Author: D.C.

While it goes without saying that there are at least two Gospels in Scripture (and please read this article if you aren’t aware of this fact already), some people might ask why there are two Gospels in the first place, and why Jesus didn’t preach the same Gospel during His earthly ministry that Paul later preached to the nations. Well, the answer to that question is simply that He couldn’t, because if He had, nobody would be able to get saved (at least not in the manner of salvation that Paul generally referred to, which was being made immortal, and hence sinless, not to mention being justified in the manner that Paul referred to). You see, as we’ve already learned, the Gospel Paul preached is Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection, and this event is the very basis of our salvation (and is, in fact, the only reason anyone can be saved when it comes to the type of salvation Paul primarily taught about). This means that if Jesus had preached the same message (that His death was going to be for our sins, meaning that His death would be the basis of our salvation) as His Gospel around Israel before He died, the spiritual powers of darkness behind His death would have undoubtedly heard and learned the truth and would not have Him crucified after all (and, in fact, would have done what they could to keep Him from dying, since they don’t want humans being made immortal and sinless). Yes, humans technically killed Jesus, but it was the evil spiritual beings ruling the world behind the scenes during this age who drove them to it, but only because they thought it would put an end to His eventual usurping of their leadership. Little did they realize that they were played, since His death was the main reason He was born in the first place, but that fact was well disguised by His ministry to the Circumcision (in fact, that’s likely a large part of why God had a chosen people in the first place: basically, God plays the long game).

This is the same reason, by the way, that Jesus didn’t preach the salvation of all humanity during His earthly ministry either. Simply put, Jesus couldn’t have preached the salvation of all humanity, because His death for our sins (and subsequent burial and resurrection) is the basis for the salvation of all humanity, and had He taught the salvation of all humanity publicly during His earthly ministry, the spiritual powers of darkness would have almost certainly put two-and-two together and realized that Him dying for our sins and God raising Him would be the only possible way that all humanity could be made immortal (these are highly intelligent beings, after all), and they would have then avoided their plan to have Him killed, resulting in nobody being saved at all.

There’s a strange doctrine being taught by certain members of the body of Christ recently which suggests that the Rapture is not something we should actually consider to be our blessed hope, but rather that everyone in the body of Christ will instead definitely die, and I wanted to write a few thoughts about it.

While this teaching within the body seems to be originating with Clyde Pilkington (whom I consider to be a beloved fellow member of the body of Christ, and who has provided many wonderful teachings over the years prior to this one) — although his son-in-law, Stephen Hill (who has also had some great teachings over the years), seems to be pushing it as well — from what I can gather (although, if I’m mistaken, I hope someone will correct me), he himself appears to have learned it from either the writings of Otis Q. Sellers or of Charles H. Welch (neither of whom believed in the salvation of all humanity, and hence can’t be considered to be members of the body of Christ, since the doctrine of the salvation of all humanity is a foundational element of Paul’s Gospel). And while I normally try to avoid naming names in articles I write about scriptural misinterpretations made by fellow believers, I do have to link to a couple articles written by Clyde in order to cite my sources, which means it would become obvious pretty quickly that I was referring to him anyway, and I’m also linking to other articles correcting the topic which give away their names as well, so I’m making an exception in this case (although the fact that nearly every English-speaking member of the body is aware that Clyde and Stephen are the main two pushing this doctrine among the body of Christ also makes trying to avoid naming names kind of a moot point in this case).

So what is the basis of this teaching? Well, you can find Clyde’s main arguments in Volume 34, Issues 836 and 837 of the BSN (referring to the Bible Student’s Notebook, which Clyde publishes every week or so, and which often does contain excellent teachings as well), and I’m going to go over his main arguments from those issues in this article to show why the passages he used to defend this new doctrine don’t mean what Clyde and others teaching it assume they do. (I’m not going to cover every paragraph of the two articles he wrote on the topic, but I will cover the main points he makes.)

The first passage of Scripture he quotes is just in passing (“it is appointed unto men once to die” — Hebrews 9:27), but I should quickly comment on it anyway, because aside from the fact that it’s a Circumcision writing, which means it’s not necessarily to or about the body of Christ anyway, it can’t actually be talking about humans as a whole at all, because that would contradict the rest of Scripture if it was, considering the fact that many people were recorded as being resurrected throughout the Bible who later would have died a second time as well (unless you believe that Lazarus and everyone else raised from the dead are still alive today), not to mention the fact that many people alive today will die a second time as well, in the lake of fire, after they’ve been resurrected from their first death at the Great White Throne Judgement. So whatever this verse is talking about, it can’t mean that humans only die once, thus confirming that pretty much all of the traditional interpretations of the verse are incorrect (including Clyde’s). As for what this verse is talking about, it’s actually a callback to the death of high priests as mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures (specifically in the book of Numbers and the book of Joshua, as any Israelite reading a book called Hebrews back when it was written should have recognized), based on the context of the rest of the chapter, as well as the existence of the Definite Article before the word “men” in the verse (it’s not as clear in the KJV as it is in certain other translations, but if you look at the original Greek you can see that the writer of Hebrews had to have meant, “And as it is appointed unto the men once to die, but after this the judgment” (similar to the way the Concordant Literal Version puts it, which Clyde should really already know since he uses that translation regularly), referring only to the death of certain men, specifically the high priests of Israel — including Jesus, of course — based on the mention of the high priest in verse 25 of the chapter, as well as all the other references to Jesus’ death throughout the rest of the chapter, not to mention the fact that the death and judgement of any other humans just doesn’t fit the context of the chapter at all). Whenever a high priest died, there was a judgement which resulted in the freedom of certain Israelite sinners, as mentioned in those passages in Numbers and Joshua, and Jesus’ death as high priest resulted in the freedom of even more Israelites.

As far as his main argument goes, Clyde wrote, “The plain teaching of Scripture is that (1) death is the absence of life, and (2) that it is a sure thing for the offspring of Adam.” As far as point 1 goes, he’s absolutely correct. As every member of the body of Christ knows, the dead are unconscious and gone until their resurrection. But it isn’t point 1 where he goes astray; it’s point 2.

Following up that statement, Clyde wrote, “The bedrock fact that ‘in Adam ALL die’ is the prerequisite to the glorious truth that ‘even so in Christ shall ALL be made alive’ (1 Corinthians 15:22).” The thing is, Clyde is quoting a figurative translation of 1 Corinthians 15:22 there, using the KJV (the King James Version of the Bible) rather than a more literal translation. And while that’s fine (the KJV is my personal favourite when it comes to Bible translations, and it’s the version I myself primarily quote when teaching, as should be obvious from this website’s URL and title), if one isn’t aware that it’s not a literal translation, and that it needs to be carefully interpreted when using it for Bible study, they can easily go astray when trying to understand it. Of course, the mistake Clyde made there is almost certainly extremely obvious to most members of the body of Christ who are reading this, since most do read more literal translations. But in order to explain where he went wrong to those who might not be sure what I’m talking about, I’m going to quote an edited excerpt of my own writings, which I originally wrote to demonstrate that this passage proves the eventual salvation of all humanity, but which works to correct this particular error as well:

---

First of all, he made this clear by writing that just as “in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Many Christians assume that Paul was simply referring to being resurrected here (based on the fact that the main point of the first part of this chapter is proving the resurrection of the dead), but we know that everyone who Paul said will be “made alive” includes those who will never die, such as the members of the body of Christ who will still be living at the time they’re caught up together in the air to meet the Lord when He comes for His body, not to mention the members of the Israel of God who will still be alive at the Second Coming and who will remain alive — thanks to the tree of life — until the time they’re finally also made immortal, so being “made alive” (translated from a future-tense variation of ζῳοποιέω/“dzo-op-oy-eh’-o” in the KJV, which is the same Greek word that “quickened” is translated from — and which, yes, literally just means “to give life,” but which is almost exclusively used figuratively in the Bible to refer to our mortal bodies being made immortal) obviously can’t simply be referring to resurrection (which is an entirely different word, translated from the Greek word ἀνάστασις/“an-as’-tas-is” instead) because not everyone Paul said will be “made alive” will actually die and be resurrected (yes, that the dead will be physically resurrected was Paul’s main point in this chapter, but he used his Gospel to prove this point, and in doing so ended up covering details that went far beyond just resurrection, including elements that apply to those who won’t be resurrected — because they’ll never actually drop dead — as well).

As Paul explains later in the very same chapter, being made immortal is what we’re looking forward to as far as our salvation goes, and that being made immortal is how the death Adam brought us all is ultimately defeated, which also means that any human who is made immortal will then be experiencing the final stage of their own salvation as it pertains to Paul’s Gospel). And all that, combined with the fact that not everyone will end up as a corpse prior to being “made alive,” as we just covered — confirms that the “for as in Adam all die” part of the verse can only be referring to being made mortal, meaning being in a state of slowly dying because of what Adam did — tells us Paul was simply explaining that, for as in Adam all are dying, or mortal (and, of course, that, even so in — meaning “because of” — Christ shall all be quickened/made immortal). The Present Active Indicative tense in the original Greek of the verb translated as “die” in this verse in the KJV also makes this clear, I should add, making “in Adam all die” in the KJV a figurative translation of a Greek phrase which literally means “in Adam all are dying” (meaning all are in a state of mortality and are slowly dying).

---

From that, it should be pretty clear now where Clyde’s mistake is. He seems to be assuming that the phrase “all die” in that verse means that everyone will literally drop dead, when all Paul was saying there is that “all are dying,” meaning everyone is mortal and slowly dying. But, as we also know from the same chapter, Paul revealed a secret to his readers (referred to as “a mystery” in the KJV), which is that, while we’re all in the process of slowly dying, not everyone will actually reach the final death state.

That said, even for those of us who might not physically drop dead, it can still be said that we do all die. In fact, Clyde himself accidentally revealed this fact without realizing it, when he wrote, “Just like Christ our Head, every member of His Body will die. After all, we are not only united in His resurrection, but in His death and burial.” Now, he‘s obviously a little confused in thinking that this means we’ll all literally drop dead in the future ourselves, but he still inadvertently reveals the truth that every member of the body of Christ does experience death, because we all died when Christ died (and this also applies to every human who will have ever lived as well, albeit only proleptically at present). This means that we don’t actually have to experience physical death again (although most members of the body still do die physically, of course), because we already went through it once, when Christ Himself died.

And while he doesn’t really go into detail on it in these particular articles, he has brought up a related passage in videos and other places, so I should also mention that Genesis 2:17 doesn’t mean every human who will have ever lived will drop dead either, as he seems to believe. While I myself might be somewhat guilty of stretching the meaning of this verse at times in some of my articles as well, in order to prove what death really is, it’s important to remember that we have to keep the intended audience of a statement in mind rather than trying to apply every single verse in the Bible to ourselves. And with that in mind, it’s important to realize that God’s statement to Adam and Eve in that verse was really only entirely applicable to Adam and Eve.

It’s also important to know what God’s warning, which is rendered figuratively in the KJV as, “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,” actually even meant. Remember, the expression “thou shalt surely die” was used in both Genesis 2:17 and in 1 Kings 2:36-46 in the KJV, and yet, based on the amount of time it would take to travel from Jerusalem to Gath and back (even on horseback), there’s no way that Shimei actually died physically the day he crossed the brook Kidron, as Solomon warned he would in 1 Kings. And he certainly didn’t “die spiritually” that day either, as most Christians mistakenly assume the translation of “surely die” in the KJV means (an assumption they make because they recognize that this is obviously a figurative translation, based on the fact that Adam didn’t physically drop dead on the day he sinned), which confirms that the popular “spiritual death” idea is a complete misunderstanding of the term “surely die” in the KJV. As far as Shimei goes, it just meant that he had basically signed his own death warrant and knew that he was “as good as dead” on the day he crossed the forbidden brook. And as far as Adam and Eve go, it literally just meant that, to die, they began dying, meaning they gained mortality leading to eventual physical death on the day they ate the forbidden fruit (which makes sense considering the fact that the Hebrew phraseמוֹת תָּמוּת/“mooth ta’-mooth,” translated as “thou shalt surely die” in both passages in the KJV, literally means “to die you will be dying”; this also tells us that “to die” can’t possibly be a reference to being punished in the lake of fire, by the way, because Adam didn’t end up in that location the day he sinned either, so becoming mortal remains the best interpretation of this warning).

And while we know from what we learned about 1 Corinthians 15:22 that all humans are indeed mortal (which means the “you will be dying” part of Genesis 2:17 technically ended up applying to us as well), we know from the various other passages we looked at that not everyone will literally drop dead (which means that the “to die” part of the verse technically only applied to Adam and Eve, even if most of humanity will still physically die at some point).

On top of all that, though, we also have Philippians 1:18-23, where Paul outright states his desire that the Snatching Away occur soon. Of course, most Christians assume Paul’s statement in verse 21 that, for him specifically at that particular time (it’s important to note that this verse isn’t talking about believers in general, but was about Paul’s unenviable circumstances at the time he wrote these words), “to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” means that he believed his death would bring him immediately to be with Christ in heaven, but this ignores the context of the verses before these words, not to mention the verses after them as well, and the context of the surrounding verses make it pretty obvious that the “gain” Paul was referring to there would be a gain to the furtherance of the message he was preaching while in bonds, which his martyrdom would surely accomplish (the idea that the “gain” referred to going to heaven as a ghost is reading one’s presuppositions about the immortality of the soul into the passage, but since the Bible tells us that the dead are unconscious and gone until their physical resurrection, this obviously can’t be the case). I’ll admit, verses 22 and 23 in the KJV aren’t the easiest for people today to understand (17th-century English isn’t something modern people always find easy to grasp), and some people will assume that by, “yet what I shall choose I wot not,” Paul meant he hadn’t yet decided which option he was going to select, as if it was up to him. But whether he lived or died wasn’t actually up to him at all — it was up to the Roman government (at least from a relative perspective, although it was ultimately up to God from an absolute perspective). Literally all Paul was saying there is that he wasn’t going to let it be known whether he’d personally rather continue living as a prisoner in bonds, which seemed to be helping the word to be spread more boldly, or whether he’d prefer to die and let his martyrdom help the cause even more than his state as a prisoner was doing, and that he was pretty much “stuck between a rock and a hard place” either way (which is basically all that “in a strait betwixt two” means in modern day colloquialism), since his only options at that point appeared to be equally undesirable for him as an individual, which is why he then went on to say that he’d prefer a third option over either of the seemingly available two options, which was “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better,” because if Jesus were to come take the body of Christ up to heaven while Paul was still alive, he wouldn’t have to suffer through either of the two likely options, but would instead get to depart the earth without dying, to “ever be with the Lord” in the heavens in an immortal body, which is a far superior option to living as a prisoner in a mortal body or to being put to death. He couldn’t possibly have been referring to dying and being with Christ in an afterlife when he wrote, “having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ,” since he’d just finished telling his readers that he wasn’t going to say whether he’d rather live or die, and that neither of the two likely options were particularly desirable. Now, some Bible translations make it look like he simply couldn’t decide whether he’d prefer to live or die, but he outright said that his desire was “to depart,” so those translations don’t actually make any sense if “to depart” meant “to die,” telling us it’s simply referring to the Rapture.

Now, Clyde’s misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:22 was really his main argument, and I trust that you can see it doesn’t mean what he’s assuming it does, but he does try to defend his argument by claiming that verse 51 (“Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”) doesn’t mean what most of us believe it does, so I need to quickly comment on this as well. He does this by claiming: “First, it is important to realize that, even though this passage discusses a ‘mystery,’ this secret is not associated with Paul’s latter Secret Administration.” You see, Clyde believes in another strange doctrine, sometimes referred to as Acts 28 Ultradispensationalism (not to be confused with the Mid-Acts Hyperdispensationalism that most members of the body of Christ hold to as truth). Basically, while nearly every member of the body of Christ understands that Paul’s Gospel is not the same Gospel as the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus and His disciples preached during His earthly ministry, and that we need to divide Paul’s writings from the rest of the Bible as well (in the sense that only Paul was writing to and about the body of Christ, while the rest of the Bible was only to and about Israel), Clyde takes it a step too far and divides Paul’s epistles from themselves as well, believing that there were multiple dispensations, or administrations, associated with Paul’s ministry to the nations, and that we’re now in a “latter, Secret Administration,” with only Colossians and Ephesians applying to us today (with the rest of Paul’s epistles pretty much referring to a previous Administration, and that most of what’s written in those epistles don’t apply to us at all). And while it’s true that not every part of Paul’s earlier epistles are still relevant today, since some of the teachings in those epistles did only apply to the time that Israel still had an opportunity (relatively speaking) to accept Jesus as their Messiah and as the Son of God, in order to bring about the kingdom of heaven for 1,000 years (which has now been delayed until a future time because they didn’t; again, relatively speaking, since we know that, from an absolute perspective, it was actually God who hardened their hearts so they wouldn’t do so, in order that the Secret Dispensation, or Administration, could take place).

The problem is, the Secret Administration isn’t a dispensation, or administration, which was pushed off until the end of Paul’s life, as the Acts 28 position teaches, but was rather an administration that nearly all of Paul’s teachings were relevant to. However, rather than getting into all the arguments against the Acts 28 position myself, I’m going to instead refer you to a number of excellent articles on the topic by Aaron Welch and Martin Zender, since they’ve already taken the time to do so (some of which also cover the very topic of the Rapture that this article is already discussing, so please read them all carefully — athough 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, these are the best resources on the topic I could find, so I’d still urge you to read them anyway):

• Acts 28 Dispensationalism Revisited: A Response to “Proof of Paul’s Progression” (Part One) by Aaron Welch
• Acts 28 Dispensationalism Revisited: A Response to “Proof of Paul’s Progression” (Part Two) by Aaron Welch
• Acts 28 Dispensationalism Revisited: A Response to “Proof of Paul’s Progression” (Part Three) by Aaron Welch
• Acts 28 Dispensationalism Revisited: A Response to “Proof of Paul’s Progression” (Part Four) by Aaron Welch
• Wrongly Dividing Paul: A Response to “Right Division Includes Paul,” by Stephen Hill by Aaron Welch
• The Status of the Body of Christ Prior to Acts 28:28 by Aaron Welch
• A Response to “The Hope of Israel vs. That Blessed Hope” by Aaron Welch
• An Analysis of Paul’s Olive Tree Parable by Aaron Welch
• When was the salvation of God dispatched to the nations? by Aaron Welch
• When did the administration of the grace of God begin? by Aaron Welch
• A defense of the expectation of the body of Christ, Part 1: The Present Era by Martin Zender
• A defense of the expectation of the body of Christ, Part 2: New Truth by Martin Zender
• A defense of the expectation of the body of Christ, Part 3: The Snatching Away by Martin Zender
• A defense of the expectation of the body of Christ, Part 4: Mutilation of the Mystery by Martin Zender

Most members of the body of Christ believe the Rapture will take place prior to the Tribulation, but this brings up the question of how “the last trump” of 1 Corinthians 15:52 can be sounded prior to our mortal bodies being quickened (meaning made immortal), and caught up in the air to meet the Lord before the Tribulation begins when Revelation talks about 7 trumpets which will be sounded during the Tribulation period. Well, I believe the answer to that question is: “The last trump” will indeed be the last trumpet to sound, even though it sounds before the 7 trumpets of Revelation. That, of course, sounds like a contradiction, but only if you aren’t familiar with the concept of the “Mountain Peaks” of Prophecy.

For those who aren’t familiar with the “Mountain Peaks” aspect of prophecy, it refers to how there can be prophetic “valleys,” meaning events taking place within the same timeframe of a part of a specific prophecy, but which were not explicitly mentioned within said prophecy and which the prophet himself is not necessarily even aware of, yet which are later revealed to us in other prophecies, with these prophetic “valleys” being situated between the prophetic “mountain peaks,” meaning the events that the prophet actually did foresee and foretell within said prophecy; for example, while Jesus’ earthly ministry and reign as King of Israel was foreseen and foretold in various prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures (meaning the books of the Bible that are generally referred to as “the Old Testament”), the church called the body of Christ and the current dispensation of the grace of God were entirely unknown to the prophets recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures — from their perspective, all they could see was one unbroken ministry of a Messiah coming to save and lead Israel during one unbroken period of time on earth, because they couldn’t see the “valley of the church” hidden between the “mountain peaks” of Jesus’ first and second time on earth, with those “mountain peaks” even seeming like one “mountain” to them from their “vantage point” — and this can even happen within a single sentence in a prophecy, as demonstrated in Luke 4:14–21 where Jesus stopped reading Isaiah 61:1–2 before the end of the sentence in verse 2, because the part of that prophecy about “the day of vengeance of our God” hadn’t begun at that time yet, since it won’t happen until around the time of His Second Coming.

But how does this apply to the last trump? Well, think of 1 Corinthians 15:52 as being perceived from a forward-facing view of a prophetic mountain. If all we read was that one verse, we’d think it’s only going to sound one time. But if we consider it from a “sideways” perspective, similar to the way the above example image is viewed, and read verses 22 through 24 of the chapter, we realize it’s going to sound at least 3 different times: once when the body of Christ is quickened (“Christ the firstfruits”), again when the dead members of the Israel of God are resurrected and quickened at the resurrection of the just (“afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming”) — 75 days after the Tribulation ends (and please compare the numbers in Daniel 12:11-13 to the numbers in Revelation 13:5 to understand the 75 day difference between the end of the Tribulation and the resurrection of the just) — and finally when everyone else is made alive/quickened (“Then cometh the end,“ referring to the final — “end” — group of people to be made alive/quickened, including those who died a second time in the lake of fire), which will take place at the end of the ages.

So to put it simply, the trumpet referred to as “the last trump” will sound at the time that we, the body of Christ, are resurrected and/or quickened. After that, there will be 7 other trumpets sounding during the Tribulation. Two and a half months after the Tribulation ends, the trumpet referred to as “the last trump” will then sound a second time, resurrecting all dead members of the Israel of God and quickening them. And by the time of the end of the ages, it will have sounded a final time (thus justifying its label as “the last trump”), resurrecting everyone who is left dead in the lake of fire at that time and quickening them also.

And, of course, we know from what Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 that immortality for humans has to refer to salvation (only those who are finally experiencing salvation physically — in living bodies, with most of them having been resurrected from the dead first — will have “put on immortality,” or will have been made immortal), so when anyone in any of these three groups of people is made immortal, it can then be said, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”, as far as they’re concerned, because death will have been swallowed up in victory for them (which means that the mystery, or secret, that Paul revealed to us for the first time in that passage will also be fulfilled at least three separate times, each time that “last trump” sounds, although I should say that members of the Israel of God who aren’t dead at the time of the resurrection of the just won’t actually be quickened at that point, but will instead remain alive thanks to eating the fruit of the tree of life, at least until that “last trump” does sound its final blast, at the end of the ages, when they too will finally be made truly immortal along with everyone else who isn’t immortal yet, which is how death is finally destroyed).

The question is often asked: Can a believer lose their salvation? Now, obviously I’m not referring to general salvation here, meaning the salvation that everyone is guaranteed to eventually experience thanks to Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day (the salvation that involves the eventual quickening — meaning immortality — justification, and sinlessness of all humanity by end of the ages). That’s a given, and nothing anyone does can ever exclude them from that type of salvation, because it’s based 100% on what Christ did and 0% on what we do.

And I’m not referring to the limited sort of salvation that the Israel of God will enjoy for 1,000 years in the kingdom of heaven (meaning Israel during the Millennium) either, which does seem to be something they might be able to lose out on due to certain acts, depending on how one interprets certain passages in the Circumcision writings (meaning the books of the Bible not signed by the apostle Paul).

Instead, I’m referring to the special salvation that involves becoming a member of the body of Christ, which results in experiencing our justification, quickening, and sinlessness early, before everyone else does, as well as glorification with Christ when He’s manifested, and also potentially getting to rule and reign with Christ (whether or not a member of the body of Christ can lose out on celestial rewards is another topic altogether, though, and I’m not commenting on that right now), and the answer to the question of whether someone who has joined the body of Christ can lose that membership is easily answered by quoting one passage: Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. — Romans 8:30

There are absolutely no qualifications in that passage other than being predestined beforehand by God, so if God has selected you for membership in the body of Christ, He will call you, and if He calls you, He will justify and glorify you (referring to the justification those in the body of Christ experience early; not the justification that everyone will experience by the end of the ages). Because there are no qualifications on our part in that verse, it means that any passage one comes across which they might think suggests someone who has been called can lose out on membership in the body, and that glorification with Christ when He comes for His body at the Rapture, has to be referring to something else altogether, and that’s really all there is to it.

A text read out of context is just a pretext for a “proof text.”

It doesn’t matter what the topic is, if you’re in a disagreement with another Bible believer over a particular doctrine or theological point and literally all you do is quote a “proof text” from Scripture in order to try to prove your viewpoint, in the vast majority of cases you’re not only admitting that you can’t actually support your viewpoint from Scripture at all, but also that you almost certainly haven’t taken the time to properly study the topic thoroughly enough to be able to legitimately have reached a conclusion about it yourself yet.

Now, this might not be the case 100% of the time, but if the person you’re disagreeing with believes the Bible and has any knowledge about it at all, odds are high that they’re not only already familiar with the passage(s) you’re quoting, but that they already believe and agree with said passage(s). And if they already believe and agree with said passage(s), it means that they’ve already considered said passage(s) — likely in much more depth than you have if all you’ve done is quote said passage(s) — and simply have a different interpretation of said passage(s) than you do.

So to simply quote something from the Bible which you think proves your viewpoint without also explaining ahead of time why their interpretation(s) of said passage(s) can’t possibly be correct means you’re admitting that you aren’t already familiar with their interpretation(s) of said passage(s) and haven’t already prepared a rebuttal to their interpretation(s), which also means you’re demonstrating that you’ve come to the disagreement entirely unprepared.

However, that’s not all. If you don’t know their interpretation(s) of whatever “proof text(s)” you might be using to support your viewpoint, it means there’s no way you’ve researched the subject deeply enough yourself yet. And if you haven’t actually considered the passage(s) you’re using to defend your viewpoint from all possible angles (and the fact that the person you’re disagreeing with has a different interpretation of the passage(s) you’re quoting, as they almost certainly do, means there likely is at least one more angle you haven’t considered yet), why should anyone listen to you regarding a topic you haven’t actually studied carefully enough yet?

Of course, there are cases where you might be wanting to catch the person you’re disagreeing with in a trap in order to demonstrate that they haven’t thought their interpretation(s) of said passage(s) through well enough themselves yet, but in that case you should have at least asked a question or made a remark which you know will lead to the conclusion you’re trying to help them reach. However, in order to do that, you still have to already know why the person you’re disagreeing with believes what they do and what their interpretation is of not only the passage(s) you’re using to defend your viewpoint, but what their interpretation is of the passage(s) they use to defend their viewpoint as well.

What I’m basically getting at is, if you’re going to get into a theological disagreement with a Bible believer, it’s imperative that you do your homework in order to make sure you’re familiar with all the scriptural reasons they believe what they do ahead of time, including what they already believe your “proof text” means. Because if you don’t, you’ve pretty much already lost the argument.

And for those of you who have already misinterpreted what I’m saying here as insisting one shouldn’t quote the Bible at all, that’s not even close to what I was getting at (although, if that’s how you did interpret the above paragraphs, it doesn’t bode well for your interpretational abilities in general, including when it comes to Scripture). All I was saying is that you shouldn’t quote the Bible without also explaining why the passage(s) you quoted can’t be interpreted in the manner the person you’re disagreeing with interprets said passage(s).

Watching Christians argue over whether Calvinism is right or wrong is both amusing and sad at the same time. Because yes, while Scripture does indeed teach that Calvinism is wrong, it also teaches that Arminianism (not to mention the somewhat similar “Provisionism” perspective) is equally wrong.

You see, both sides are missing the foundational truth, which is that Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day will eventually result in the salvation of all humanity. Because they aren’t aware that this is what the Bible teaches, however, they all end up in a pointless argument with one another. In the end, both sides need to reject their soteriology and embrace a truly scriptural soteriology. Here’s a good starting point: Actual Good News

The reason I believe in the eventual salvation of all humanity is really quite simple. Many years ago, while I myself was still a believer in the popular doctrine of never-ending punishment for unbelievers, I encountered debates between other Christians who also believed the popular doctrine arguing with a seemingly strange group of people who believed Scripture actually teaches that all humanity will experience salvation because of what Christ accomplished.

Now, I was already quite familiar with the passages of Scripture typically used to defend the doctrine of never-ending punishment, having grown up learning and teaching them myself, so I found it unlikely that those who believed in the salvation of all humanity could possibly win the arguments. However, after watching them provide not only strong scriptural reasons for their own soteriological position, but also solid arguments demonstrating why the passages used to defend never-ending punishment were actually talking about something entirely different from what I’d always assumed they meant, while also proving that certain words I assumed should be interpreted literally were actually meant to be interpreted figuratively, I was forced to change my mind and accept that all humans indeed will eventually experience salvation, because those who believed the popular doctrine just didn’t seem to be able to counter any of the interpretations and arguments that those who believed in the salvation of all humanity were providing.

Simply put, I discovered that the only way to conclude the Bible teaches never-ending punishment is to not only ignore the actual context of the passages most people assume are teaching the doctrine (forgetting that a text read out of context is simply a pretext for a “proof text”), but also to ignore all the passages which would then make the Bible contradict itself if these supposed “proof texts” actually did teach never-ending punishment.

To demonstrate this, I’ve laid out scriptural interpretations of certain passages which I believe prove the eventual salvation of all humanity, as well as explained why I believe every argument for the idea of never-ending punishment I’ve ever encountered, be it a scriptural interpretation, a philosophical argument, or even an emotional attempt to defend their doctrine (and I took the time to research all the arguments for that position I could find before writing this, in case there were any I didn’t already know from my time believing the doctrine, although if I missed any, please let me know), and put them all together in one large Bible study. Thus far, despite many promises to do so over the years by some of the thousands of people to whom I’ve provided links to this information, nobody has sent me a refutation of the study yet (although literally every Bible believer I’m aware of who has actually read the whole study from beginning to end has come to believe in the salvation of all humanity themselves). That said, I welcome any and all attempts to refute the conclusions recorded in this Bible study, because if it somehow was the case that we’re wrong about this, I would definitely want to know (and I’d think you’d also want to show me where we went wrong), so here is the study for your consideration:

What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, evil, sin, and salvation

Of course, based on my past experiences, most believers in the popular doctrine who are reading this are thinking of simply quoting one or more of those “proof texts” from the Bible to whoever sent them a link to this page (not realizing that simply quoting Bible verses on their own is not the way to win any scriptural disagreement), rather than taking the time to read the above Bible study to learn why someone might interpret the Bible differently than they do. The problem is, since those of us who have come to believe in the salvation of all humanity already believe and agree with those passages of Scripture (just as we do all passages of Scripture), but simply interpret them differently, if they ever want us to change our minds and believe as they do, they’re going to have to show us where we went wrong in our interpretations of Scripture. Because until they do, we have no reason at all to believe we are incorrect in our interpretations of the passages used to defend both soteriological positions, especially considering the fact that I haven’t been able to locate a single refutation of the arguments made in the above Bible study by anyone, and I’ve looked hard for one, because I wanted to make sure we weren’t mistaken (although, if you disagree, please point me to a refutation that does prove the arguments in this particular study wrong).

Pretty much every Christian is familiar with what Ephesians 2:8-9 states: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Somehow, though, most Christians seem to miss what this passage is saying. Before getting into it, however, it’s important to consider a couple other passages. First, Romans 3:10-11: As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

This passage tells us that nobody seeks after God on their own, which means He has to first cause us to seek after Him in order for us to do so. And after we do, we still need the faith to believe in Him, as well as to believe the Gospel. Simply building up the necessary faith to believe something one hadn’t previously believed is true is something nobody is going to naturally do on their own, because if they don’t already believe it’s true, why would they try to build up the necessary faith to believe it in the first place? And so, as Romans 12:3 tells us, we need to be given the necessary measure of faith to be able to believe: For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Thus taking us back to Ephesians 2:8-9, which tells us that our faith is not of ourselves, but is rather the gift of God so that no one can boast, and the fact that Paul compared the faith being given as a gift to works means that having to choose to believe would have to be a work (not that faith itself is a work, but having to build up the necessary faith to believe would be).

Now, most Christians who read this like to insist that it’s the salvation or the grace that Paul is saying isn’t “of ourselves,” but they aren’t thinking things through particularly carefully. First of all, how could saving grace possibly be of ourselves? There isn’t any way that Paul’s readers would have thought he meant that it’s possible to give themselves saving grace, nor is there any way that they’d think the salvation could possibly be out of themselves either, so while it’s technically true that the salvation and grace aren’t out of ourselves either, it should really be clear that Paul was referring to the faith not being of ourselves in that verse.

Besides, we don’t have anything we didn’t first receive from God anyway, as Paul also told us in 1 Corinthians 4:7, so if we have the faith necessary for the sort of salvation Paul was referring to in Ephesians, we had to have first received it from God regardless. I say “the sort of salvation Paul was referring to in Ephesians,” of course, because there are many different types of salvation referred to in Scripture, and this particular type of salvation isn’t the one that saves us from death and sin, but that’s a topic for another study (although, if you want to learn more about that as well, please read this: What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation).

Have you come to believe that the Bible is the word of God, and decided that means you should become a Christian? Well, you’re on the right track with the first part (about the Bible), but before you take the plunge into the Christian religion, there are some things you should be aware of.

First things first, the Bible doesn’t say you should join the Christian religion at all (the word “Christians” was applied to those who believed the Gospel of the grace of God in times past, but it’s a label that appears to have been assigned to them by unbelievers rather than being an official title, which is actually “the body of Christ”). In fact, if you’re interested in holding to the doctrines of Scripture, you should avoid this religion altogether, because 99% of the doctrines taught by the leaders of the Christian religion are entirely contrary to what Scripture actually teaches.

I don’t have the time to get into all the details here, but Christians typically believe that anyone who doesn’t choose to become a Christian before they die or before Jesus returns will be punished without end in a place they call “hell.” And while ending up in a place referred to as “hell” is something that will happen to many people, according to the Bible, if you interpret Scripture as a whole rather than just cherry-picking specific words out of certain “proof texts” the way most Christians do, you’ll discover that everyone will eventually experience at least one form of salvation (keeping in mind that there are various different types of salvation referred to in the Bible, and while not everyone experiences all of them, we’ll all experience at least one of them).

In addition, most Christians also believe that “hell” is an afterlife realm the dead go to, as is heaven, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the dead are quite unconscious. But don’t worry, it isn’t existence in an afterlife realm called heaven that we’re supposed to be looking forward to anyway. Instead, it’s resurrection in physical bodies we’re supposed to be looking forward to, and those in the body of Christ will be made immortal at the time the dead in Christ are resurrected (while everyone else will eventually be made immortal by the end of the ages).

There are a lot more things Christians get wrong about Scripture. In fact, as I said, they misinterpret about 99% of what Scripture actually teaches, so instead of becoming a Christian I’d suggest checking out this in-depth study on what the Bible actually teaches, and if God has decided to include you in the body of Christ, He’ll reveal the truth to you as you read it: What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation

Or, if you want a quick summary of the Gospel of the grace of God and what it means first, read this: Good News

As many of you know, I once wrote an article titled “He was buried,” in order to demonstrate why belief in the immortality of the soul means someone can’t be said to be a member of the body of Christ, since it would mean one doesn’t believe a specific (and crucial) element of Paul’s Gospel (please go read that article if you aren’t familiar with why I say this).

I’ve also maintained for years that the “Christ died for our sins”element of Paul’s Gospel means that someone who believes in Infernalism (meaning the doctrine of never-ending torment), or even Annihilationism, also can’t actually be a member of the body of Christ, because they don’t believe that sin has been dealt with, once and for all, through Christ’s death for our sins (if anyone believes that a person can be punished without end because of their sins, they haven’t understood what it means that “Christ died for our sins,” and you can’t truly believe something if you don’t actually understand its meaning). Not only that, though, it also means that someone who believes a person can only be saved by choosing to believe something specific (be it a supposedly “free will” choice, or even a predestined choice) aren’t in the body of Christ either, because it isn’t our belief that saves us, but rather it’s Christ’s death for our sins, along with His subsequent burial and resurrection on the third day, that saves us (this means that even some who call themselves “Christian Universalists” aren’t in the body of Christ, because many of them also believe that salvation only comes through a choice to believe something specific; and please keep in mind that I’m referring specifically to the general salvation that everyone experiences when I discuss verses 3 and 4 of 1 Corinthians 15, of course, and not the special “eternal”/age-pertaining life type of salvation referred to in verses 1 and 2  — it’s important to keep in mind that both types of salvation are being discussed in the first four verses of 1 Corinthians 15, and if you aren’t familiar with the different types of salvation, please read this). To believe that one has to choose to believe something specific in order to be saved is putting the cart before the horse, since faith, or belief, in what Christ accomplished is the cart bringing us into the form of salvation known as membership in the body of Christ (also known as salvation from a relative perspective), while the general salvation (from an absolute perspective) because of Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day, is the horse.

I should say, while “the salvation of all humanity” isn’t, strictly speaking, Paul’s Gospel itself — since Paul’s Gospel is technically just those combined elements that he said he taught the Corinthians (Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day) — because the general salvation of all humanity is the end result of Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day, it means that the salvation of all humanity because of what Christ accomplished is this Gospel’s main point. And so, while there are other details about his Gospel which also need to be understood in order to be considered a member of the body of Christ (such as what it means that “He was buried,” as we already discussed in that previous article), it can legitimately be said that “the eventual salvation of all humanity because of what Christ accomplished” is essentially Paul’s Gospel, even if it’s not technically Paul’s Gospel (again, of course, referring to the general salvation that everyone eventually experiences, meaning being made immortal and sinless, and not the special “eternal” life sort of salvation which only the body of Christ will get to enjoy in heaven, or even the other “eternal” life sort of salvation, which the Israel of God will enjoy in the kingdom of heaven for 1,000 years because they obeyed their own Gospel, although they too will all eventually enjoy the general salvation connected with Paul’s Gospel).

Despite this fact, most people who call themselves Bible believers (including even a few people I consider to be legitimate members of the body of Christ) insist, for various reasons, that the phrase “Christ died for our sins” can’t be referring to the eventual salvation of all humanity, but that it must mean something else instead. Well, one thing we do all agree on is that the five words “Christ died for our sins” have to mean something. The question, then, is, “What is it that those five words mean?”

There are various different answers I’ve heard different people who disagree with me on this point provide, but I’m not going to go into all of them because one example should suffice to show you why none of them can possibly make sense (after you read my refutation, you can just apply said refutation to any other answer as well). The example I’m going to use is the idea that the words somehow mean “justification by faith,” as I’ve heard some people claim Paul meant when he said “Christ died for our sins.” Well, if that’s the case, let’s break down the passage. Paul said in verses 1 and 2 that those who believe his Gospel will be saved, and then gave the first five words of his Gospel in verse 3 — “Christ died for our sins” — so if “justification by faith” somehow is what those five words mean, the Gospel Paul taught people that they needed to believe in order to be considered saved and in the body of Christ would then be, “justification by faith, and also that Christ was buried and rose again the third day,” which really makes no sense at all, since it would then mean that we’re justified by having faith that justification by faith is true, presuming we have the faith that Christ was buried and resurrected on the third day too, of course, even though we’ve now lost any information about Christ dying for our sins in the first place in this explanation (and yes, I realize that, from an absolute perspective, it was Christ’s faith in going to the cross, along with His subsequent burial and resurrection, that ultimately saves and justifies us, but from a relative perspective it’s our faith in Christ — specifically in what Christ did and accomplished [by dying for our sins] — that justifies us, meaning it’s our faith that Paul’s Gospel is true that justifies us, at least from a relative perspective; besides, justification by the faith that Christ demonstrated by going to the cross and dying for our sins ultimately results in the salvation of all anyway, so that would still support exactly what I’m saying as well, presuming that’s what they actually mean by “justification by faith”).

The real problem, however, is that “justification by faith” just isn’t found anywhere in verse 3, which means that this idea is nothing more than reading one’s assumption into the verse. The truth is, “Christ died for our sins” could really mean anything we want it to mean at all if it can mean something that isn’t included in, or at least implied by, those specific five words (or at least explained as the meaning somewhere else in the passage, which it isn’t either). For example, it could mean “Alexander the coppersmith did Paul much evil” — or anything else Paul wrote about, for that matter — if we’re picking random things from his epistles that have no connection with the words “Christ died for our sins” on their own. So at the end of the day, it must have something to do with the result of Christ’s death for our sins. And since I can’t think of anything else that the words “Christ died for our sins” might mean in that verse, at least not without reading one’s assumption into the text, not to mention without contradicting verses 1 and 2 (along with other parts of Scripture as well), I’d argue that the salvation of all humanity is logically the onlyresult that Paul could have possibly been referring to there.

It’s really all about the process of elimination. Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable one considers it to be, must be the truth. As I said, “Christ died for our sins” has to mean something, and I really can’t think of anything else it could mean (and I haven’t heard a convincing argument from anyone else that their assumption about what it means has to be what it means either, especially since I’ve never seen any of them demonstrate from Scripture just how those five words can mean what they’re claiming they do). However, if you still do disagree that it’s referring to the salvation of all, please let me know exactly where your interpretation of “Christ died for our sins” is located (whether that interpretation is “justification by faith” or something else entirely) — or at least implied by, or the end result of, what’s stated — in verse 3, all without contradicting verses 1 and 2 (or any other part of the Bible for that matter).

Still, despite all of those facts, it’s also been stated by many people that Paul was only talking about those in the Corinthian church who believed his Gospel when he wrote 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (or at least only about people who believed his Gospel in general), and that it didn’t include the rest of humanity anywhere in its words, and, as such, the “for our sins” part of this Gospel was only referring to the sins of those specific Corinthians he was writing to who believed that the words in his Gospel are true (or at least only referring to the sins of those who believe his Gospel in general). And yes, it’s true that this part of the chapter technically was specifically about what the Corinthian believers believed, but the important detail most people seem to miss here is that Paul wasn’t telling the Corinthian believers his Gospel for the first time in this epistle; he was simply repeating what he’d previously told them in person — back when they were still unbelievers — which was the Good News that “Christ died for our sins” (and that He was buried and rose again the third day, of course), and not something else.

Another detail that people seem to miss is the fact that this statement was unlikely to have meant anything to the Corinthians on its own when they heard these words, so they would have then asked him what that meant, and Paul would have, of course, explained that it means all sin has now been dealt with because of Christ’s death (and burial and resurrection), and because of this, each of them was guaranteed eventual general salvation (immortality and sinlessness) whether they believed it or not. And unless the Corinthians listening to him speak were severely mentally impaired, they would have understood that this means all humanity must be guaranteed general salvation too, whether they (meaning the rest of humanity) believe it or not as well (since the Corinthians hearing him proclaim his Gospel to them for the first time would have had no reason to believe that this only applied to Paul himself and the people living in Corinth who heard him speak at that particular moment, but excluded everyone else in the world — remember, Paul wrote in this passage that he said “Christ died for our sins” to them when he was with them in person, and not “Christ died for your sins,” as many seem to mistakenly think he said). So yes, it seems clear to me that the only way to understand those specific words in verse 3 of 1 Corinthians 15 is to understand that all sin is dealt with through Christ’s death, and hence all humanity is guaranteed eventual general salvation (which, again, simply refers to being made immortal and sinless and, yes, being justified, whether they had faith while it was still possible to have faith or not — which I say because, when one is standing before Christ at the Great White Throne, things won’t be based on faith anymore, but will rather be based on sight at that time). And verses 1 and 2 tell us that only those who believe the Good News that Christ’s death dealt with all sin (and hence guarantees the eventual general salvation of all humanity) are saved now, at least as far as being guaranteed the special salvation goes (presuming they also understood the rest of the passage, of course, including what it means that “He was buried”).

What he definitely wouldn’t have done when the Corinthians asked him what “Christ died for our sins” means was say, “It means you can now be justified by faith,” because they then would have asked him, “Faith in what?”, and if he then turned around and said, “In Christ’s death for our sins,” that would have been an entirely circular answer (basically meaning that “one can be justified by believing that one can be justified by having faith in the fact that one can justified by faith,” as I was getting at earlier), and they would have walked away completely confused and still unsaved, not knowing what he was talking about. So at the end of the day, if it isn’t the salvation of all, you’re going to need to come up with a good explanation as to what “Christ died for our sins” is telling us without giving a circular answer, and, again, without contradicting verses 1 and 2 (or any of the rest of the Bible).

Now, all of this is where the Calvinists are at least partly correct (or at least those Calvinists who don’t say unscriptural and illogical things such as, “Christ’s death for our sins was sufficient to save all, but efficient to save only the elect,” because if something must be added to His sacrifice in order for someone to be saved — even something as simple as having to choose to believe the right thing — then His death for our sins was, by definition, INsufficient on its own to save anyone, at least as far as the general salvation connected with Paul’s Gospel goes). The consistent Calvinists at least understand that it can only be Christ’s death for our sins (along with His subsequent burial and resurrection) that guarantees the salvation of those who get saved as far as the general salvation in connection with Paul’s Gospel goes, which means that anyone whose sins Christ died for has to be considered to be saved from at least some perspective (at the very least, from a proleptic perspective), because otherwise His death for the sins of those He died for (be it the sins of just the elect or the sins of all humanity) accomplished absolutely nothing for anyone prior to someone hearing about His death for our sins and then choosing to believe that His death for our sins accomplished something for them too, thus making them their own (at least partial) saviours by turning Christ’s ineffectual action (which, by definition, is what His death for our sins would be if it didn’t have any effect on anyone on its own prior to their hearing about it) into an action which — only after one’s contribution (such as the act of choosing to believe the right thing) — actually had an effect on them after all.

Where these Calvinists go wrong is in forgetting that the good news Paul specifically said he preached to the Corinthians when he evangelized to them in person were “Christ died for our sins,” and not “Christ died for your sins,” or “Christ died for the sins of the elect,” or even “Christ died for the sins of believers,” and he certainly didn’t tell them something along the lines of, “Christ can have died for the sins of only you Corinthians who are listening to me right now, but only if you happen to believe that He died for your sins, making it so that He did die for your sins, even though He didn’t actually die for your sins at all if you don’t believe He did” (which is what he would have actually had to have said to them in person if this passage was only about the sins of the Corinthians who believed his Gospel rather than the sins of all humanity). Simply put, the Good News Paul actually preached — that “Christ died for our sins” — would have to already be true for every single person that Paul told this fact to before he spoke the words to them, and not just news which can be true, but only if they happened to hear it and then also believe it’s true, thus somehow turning a lie (which is what “Christ died for our sins” would have been if He hadn’t already died for their sins when Paul preached those specific five words to the Corinthians) into truth (meaning Christ had now died only for their sins specifically, although really only after they’d believed that “Christ died for our sins”). This means that any time Paul preached the Good News that Christ died for our sins (and that He was buried and rose again the third day, of course) to a group of people, or even just to an individual person, it had to already be true that Christ had died for the sins of whichever people or person he was speaking to, because every single person he preached the words “Christ died for our sins” to had to already be included in that word “our,” which means that before Paul even walked up to them, Christ had to have already died for their sins in the past. And the only way that could be the case is if the Good News that “Christ died for our sins” includes at least every single person who was alive at the time, unless it was possible for Paul to walk up to someone and preach his Gospel to them by saying, “Christ died for our sins,” and it somehow turned out that Christ actually hadn’t already died for that person’s sins after all, thus making Paul a liar when he said “Christ died for our sins” to them. And if it was true for every single person alive at the time, there’s no reason it wouldn’t be true for every single person who will have ever lived as well.

Besides, if he only meant that Christ died for the sins of his Corinthian readers specifically (and also for the sins of himself as well, of course, as would have to be the case for the phrase “Christ died for our sins” to make sense when he said it), we’d have to conclude that He didn’t actually die for the sins of anyone else, including the people that Paul wrote to in Rome or Galatia or anywhere else for that matter, and that He didn’t die for your sins either (although, if you do happen to believe that Christ died for everyone’s sins, including your own, yet also believe that 1 Corinthians 15:3 is only referring to the sins of Paul and his Corinthian readers, I have to ask you what the scriptural basis for your belief that He did die for everyone’s sins as well is, and why it isn’t what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:3, especially in light of everything you’ve just read about it).

Also, unless every single Corinthian Paul preached to during his visit to that city actually believed his words (which seems extremely statistically unlikely), if Christ’s death for our sins (along with His burial and resurrection, of course) is the only thing that saves us as far as general salvation goes (which it is, since anything we had to add to that type of salvation in order to be saved would mean we helped save ourselves, and would also mean that our general salvation was through works), it would again mean that Paul was lying to anyone who didn’t believe that Christ died for our sins when he spoke those words to them, because that statement would have to include everyone hearing him say those words rather than just the listeners who also believed those words were true (since it would mean that Christ didn’t actually die for their sins after all, considering the fact that anyone whose sins Christ died for has to be saved at least proleptically, as we’ve already discussed). Not only that, it would mean we were also lying anytime we explained that Paul’s Gospel includes the fact that Christ died for our sins, at least if anyone who heard us didn’t believe it either (unless, perhaps, what the Gospel that one actually has to believe in order to be saved is that Jesus died only for the sins of Paul and the Corinthians he spoke to — and that everyone in Corinth he preached his Gospel to got saved — and not that he actually died for you or for anyone else, but then I’d have to again ask you what the basis of our own general salvation really was in the first place if it wasn’t Christ’s death for our sins — along with His burial and resurrection — too).

So yes, Christ’s death for our sins actually had to apply to all  humanity (and hence guarantee the general salvation of all humanity), and if someone doesn’t understand that this assertion by Paul means everyone has been saved from at least a proleptic perspective, they can’t be said to be in the body of Christ yet, because Paul said in this passage that his readers were saved when they believed this Gospel/Good News (or, at the very least, they have to believe the truths that are contained within verses 3 and 4 in order to be in the body of Christ, which yes, I’ll acknowledge does mean that someone who doesn’t necessarily understand the truths about what those two verses mean as I just laid them out, but who does still believe the truths themselves — meaning they believe in the salvation of all humanity based solely upon what Christ accomplished — because they understand that truth from other passages of Scripture, technically would still be a true believer and a member of the body of Christ, even if they were confused about the meaning of this passage), and since general salvation is based on Christ’s death for our sins rather than on our faith, the type of salvation he wrote about in the first two verses of the chapter can only be the special salvation — meaning membership in the body of Christ — that they were brought into at the time they truly believed that Christ died for our sins (meaning when they actually understood that all humanity will be saved because of what Christ accomplished). I can’t think of any other alternative interpretations that don’t contradict Scripture. As I already pointed out, verses 1 and 2 say that one is saved if they believe the Gospel he taught them in person, the Gospel which he then repeated in writing in verses 3 and 4. And we know that belief in anything doesn’t save anyone as far as general salvation goes (since adding a requirement for that type of salvation would be teaching salvation by works), so verses 3 and 4 have to be about a different form of salvation from the one referred to in verses 1 and 2. And you just won’t find anything about “justification by faith” — or any other possible interpretation I’ve ever heard either — in verses 3 and 4, so there’s just no room for it to mean anything other than the salvation of all.

If it helps, another way of looking at all this is to recognize that verses 1 and 2 are referring to salvation from a relative perspective, because they’re talking about something that relatively few people will get to enjoy, which is an early experience of the salvation that everyone is eventually going to enjoy (that salvation consisting of being made immortal and sinless and being justified, as we’ve already learned), along with the additional benefits that salvation from a relative perspective also brings (such as membership in the body of Christ, and all that this membership entails as well). Salvation from a relative perspective does require a certain criteria to be met in order to get to enjoy this early experience of salvation, however, even if meeting that criteria (which consists of believing, or having faith, that Paul’s Gospel is true, as Paul explained in those first two verses of the chapter that we’re talking about) is technically a gift from God rather than being generated by ourselves. Verses 3 and 4, on the other hand, are referring to the same salvation, but from an absolute perspective (so the same immortality, sinlessness, and justification, in other words, even if not necessarily the membership in the body of Christ that a relatively small number of people will also get to enjoy), because these two verses are about the reason why everyone eventually gets to enjoy this salvation, with that reason for why everyone will eventually enjoy this salvation being Christ’s death for our sins, along with His burial and resurrection on the third day (and this reason being referred to as Paul’s Gospel). Basically, it’s only salvation from a relative perspective that has a criteria which must be met — which is believing the truths taught in Paul’s Gospel — but everyone gets to enjoy the salvation from an absolute perspective at some point (both those who experience its early form, also known as relative salvation, and those who experience it later) because of what it is that Paul laid out in his Gospel (Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day), whether they believed his Gospel or not. But if what “Christ died for our sins” means also had a criteria that has to be met in order to experience its end result, then salvation from an absolute perspective would require something from us (even if just faith) in order to make Christ’s death for our sins actually accomplish anything. So once again, verses 3 and 4 can’t be about anything we have to do — not even having faith and being justified by it — but can only be about what God and Christ did, namely guaranteeing the eventual salvation of all humanity because of Christ’s death for our sins, burial, and resurrection on the third day (especially since there isn’t anything mentioned for us to do in that proclamation of Good News Paul listed in verses 3 and 4 anyway; those two verses are all about what God and Christ did, as I just said).

And yes, the statement that “Christ died for your sins” is technically true, no matter who we say it to, because that person would still be included in the “all humanity” that will eventually get to enjoy salvation because of Christ’s death for our sins, which means the statement that “Christ died for the sins of the elect,” or even the statement that “Christ died for the sins of the Corinthian believers,” is also technically true. But regardless of how true any of these statements are, they’re only true because Christ died for everyone’s sins, and none of them are the Gospel message that Paul referred to as “my Gospel” (since the first five words of Paul’s Gospel were “Christ died for our sins”). So if you’re evangelizing, please be careful to share the actual Gospel message that one has to believe in order to be able to be said to have joined the body of Christ, which includes the good news that Christ died for our (all humanity’s) sins, or else you might find yourself to be in trouble for preaching a false “gospel” instead.