Blog

  • The perfect father

    After reading yesterday’s story, someone pointed out to me that it reminded him of a Hosea Ballou anecdote, and I have to agree with him, so I’m sharing it here:

    Ballou was riding the circuit again when he stopped for the night at a New England farmhouse. The farmer was upset. He confided to Ballou that his son was a terror who got drunk in the village every night and who fooled around with women. The farmer was afraid the son would go to hell.

    “All right,” said Ballou with a serious face. “We’ll find a place on the path where your son will be coming home drunk, and we’ll build a big fire, and when he comes home, we’ll grab him and throw him into it.” 

    The farmer was shocked. “That’s my son and I love him!”

    Ballou said, “If you, a human and imperfect father, love your son so much that you wouldn’t throw him in the fire, then how can you possibly believe that God, the perfect father, would do so!”


    If you’d like to read another great story about Ballou, I shared another one of his tales here: If you were a Universalist

  • Getting what’s deserved

    [Setting: Church meeting room. Jeff has been asked by the church’s elders to come in to be quizzed on whether he’s qualified to be a new elder himself or not. The meeting is drawing to a close.]

    Elder Bob: And just to confirm one last time, you do believe that anyone who does not become a Christian deserves to suffer consciously, without end, in a literal lake of fire, correct?

    Jeff: Even we Christians deserve that, not only non-Christians. If we sin even once, we deserve to suffer in hell fire forever. It’s just that Christians get to avoid it because we chose to believe the Gospel.

    Bob: Okay. And I’ve been told that your 14 year old daughter hasn’t accepted Christ as her personal Lord and Saviour yet. Is that true?

    Jeff: Yes, it’s true that she hasn’t gotten saved yet, although I believe she will soon. Is that going to be a problem?

    Bob: Oh, no, not at all. While we expect our elders’ children to all be believers, we have a solution for cases where they aren’t. We’ll just give her what she deserves and then there won’t be any problems.

    Jeff: Wait, what do you mean?

    [Bob pushes a button on a remote control, turning a television screen on, revealing Jeff’s daughter tied to a chair somewhere outdoors.]

    Bob: Well, as you can see, we have your daughter tied to a chair out behind the church. Now, you were telling the truth that you believe any non-Christian deserves to suffer in fire without end, so if we were to set her on fire and kill her that wouldn’t even be close to what she actually deserves, right?

    Jeff: What?! She’s just a kid! She doesn’t deserve that!

    Bob: But she’s sinned in her life, right? So she not only deserves to burn in fire, from what you’ve told us, but she deserves much worse… to burn in fire without end. So we’re only going to give her a tiny fraction of what she deserves ourselves. Although God will then set her on fire once she’s dead, to suffer for the rest of eternity. But it’s what she deserves, so it’s okay.

    Jeff: What?! No! That’s illegal! That’s murder! You can’t do this!

    Bob: Yes, it’s illegal, but God will forgive us if we ask Him to. And she’ll get what she deserves for her sins. Tom, light her up.

    [On the screen, a man pours what Jeff assumed was gasoline on his daughter and then tossed a lit match on her, setting her aflame.]

    Bob: There we go. Problem solved. Now your daughter is getting what you said she deserved for the fact that she’s sinned at least once in her life, and you can now be an elder in our church. Welcome aboard. And as our newest elder, you get to light the fire the next time.


    Now, since I’m not an Infernalist, I obviously don’t believe that Jeff’s daughter, or anyone, deserves to suffer in fire for eternity, but no Christian who believes in the doctrine of Infernalism can argue that Jeff’s hypothetical daughter didn’t deserve much worse than to be set on fire, since they believe that sinning even once in your life makes you deserving of never-ending torture in fire. So even though it was a human administering the punishment rather than God, we still know that his daughter would have deserved much worse if Infernalism were true, so regardless of how it occurred, she still apparently deserved far worse than what she got (and she’ll get what it is she actually deserves now that she’s dead).

    Of course the truth is that nobody deserves anything even close to that. The consequences of sin are mortality, death, and sinfulness (what ”hell” actually is has been seriously misunderstood by most Christians for centuries now), and that’s not even the consequence of our sins, but rather the consequences of the sin of one (the first Adam), as Paul made clear in Romans 5. We suffer those consequences of his sin without any say in the matter ourselves, as Paul explained in that chapter, and likewise, we’ll eventually all be saved from those consequences because of the action of another One (the last Adam), also without any say in the matter ourselves, although each in our own order. If you’d like to learn more about this, please check out the articles on this page: Actual Good News


    [Disclaimer: No fictional characters were actually harmed in the making of this story. The daughter’s “death” was staged using special effects to make a point.]

  • The fourth option

    When Infernalists or Annihilationists point out that Jesus didn’t teach Universalism while He walked the earth, they’re absolutely correct. However, He didn’t teach Infernalism or Annihilationism either. He actually taught something else altogether.

    Most people assume that Infernalism, Annihilationism, and Universalism are the only three options when it comes to the final possible outcome of humanity, but this assumption comes down to a lack of understanding of what the word ”salvation” even means when it’s used in different places in Scripture.

    The first thing to remember is that the word ”salvation” actually has multiple meanings, depending on where you read it in the Bible. When Paul used the word in his epistles, it could sometimes refer to being given an immortal body, and hence being made sinless (this is salvation from an absolute perspective), but it could sometimes also simply refer to experiencing that salvation — immortality and perfection — early, before everyone else (this is salvation from an relative perspective, and is what the figurative “eternal life” he primarily taught about referred to).

    When Jesus spoke of salvation while He walked the earth, on the other hand, He was primarily talking about getting to live in the Kingdom of Heaven, which simply meant to get to live in Israel during the Millennium (it has nothing to do with an afterlife at all, although the people He spoke to who will get to enjoy “eternal life” won’t experience it until they’ve been resurrected in the future, 75 days after His Second Coming). However, to miss out on this kind of salvation doesn’t necessarily mean to end up being punished without end, either by suffering in a fiery torture chamber or by ceasing to exist and never being resurrected again. The punishment simply meant missing out on living in Israel during the Millennium, and perhaps even in the New Jerusalem on the New Earth for a time, sometimes due to being exiled to other parts of the planet (this is what the ”furnace of fire” and “everlasting fire” referred to in His parables meant), and sometimes because they won’t be resurrected at the Resurrection of the Just. But those who understand how to interpret Scripture as a whole are aware that the sentence eventually comes to an end (words like “everlasting,” “eternal,” and “for ever” in the Bible don’t mean “without end”), and even those who have died a second time in the lake of fire will eventually be resurrected after their sentence is complete (and many who miss out on the lake of fire but who have not been saved will even get to live on the New Earth, even if they don’t get to live in the New Jerusalem at first).

    This doesn’t mean that those who are resurrected from the second death, or those who got to live on the New Earth from its beginning but not in the New Jerusalem, will have been saved, at least not as far as the salvation we’re concerned with goes, because they won’t have been made immortal yet, and until one is immortal (and sinless), they haven’t fully experienced the salvation Paul wrote about. Even after those who weren’t saved on the New Earth have served out their sentences and are allowed into the New Jerusalem, they won’t be saved at that time either, because they still won’t have been made immortal yet. They’ll become amortal (which means to not be in the process of slowly dying as someone who is mortal is, but still being capable of being killed), because they’ll be kept alive by consuming the fruit and leaves of the tree of life, but that’s not true immortality since the fruit apparently needs to be consumed on a monthly basis in order to remain amortal, and they technically still could be killed (since only someone who is truly immortal is incapable of ever dying again), even if they won’t actually ever be killed, so that’s not the salvation Paul wrote about.

    And so, had the glorified Christ never taught the truth about the salvation of all to Paul, and had Paul never relayed that good news to us, we’d assume that only a few will ever get saved (since only a few will get to enjoy the figurative ”eternal life” in Israel during the Millennium), but we’d also know that even those who didn’t get saved will still eventually get to enjoy amortal life on the New Earth, which means that Infernalism and Annihilationism were never actually even possibilities to begin with, even if Universalism also weren’t true. But we also learned from Paul that everyone will eventually experience salvation from an absolute perspective, which means those living on the New Earth who didn’t get to enjoy “eternal life” during the Millennium, and even those who are still dead in the lake of fire at the end of the final age, will still eventually enjoy the salvation Paul taught about, which is immortality and perfection (and resurrection if still dead at that point).

    If this all sounds completely foreign to you, I’m not surprised, since you won’t learn what Scripture teaches in the Institutional Church. If you’d like to learn more about this, though, I wrote about it in detail in this article here.

  • Who sends people to hell?

    The line seemed to have stopped moving for quite some time, now, and people were starting to talk amongst themselves.

    “Any idea why we’re not moving?” Dave asked Tom, the person in front of him.

    “Apparently the judgement had to stop because someone refused to go to hell,” Tom replied, pointing to the valley of the son of Hinnom outside Jerusalem in the distance where some people had already ended up on fire.

    “Wait, you can do that?” Dave looked surprised.

    “Well, from what people in front of me have been saying, someone who was aware of a little secret that he’d heard at church before he died and was resurrected made it to the front of the line. It turns out he learned that God doesn’t send anyone to hell, but rather that people send themselves there. And so, after he was judged guilty, he just didn’t walk into hell, and now God’s kind of stuck, because He doesn’t force anyone to go to hell Himself.”

    “But don’t people send themselves to hell by refusing to get saved?” Dave asked.

    “Well, that’s what we’ve been told by some Christians. But if God doesn’t send anyone to hell, then it doesn’t matter if they got saved or not because, if He forces someone who didn’t choose to get saved before they died to walk into hell after their resurrection and judgement, or if He tosses them into the valley against their free will, it would turn out that God does send people to hell, and also that He doesn’t actually respect their free will after all,” Tom explained.

    “Well, it sounds like God’s in a bit of a pickle then,” Dave said. ”It’s too bad He couldn’t have figured this out ahead of time.”

    “I mean, if God could figure things out ahead of time, He would have figured out how to convince more than just 1% or so of a species that is basically incapable of making good decisions to get saved,” Tom pointed out.

    “Good point. Oh well, at least now I won’t have to go to hell. I never actually chose to get saved back before I died and was resurrected for judgement here at the Great White Throne, so it sounds like God saved me from hell without me having to choose to get saved myself after all, thanks to His poor planning.”

    “Yeah,” Tom agreed. ”Thank God that those Christians were right and that He doesn’t send anyone to hell after all, but that we have to send ourselves there if we actually want to go.”

    “Well, I sure don’t want to go to hell,” Dave nodded. “So I guess I’ll exercise my free will and choose to avoid it, and go live on the New Earth along with everyone else who doesn’t willingly choose to walk into hell themselves.”


    I trust it’s obvious that this is satire, but this really is the end result of the teaching of many Infernalists who like to claim that God doesn’t send anyone to hell, but rather that they choose to go there themselves.

  • Justice for evil

    Christian: If Universalism is true, there is no justice for evil. I do not want that.

    Believer: Hypothetically speaking, if only one person got saved in the end, but he was a very evil man prior to believing the Gospel, would there be justice for evil?

    Christian: Yes, because his evil was dealt with by Christ’s death for our sins.

    Believer: What if only 10% of humanity gets saved in the end? Is there justice for evil then?

    Christian: Yes, because the evil of those who get saved was dealt with by Christ’s death for our sins, and everyone else’s evil is dealt with by their own eternal suffering.

    Believer: What if 50% of humanity gets saved in the end? Is there justice for evil then?

    Christian: Yes, because, again, their evil was dealt with by Christ‘s death for our sins. Are you going somewhere with this?

    Believer: I am. I’m trying to determine what the cutoff point is, exactly. So let’s say that 99% of humanity gets saved in the end, but while the remaining 1% are actually not particularly bad people — they’re actually all quite nice people who wouldn’t hurt a fly — is there justice for evil then?

    Christian: Salvation has nothing to do with one’s own actions, so it doesn’t matter how good they’ve been. All that matters is whether their evil was dealt with by Christ’s death for our sins or not. In this case, there was justice for evil because Christ’s death for our sins dealt with the evil of the 99% who got saved, and the evil of the remaining 1% is dealt with by their own eternal suffering.

    Believer: Okay, so let’s say that 100% of humanity gets saved in the end. Would there be justice for evil then?

    Christian: Absolutely not! If there’s nobody who misses out on salvation, how could there possibly be justice for evil?

    Believer: I thought you said that evil was dealt with by Christ’s death for our sins.

    Christian: Yes, but somebody other than Christ has to suffer for sins in order for evil to truly be dealt with and for there to be justice for evil, since otherwise Universalism would be true. And if Universalism is true, there is no justice for evil. I do not want that.

    The preceding dialogue was inspired by this tweet.

  • Who won the greater victory?

    For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, saying, “This man began to build, and was not able to finish.” — Luke 14:28-30

    For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. — 1 Timothy 2:3-4

    Cristian preacher, quoting Paul: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

    Hell: “Um, I’ve got 99% of people prisoner and suffering without end. Sounds to me like I won quite the victory, honestly.”

    Preacher: “But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Hell: “Victory? I have 99% of the people Jesus came to save. Where’s his victory?”

    Preacher: “Well, he saved me.”

    Hell: “Why?”

    Preacher: “Because I chose to get saved.”

    Hell: “Then it sounds like maybe you won a small victory, in that you managed to get saved from me because of your wise decision. But 99% of humans weren’t made as wise as God made you, so I won a much greater victory than Jesus did, since I get to torment them all in an inescapable prison, and all Jesus can do is watch them all suffer from the sidelines, impotent to do anything to save them from me. And because God didn’t make them wise enough to choose to be saved from me the way he made you, they can’t even save themselves like you did, through a wise decision. So who has the greater victory, the one who gets to keep 99% of humanity in never-ending torment or the one who couldn’t save that 99% from this fate?”

    Preacher: “Well, the victory is found in saving those people who choose to get saved by accepting what Jesus did through the cross. He won’t violate our free will, though, and force us to make the right choice.”

    Hell: ”So you’re saying that God’s plan for victory was simply to make salvation available to humans through something Jesus did 2,000 years ago, and then for both of them to just sit back and do nothing but rely on those humans to make a good decision, not interfering with their ”free will” at all? Humans that even someone who isn’t an omniscient deity could have told you fail to make good decisions the majority of the time, because they appear to have been designed in such a way that they generally make bad decisions, which is the whole reason they need salvation in the first place? If that’s the case, I’d hate to see what His plan for failure would have been.”

    Preacher: ”Well, He didn’t fail, because he saves a few of us.”

    Hell: ”Look, I don’t know what you consider an acceptable failure rate to be, but I have to think that if someone fails to accomplish their will for something 99% of the time, they can’t legitimately consider that to be a victory. But hey, if you all want to declare that a victory, far be it from me to rain on your parade. Whatever you call it, I still get 99% of those people God wills to save, so calling obvious failure ‘victory’ doesn’t diminish my own victory in the slightest. They’ll all continue suffering without end, contrary to God’s will, and in spite of what Jesus did, all because God didn’t make them as wise as He made you. So, as eternity goes on, I’ll still remain an eternal reminder to God and the few of you who made the right choice of just how victorious Jesus’ attempt to save all the men God wills to be saved really was.”

    Preacher: ”Well, it’s up to us to convince them to make the good choice to believe and get saved.”

    Hell: ”So is God’s victory ultimately up to you or up to them, or is it a bit of both? I mean, sure, God did the first step, through what Jesus did on the cross, but in order for God to truly be victorious, you have to make a good choice yourself, and then you have to convince all those other people who aren’t as wise as you are to make the same good choice you made. All this, in spite of the apparent fact that God doesn’t allow anything to thwart anyone’s supposed “free will,” which means that, no matter how convincing an argument you make to them, God’s victory actually seems to be entirely dependent upon all those people happening to be wise enough to make the same good choice you were able to make.”


    Now hopefully it’s obvious that this was satire, but this is ultimately what most Christians are teaching, although they sure don’t realize it. If you’d like to learn who the Bible says actually wins the victory, though, please check this out: Actual Good News

  • What does the Bible say that is?

    Want a handy little trick for discussing theology with Christians? Ask them what the Bible says about the topic you’re discussing.

    Yesterday I was chatting with one of the street preachers here in Toronto, and he asked me what I disagreed with when it came to what they were teaching. I explained that one of the biggest differences is in how I define some of the words from the King James Version of the Bible that they were including in their sermons. When he asked what I meant, I basically explained that I defined certain words they were using the way the KJV defined them. Of course, all Christians assume they’re defining words the way the Bible does, and he believed he did too, but he had his eyes (at least somewhat) opened after asking me to elaborate.

    I began by asking him what he thought heaven was. Of course, he gave a vague answer about it being the place where Jesus is, since almost no Christian has that concept nailed down in their minds, so I then asked him what the Bible says heaven is. He didn’t really have a good answer to that, and so I pointed him to all the passages telling us that heaven is simply a reference to the sky and to outer space (as well as to the place where Jesus is, of course, somewhere out there in outer space). Now, I’m not going to go into all the details about heaven in this post, since I’ve already written about it in my “Heaven isn’t what you think it is” article, so please go read that if you aren’t familiar with what the Bible says heaven is. But the point is, he had no arguments about this because he didn’t have any Scripture to refute the definitions I pointed out the Bible uses for the word.

    I also pointed out that hell is a very figurative word in the KJV, and that it has different meanings depending on which passage you’re reading. He actually agreed with me on that one, which was good, but if this is news to you, check out my ”What the Hinnom?” and ”What is death?” articles.

    What I think really got to him, though, was when I asked him what the Bible says terms such as ”for ever” and “everlasting” mean. He, of course, assumed they meant “without end,” or ”never ending,” and so I think he was quite shocked to discover that this isn’t the case at all, and that they actually have definitions which include both a beginning and an end, as I demonstrated by showing him some of the many examples of this in the KJV (which you can see for yourself in my “How long did “for ever” last in Bible times?” article, if this isn’t a fact you’re already aware of).

    After showing him that reading these various words consistently throughout the Bible results in extremely different theological conclusions from what he’d previously been taught, he realized he couldn’t dispute any of the points I’d made, and asked if he could bring someone else from the group to try to argue about it. I wasn’t in the arguing mood at the time, though, so I decided to leave it at that. I did give him a card with a link to this website on it, though, so hopefully he’ll read it and learn more about what the Bible actually says certain words and concepts mean when you read it consistently all the way through.

  • Paying the penalty in your place

    “And so, Jesus died on the cross in your place, taking the penalty for your sins so you don’t have to,” the street preacher cried out. ”Just accept the free gift of salvation and you won’t have to pay the penalty yourself!”

    “What’s the penalty for my sins?” I interrupted before he could continue.

    “Why, it’s eternal suffering in the lake fire,” he replied. ”If you don’t accept that Jesus paid the price for your sins, you’ll suffer consciously in that lake of fire, and never be able to escape.”

    “So you’re saying that Jesus is in a lake of fire right now, paying that penalty?” I had to ask.

    “What? No, of course not,” He frowned at me for asking what he thought to be an obtuse question. ”Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day, so He isn’t suffering any more.”

    “If the penalty for my sins is never-ending torment in a lake of fire, then it doesn’t sound like Jesus paid the penalty at all,” I pointed out.

    “Death couldn’t contain Him, so He didn’t remain there.”

    “Well, that means He didn’t suffer the actual penalty, then, if the penalty means never being able to escape. But at least He spent three days in this lake of fire, so I guess He paid a fraction of the penalty, at least,” I thought out loud.

    “Well, no, He didn’t actually end up in the lake of fire, since the lake of fire doesn’t exist yet,” the preacher admitted. ”The lake of fire will be here on earth, and will be a place those who have died and been physically resurrected at the Great White Throne Judgement, but who don’t have their names written in the book of life, will be cast.”

    “So let me get this straight. Not only is Jesus not spending eternity in a lake of fire — which is what you said the penalty one has to pay for our sins is — He didn’t actually spend any time in it at all. So in what way did He pay the penalty for our sins?”

    “Well… my pastor said He paid the penalty for our sins, so He must have, right?”

    “Can you show me a verse from the Bible that even says He paid the penalty for our sins?” I asked?

    “I can’t think of any,” he admitted.

    “Then why are you preaching that He did?”

    “I… don’t know…” he said, displaying a momentary bit of honesty, which is rare among preachers, but it was only for a moment. ”Oh, it means you won’t have to go to hell.”

    “And what is hell?” I asked. ”It’s not the same thing as this lake of fire?”

    “Well, no.” He said, brightening up, having thought he’d thought of a solution to his problem. ”Hell is where spirits wait to be resurrected before they’re judged at the Great White Throne.”

    “So paying the penalty actually means going to hell, rather than spending eternity in the lake of fire?” I asked. “And Jesus did that Himself so we don’t have to?”

    “Well, if you go to hell, you’ll still end up in the lake of fire,” he said, “But yes, Jesus spent three days in hell so you don’t have to.”

    “So the penalty is actually three days spent in hell? I feel like that’s doable.”

    “No, the penalty is eternity in hell,” he pointed out.

    “But I thought you said everyone in hell will eventually be resurrected for the Great White Throne Judgement. How can someone spend eternity in hell and also be resurrected, hence not spending eternity in hell?”

    “Well, people who go to hell will also spend eternity in the lake of fire,” he said.

    “But why, if that’s not the penalty?” I asked. ”It sounds like we have to pay a second penalty — eternity in the lake of fire — on top of the actual penalty — time spent in hell — if what you’re saying is true, which means that Jesus didn’t pay the second penalty since He never went to the lake of fire. But if that’s the case, shouldn’t everyone, even those who ’accept the gift,’ have to spend eternity in the lake of fire, because Jesus didn’t actually pay that second penalty?”

    ”But He died in your place, at least, so you don’t have to die,” he said, quickly coming up with what he thought was another good solution.

    “Oh, so if I ‘accept the gift’ I’ll never die? Because I know a lot of Christians who have died over the years.”

    “Well, you’ll still die, but you won’t pay the penal…, um… you won’t experience spiritual death.” He said, quickly correcting himself.

    “What is spiritual death?” I had to ask.

    “The wages of sin is death,” he said, completely ignoring the context of that passage, ”so anyone who sins dies spiritually.”

    “And, again, what is spiritual death?” I pushed. ”Does it mean your spirit dies? Did Jesus’ spirit die so our spirit won’t?”

    “I… think so…” he began, but hesitated, realizing he wasn’t quite sure what the phrase he’d heard spoken countless times meant after all.

    “But the book of James says that a body without a spirit is dead,” I continued, “So if our spirit could die, wouldn’t that mean our body would also die?”

    “Um… I think it means to be separated from God.” He decided as he spoke the words.

    “So was Jesus separated from God when He died?”

    “Well, no, that’s impossible, because Jesus is God,” he insisted.

    “So if spiritual death is separation from God, and you’re saying that Jesus wasn’t separated from God, how could He have paid the penalty if the penalty is spiritual death?”

    “Well, His death keeps us from being separated from God.”

    “Oh? I seem to recall Paul saying that ‘in Him we live, and move, and have our being,’” I had to point out. “It seems to me that being literally separated from God would mean we’d immediately cease to exist, if that were even possible at all. Although, if it were possible, it would mean one who is separated from God would have to be sent to exist in a universe other than our own, one which contains both God and those who have been separated from Him, which means there would have to be a universe that transcends God, meaning a place ’bigger’ than God, so to speak, but most Christians believe that God transcends the universe, so that doesn’t sound right to me. But either way, do you have a Bible verse to back this whole idea up?”

    “Well, no. But maybe it’s a metaphorical separation. Meaning we aren’t in union with God.”

    “So was Jesus ‘metaphorically’ separated from God? Was that all that happened on the cross? He didn’t actually die? He was just metaphorically dead? And was no longer in union with Himself, which He would have to no longer be, if He is God.”

    “No, He actually died, and didn’t stop being God, but it means we won’t get to be with God in heaven, since we’ll be separated from His presence,” he decided.

    “And that’s how Jesus paid the penalty in our place? He was separated from God’s presence for eternity?”

    “No, Jesus is God, remember? So He couldn’t actually be separated from His own presence.”

    “Um, okay, then. I’m not entirely sure how that means Jesus paid the penalty in my place. But let’s make sure I’ve got this straight. If I sin, I will die spiritually, as you said, right? Regardless of the fact that this doesn’t seem to be a scriptural concept? The problem is, everyone has sinned, so everyone has already died ‘spiritually,’ whatever that means. Right?”

    “Right…” he said, hesitantly.

    “Okay. But if dying spiritually is the penalty for sin, if I ’accept the gift,’ I won’t die spiritually, even though I apparently already have died spiritually because I’ve sinned at least once in my life?”

    “Well, um… you won’t have to die the way He died,” the preacher said, trying to find some way to make his theology work, although at this point even he wasn’t sure what his theology was anymore.

    “So the thief on the cross, who Jesus said would join Him in paradise, didn’t actually die on the cross, because Jesus died in his place?” I queried. ”I guess he immediately popped off the cross after believing in Jesus? And if somebody ’accepts the gift’ it then becomes impossible for them to suffer on a cross either? But if we don’t ’accept the gift,’ we’ll all die on crosses instead?”

    “Don’t be ridiculous,” he snapped, getting impatient with me, although only because he knew he didn’t have a good answer to any of my questions.

    “Then what is it? We’ve now determined that we can still die, even on a cross, although Jesus apparently died in our place. And we can still pay the penalty for our sins, which is apparently eternity in the lake of fire and not death on a cross, even though Jesus didn’t spend even a second in the lake of fire since it doesn’t even exist yet, so He didn’t actually die in our place or take the penalty for our sins upon Himself either, at least not based on anything we’ve already discussed. So why, exactly, did have to Jesus die on the cross?”

    “Maybe He died so that we wouldn’t remain dead forever,” he suggested hesitantly, having reached the point where even he was no longer convinced of the accuracy of his own guesses anymore, “So that we could be resurrected.”

    “The Bible tells us about people who were resurrected long before Jesus’ death and resurrection, and even before His birth, for that matter,” I pointed out. ”So it seems that God can resurrect people without Jesus needing to first die. Unless you can find a passage of Scripture that says He died so that we can be resurrected, and that His death had an effect that somehow rippled back in time as well, I don’t think we can assume that’s the reason. Not to mention, if salvation simply means resurrection, then why do some people who have been resurrected end up in the lake of fire while others who get resurrected get to avoid it? If the salvation that Christ’s death brought is simply resurrection, what is it that keeps those who avoid the lake of fire out of it?”

    “Maybe it’s because they ’accepted the gift,’” he suggested, ”And perhaps those who didn’t ’accept the gift’ end up in the lake of fire, while ‘accepting the gift’ means avoiding it?”

    “But if the point of Christ’s death was simply to allow us to be resurrected, it would seem the penalty would have to be missing out on resurrection rather than ending up in the lake of fire, or else we end up right back where we began, and Jesus should currently be suffering in the lake of fire He never actually spent any time in at all. And it still doesn’t explain how He died in our place, if that’s the case, since He Himself was resurrected too, so He definitely didn’t suffer the penalty of not getting to be resurrected, if that’s what the penalty of our sin even is.”

    “Could it simply be that He died so that those who ’accept the gift’ don’t have to suffer the second death in the lake of fire?”

    “Perhaps,” I acknowledged. ”But if so, we can’t say that He died in our place, or that He endured the penalty of our sins so we don’t have to, since nearly everybody is going to die a first time at some point, just like Jesus did, yet Jesus didn’t die a second time, much less spend any time in a lake of fire. So if you want to stick with the penal substitutionary atonement model that you were suggesting during your sermon earlier, that can’t be it.”

    ”Well, why do you think He died on the cross?” He asked, officially out of ideas.

    “I believe what Scripture says about the topic,” I replied. ”He died for our sins.”

    “Isn’t that what I’ve been saying?” he asked.

    “No, you’ve been saying He died in our place, to pay the penalty for our sins so we don’t have to. I’m saying He died to take away sin altogether. Because Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, it means that sin is no longer an issue anyone needs to concern themselves with, and that everyone is guaranteed eventual salvation. I should add, He also died, and was resurrected, so that all humanity would eventually be made immortal. You see, just as because of what Adam did, all humans are mortal, equally so, because of what Christ did, all humans will be made immortal, and hence sinless — which is what salvation is all about — although each in their own order, as Paul put it.”

    “But that sounds like Universalism!” he protested.

    “It sounds like that because it is.”

    “But we know Universalism isn’t true because the penalty for our sins is never-ending torture in the lake of fire!”

    “And Jesus paid that penalty by suffering in the lake of fire, right?”

    “…”

    “Right. So we’ve already determined that isn’t what it is,” I reminded him. “So perhaps we should stick with what the Bible actually says instead.”

    “But the Bible says that non-Christians will suffer forever in the lake of fire,” he countered.

    “It might seem that way if one takes certain passages of Scripture completely out of context,” I explained, ”But when read in their proper context, they actually teach something else entirely.”

    “Like what?”

    “That would take a much bigger study than I have the time to get into here, but I’ve written a number of articles on the topic if you’re truly curious,” I said. “Just go to www.KJVGospel.com/GoodNews and you’ll find out what the various threatening sounding passages are really talking about.”

    “Well, I don’t think I’ll do that. We know Universalism isn’t correct, because we know that the penalty for sins is eternity suffering in the lake of fire. I just pray that you’ll accept the free gift of salvation, and accept that Jesus died in your place, suffering the penalty for you so don’t have to yourself, which you will have to if you don’t repent of your heretical doctrine,” the preacher said, forgetting literally everything we’d just discussed, as is pretty much always the case.


    If you’d like to read more discussions between myself and other street preachers, please check these out:

  • Concordant Christology: Arianism vs Socinianism

    Those of us in the church called the body of Christ — not to be confused with members of the Christian religion who mistakenly use our title — are not Trinitarians (nor are we Modalists, for the same reasons we don’t believe in the Trinity).

    As far as why we aren’t Trinitarians, I’ve written about that elsewhere, so please click here if you’re interested in learning more about that topic, but in this post I want to mention a debate within our church as to whether Arianism (which is a theological label that is largely used today to refer to the doctrine that Jesus was the first being God brought into existence) or Socinianism (which is a theological label that is largely used today to refer to the doctrine that Jesus first came into existence as a conscious being at His birth as a human) is more likely to be true. This isn’t a salvation issue, so most of us don’t let this minor disagreement get in the way of fellowship between members of the body (and any who do should not), but it is something that people are increasingly taking sides on in recent years, so I’ve published this post to provide you with the main arguments from either side of the disagreement.

    Now, while I can see the arguments for both sides of the debate, there is a side which I do believe makes a far stronger case from Scripture than the other so far. However, rather than state which side that is, I’m simply going to share links to a series of articles and online books on the topic for your consideration, because I want you to read the arguments for both sides and then decide for yourself (and I’ll add more as I come across them or as I’m informed that they’ve been written).

    Before you read these articles, though, I should warn you that the majority of the members of the true body of Christ tend to not view the King James Bible quite as favourably as I do, and as such, they’re not written by King James Bible Believers. Still, I’m providing these links anyway, for those who are interested in the debate.

    [A] = written from an Arian perspective, and [S] = written from a Socinian perspective

  • The “Old Testament” proves Infernalism is unscriptural

    First, a quick explanation of the Infernalist doctrine. Infernalism is the theological name for the soteriology believed by most Christians, which is the idea that if someone has committed a single sin in their lifetime — which every single human aside from Jesus has done at some point while they’re still a young child — they’re immediately destined for an eternity of suffering in the lake of fire with no chance of escape unless they happen to believe (and, some will argue, do) the right thing(s) before they die. Because of this idea, many Christians believe that God wants them to teach as many people as possible how to avoid such a fate, because if the non-Christians of the world don’t do something very specific to get themselves saved, they’re going to end up suffering this horrific punishment. And if Infernalism were true, yes, it would indeed be important to urgently spread the message of how to avoid such an outcome to as many people as possible

    This raises some questions, though. You see, literally nowhere in the “Old Testament” books does God warn any of His chosen people about this possible destiny. You won’t find a single passage anywhere in the “Old Testament” books that even hints at the idea of never-ending conscious torment in fire for people who don’t “get saved” before they die, or even for not obeying the Mosaic law perfectly during their lifetime (which is impossible to do anyway, raising a whole other set of questions about the fate of Israelites who sinned prior to Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection; although those of us in the body of Christ are aware of the fact that the word “salvation” had a completely different meaning for Israelites than it does for us Gentiles today, but that’s a whole other discussion). And so, if teaching people that the punishment for sin is never-ending torment in the lake of fire, as well as explaining how to avoid ending up there forever, was actually as urgent to God as many Christians believe it to be, why did He never warn any of His chosen people that this could be something they might experience, not to mention how to avoid it? (And before you theorize that maybe He did warn some of them ”off screen,” an important rule of scriptural interpretation is that if something isn’t recorded in Scripture, there’s no basis for assuming, much less asserting, that it happened.)

    That’s not all, though. If Infernalism is true, nearly every Gentile to exist from the time Adam was created to the time Paul began his ministry is going to suffer for eternity as well (that’s 4,000 years or more worth of Gentiles who never had a chance, since they all sinned as children yet never heard of a way to escape the supposed consequence of their sins). With very few exceptions, God didn’t speak to Gentiles prior to sending Paul to the nations, and they weren’t given Scripture of any sort either (in fact, even when Jesus sent His disciples to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom during His earthly ministry, He specifically told them not to go to Gentiles but rather to only share the Good News with Israelites, which seems to contradict the urgency of evangelism if the Gospel of the Kingdom had anything to do with avoiding everlasting torment the way most Infernalists believe it did), so they were entirely unaware that this horrific torture chamber was pretty much guaranteed to be their fate if the Infernalists are correct, since, again, every one of them had sinned at least once as children, and basically none of them knew how to “get saved” until Paul began telling Gentiles how to do so. Remember, aside from Cornelius (who still needed Peter to come tell him what he needed to know in order to get saved himself, otherwise he would have been out of luck too, at least if the Gospel of the Kingdom was the same as Paul’s Gospel), the Jewish believers didn’t preach to Gentiles, pretty much leaving the Gentile portion of the so-called “Great Commission” completely up to Paul. (For those of you who are thinking about the “Ethiopian” eunuch right now, there’s scriptural evidence that he was probably actually an Israelite who lived in Ethiopia, but that’s a bigger discussion than I have the space to get into here.) Not only were Adam and Eve not warned that eternity suffering in the lake of fire could be the outcome of their sin (even if we read the unscriptural idea of “spiritual death” into God’s warning to them, that still doesn’t even hint at the idea of never-ending torture in a lake of fire), nobody else (Jew or Gentile) from their time to the time Jesus began preaching were either, which makes the idea that God desperately wants humans to know their possible punishment for sin, not to mention how to avoid said punishment, extremely questionable, unless He suddenly changed His mind about the urgency of this warning after Jesus’ resurrection.

    Now, yes, there are two passages in the “Old Testament” books that Infernalists do try to use as evidence that Infernalism was taught back then, but it becomes clear that neither of them actually do so when they’re looked at closely:

    And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. — Isaiah 66:24

    And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. — Daniel 12:2

    The passage in Isaiah is used to defend Infernalism a lot, yet almost nobody ever seems to notice a particular word in the passage, which is the word “carcases.” This passage is simply talking about a future time on earth (and not in some ethereal afterlife dimension called “hell”) where people will see literal dead bodies being consumed by fire and worms in the valley in Israel known as the valley of the son of Hinnom. The fact that they’re referred to as “carcases” means that they can’t be suffering, since corpses don’t suffer, so this passage does nothing to help support the Infernalist perspective (and nobody reading this passage when it was written could have possibly thought the ”carcases” were actually a figurative reference to souls suffering consciously in the lake of fire, since that concept hadn’t even been introduced in Scripture yet, so to claim that this is what Isaiah actually meant is blatant eisegesis). And there’s nothing in the negative part of the passage in Daniel that any Jewish reader back then could have possibly understood as referring to suffering forever in fire either, since terms such as “shame” and “contempt” wouldn’t have even hinted at such an idea for anyone reading it, not to mention the fact that nobody had even heard of the lake of fire yet (also, the word “everlasting” pretty much never actually meant “without end,” as I’ve demonstrated elsewhere on this website, so that word doesn’t help their soteriology either). Of course, there were a number of references to fiery judgements in the “Old Testament” books, but they all referred to the fire purifying Israel and making things right, not to any Israelites being tortured forever in said fire, so those passages definitely don’t help support Infernalism either.

    This means that until Jesus began preaching about “hell,” nobody prior to that point had any scriptural basis whatsoever for even considering the idea of Infernalism. Some Christians will argue that the Jews back then had come to learn about Infernalism from their captors during the Babylonian captivity, and were using the word translated as ”hell” during the time Jesus walked the earth to figuratively refer to an afterlife involving never-ending fiery torment, but aside from the fact that there’s no historical evidence this was actually the case prior to Jesus’ time on earth (at least none that I’ve seen), even if this was true, taking pagan concepts and reading them into Scripture isn’t exactly something one is supposed to do, and so if they were doing that, Jesus would have said, ”Have you not read…?” or ”It is written…” and condemned them for their eisegesis as He so often did.

    This also means that if Jesus was talking about an inescapable torture chamber when He spoke of hell, any of His Jewish listeners could have (and should have) pointed out the lack of scriptural basis for this new doctrine He was teaching (and remember, Jesus came to confirm the promises made unto the fathers, not to add entirely unheard of doctrines that nobody could have ever possibly figured out on their own from reading Scripture, which raises problems for the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, I should add). Of course, if one pays close attention to the references that Jesus makes to hell (which few Christians do), they should notice that He was speaking about the same thing Isaiah wrote about in the passage from that book we already looked at, which means that Jesus would have been referring to the same thing Isaiah was: dead bodies being consumed by fire and by worms, not conscious souls being tormented.

    Bottom line, there’s absolutely zero basis for the idea that anyone was ever warned about the horrible fate Infernalists believe will happen to non-Christians before Jesus began talking about hell, which means that not only is being warned about this punishment for sin and being told how to escape it nowhere near as important to God as “evangelists” today seem to think it is, it also means that the verse about God loving the world can’t possibly mean what they assume it does, because He apparently didn’t love the world enough to offer any chance of escaping this destiny to the vast majority of humanity for 4,000 years or more (considering the fact that they’d all have been doomed from early childhood if the Infernalists were right). This also means there’s no basis for interpreting those warnings of Jesus the way Infernalists do either, since when they’re read in context it becomes pretty apparent that He was simply warning His Jewish audience about weeping and gnashing their teeth over having to live in the figurative “outer darkness” of the parts of the world that aren’t Israel when the kingdom of heaven finally begins on earth — specifically in Israel — as well as the possibility of missing out on enjoying the kingdom during the Millennium because their corpse ended up in hell during or after the Tribulation (which hasn’t even occurred yet; right now hell is still actually a pretty pleasant place, as many who have visited the valley known as “hell” in Israel can attest). And when you consider just how clearly Paul taught that everyone will eventually experience salvation, it becomes obvious that the only reason to continue misinterpreting these warnings of Jesus is either because someone wants Infernalism to be true, or because they’re just too lazy or afraid to study the topic deeper to find out the truth for themselves.