us, of course.

Lector: Ah, of course, it… wait, it does what? If we’re already saved, how do we get saved again?

Auctor: Because “salvation” isn’t always the same thing as salvation.

Lector: What do you mean?

Auctor: Well, if I pointed out that, among a group of four people, they each had a quarter, but that at the same time only one of them had a quarter, and that both statements were equally true, how could this be the case?

Lector: I’m not sure. How?

Auctor: It’s actually quite simple: All four people had a piece of a pie, each an equal-sized slice of the pie that made up the whole pie when put together — they each had a quarter of the pie, in other words — but only one of these people had a 25-cent coin, also known as a quarter, in their pocket. Simply put, the same word can refer to different things, and this applies to the word “quarter” as well as to the word “saved,” not to mention “salvation.”

Lector: So “salvation” means two different things then?

Auctor: Actually it can mean many more than just two different things. Peter was saved from drowning in water by Jesus more than once, for example, and the Israelites were saved from slavery in Egypt by God, so we can see that there are various different types of salvation referred to in Scripture, although neither of those salvations were the same type of salvation that most Christians think of when they use the word in a theological sense, of course, and as far as what we’re discussing here goes, it actually refers to three different things.

Lector: Do tell.

Auctor: Well, to begin with, there is ontological salvation. This is the salvation I already referred to, the salvation that God gives us even before we begin to have any faith. This salvation happened to all of us in Christ apart from anything we have done or will do, and is salvation from the absolute perspective. When Christ died for our sins, the penalty for everyone’s sins, which is permanent death, was dealt with once and for all, and so we have all been saved — ontologically and proleptically speaking — by Him, because He died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day.

Lector: That’s a pretty bold statement.

Auctor: It is.

Lector: How do you justify such a claim?

Auctor: It’s not my intention to even try to do so right now, that would too big a tangent at this point. For now it’s enough to remember that if God doesn’t save us apart from anything we do then salvation is a transaction rather than a gift, and would mean our salvation is at least in part based on something we have to do, meaning by works, in other words.

Lector: Okay. You mentioned that we’ve been saved “proleptically speaking” as well. What does that mean?

Auctor: Prolepsis is a common figure of speech used throughout the Bible which simply means “the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished.” Calling what is not yet as though it already were, in other words, as God Himself often does. This just means that we can say we’ve all been saved already, even if it hasn’t happened literally yet, because if God says we’re going to be saved, it’s as good as done even if it doesn’t seem that way at this point in time. “Proleptic salvation” is referring specifically to the third sort of salvation we’re discussing, though, I should say, and refers to the promise of immortality, and hence sinlessness, at some point in the future.

Lector: I see. So what about faith?

Auctor: That applies to the second sort, or stage in some cases, of salvation, what I refer to as noological salvation, which is freedom from the power of sin by being given knowledge of the Good News of our ontological and proleptic salvation and truly believing it. Faith, in other words. When someone comes to realize that God is at peace with them because of what Christ did, and that there is nothing they have to do to please God or earn His forgiveness, they are freed from the power of sin, which is the law or religion, and one can say that they have been saved “noologically,” or saved from a relative perspective, and have been brought into membership in the body of Christ, although I should also quickly mention that one has to understand that Christ Himself actually died, and that He Himself was actually buried rather than just His body being buried while He Himself went somewhere else for three days, meaning He ceased to exist as a conscious being for three days, as well, although that’s a whole other topic we can discuss at another time.

Lector: Ah, I see. But you mentioned three different types of salvation. Is the proleptic salvation you mentioned already the third type?

Auctor: Yes, and when it finally happens, meaning when it’s no longer proleptic, it can also be referred to as eschatological salvation, and this will be the physical experience of salvation that will occur at our resurrection and/or quickening, when the mortal puts on immortality and we can finally enjoy the full salvation that we had ontologically all along in Christ.

Lector: Interesting. So we’ve been saved, we’re being saved, and we will be saved, all at the same time.

Auctor: That’s one way to put it. As long as we remember that there is nothing that we ourselves do to gain any of these salvations.

Lector: But what about faith? If we have to have faith to have what you called noological salvation then isn’t that still a transaction?

Auctor: Not if the faith is given to us by God. Remember, we’re saved by grace through faith, and that is not of ourselves, but is a gift from God. The only way that it can be a gift is if God gives us the faith. If we have to build that salvific faith up, it would be a work.

Lector: Even if it’s just the amount of a mustard seed?

Auctor: Even that would still be a work. Only God can give us the faith that is necessary for the freedom that is noological salvation, though; we couldn’t possibly muster it up on our own anyway, since the god of this world has already blinded the minds of every single person who currently doesn’t believe, so unless God gifts them with the faith to believe the Good News, they simply can’t believe it.

Lector: That makes sense. But I’m still a little confused about something. What you’re saying makes it sound like everyone will be saved in the end, and, in fact, already has been saved, at least as far as ontological and proleptic salvation go. What about all the passages in the Bible that seem to tell us not everyone will get saved? Jesus even said that those who don’t believe are condemned already.

Auctor: As I mentioned, there are many types of salvation; the three we’ve just discussed aren’t the only salvations taught about in Scripture, as we’ve already learned, and Jesus was actually referring to a fourth sort of salvation during His earthly ministry, one which I call circumcision salvation. To understand this, it’s extremely important to know that only the apostle Paul taught the three types of salvation we just discussed, and that Jesus and His disciples were talking about something quite different from the salvations we were just talking about during His earthly ministry, although there is some overlap between the way this one ultimately plays out and what I referred to as eschatological salvation, since those saved in this manner will also eventually experience immortality, although not right away and not at the same time as those in the body of Christ. His death for our sins, burial, and resurrection aside, 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 that it was indeed already in their midst, or “within them,” in the person of its Messiah and future king, meaning Himself. This is what Jesus meant when He said “the kingdom of God is within you,” because it was within the midst of them for as long as He remained among them in Israel. This also means that the kingdom of heaven is no longer “at hand,” or “within them,” even though it will be again in the future. Remember, the salvation His Jewish audience was looking forward to was to get to live in that kingdom when it begins in Israel, but the only Israelites who will get to live in Israel when the kingdom finally fully begins there are those who believe that He is their Messiah, as well as the Son of God, and follow this belief up with water baptism and other good works, which are required under this type of salvation since, unlike our salvations, this particular salvation actually is somewhat transactional. The people who get this sort of salvation are brought into membership in what Paul referred to as the Israel of God, rather than the body of Christ.

Lector: But if those Israelites who don’t believe the Good News that Jesus was teaching, and don’t follow this belief up with good works, won’t get saved, what happens to them?

Auctor: While it’s true that many people won’t get to live in the kingdom in Israel at that time, because they haven’t been saved under this form of salvation, even those who miss out on what is figuratively referred to as “eternal life” on earth — which primarily just refers to enjoying life within the Kingdom of God during the remaining future ages — were still saved ontologically through what Christ did on the cross, so they’ll all still experience eschatological salvation at the end of the ages, when Christ destroys the final enemy: death.

Lector: But what about the passages that tell us some people will end up in hell for eternity?

Auctor: The “hell” passages are very misunderstood by most people. It would be too large of a tangent to get into all the details on the topic here, but suffice it to say, people are reading modern, and entirely unscriptural, definitions into the word “hell” when they see it in the Bible. The word isn’t referring to the inescapable torture chamber most people think of when they read or hear it, and most of the references apply only to Israelites. That said, there are actually multiple different “hells” referred to in the King James Bible, and no humans are conscious when they’re in any of the “hells” that apply to them. And likewise, the words “everlasting,” “eternal,” and “for ever” are very figurative translations in the Bible, and anyone who looks at every instance of these words in the Bible will quickly realize that they actually refer figuratively to periods of time that have both a definitely beginning and a conclusion. At the end of the day, though, for death to be abolished, as Paul promised it would be, nobody can remain dead any longer, so everyone who died, even a second time in the lake of fire, will have to be made alive. Which is exactly what Paul told us would happen when he explained that, just as because of what Adam did, all are mortal and dying, even so, because of what Christ did, all will be made immortal, although each will experience this immortality in their own order: first the body of Christ, then those members of the Israel of God who died prior to Christ’s return, and finally all the rest, when death is finally 100% abolished. Which brings us to another categorization of salvation, because the eschatological salvation that all humanity will experience —immortality, and hence sinlessness — is also known as general salvation, but the salvation that only a relative few will get to enjoy — which includes an early experience of that general salvation, as well as membership in the body of Christ and all that this entails — is referred to as the special salvation, because God truly is the Saviour of all mankind, specially of those that believe, and not only exclusively of those that believe.

Lector: I see. I recognized that some of the things you said were references to specific passages of Scripture, but I’m assuming there were scriptural references I missed in there as well. Do you have any resources available I can refer to in order to confirm that what you just said actually is taught in the Bible?

Auctor: Of course. I wrote a series of articles on the topic, and they’re available for free on my website for anyone who wants to learn the scriptural basis for everything I just told you. You can find them at: https://www.kjvgospel.com/goodnews

Lector: Thanks. I’ll be sure to check it out.

Auctor: No problem at all.

Many of the evangelicals I grew up with were horrified at the idea of magic and witchcraft, all the while promoting the biggest magic spell ever, known to many simply as “The Sinner’s Prayer.”

This magical incantation, when spoken out loud (and truly believed), is supposed to somehow change the location that we end up in after we die from hell to heaven. Not only that, but speaking (and believing) this spell aloud is supposed to also spiritually transform the speaker into a better person, or a “new creation.”

Of course there are some Christians who have realized that “The Sinner’s Prayer” is not actually spelled out anywhere in the Bible and they will tell you that it’s not the prayer that transforms your spirit and alters your afterlife itinerary, but rather it’s the accepting of Jesus to save you that does the trick. The problem is that this still makes salvation into a transaction between you and God. Even if it’s just a small transaction, a transaction it remains if there is something — anything — that you have to do to “get right with God.” Unfortunately a transactional salvation is not salvation by grace, it’s salvation by work, even if that work is simply choosing to trust Jesus.

So with all that in mind, how exactly is one saved apart from some sort of transaction? Well, I’ll get to that in an upcoming post.