KJV Gospel Resources

Author: D.C.

  • That passage of Scripture you referred to doesn’t disprove Universalism the way you assume it does

    Whenever the topic of Universal Reconciliation comes up, some Infernalist (meaning a believer in the doctrine of never-ending torment) inevitably says something like, “This particular passage of Scripture proves that Universalism can’t be true,” and then refers to a passage they assume proves their soteriology. What they forget is that a text read out of context is just a pretext for a proof text, and they never seem to realize that most of us Universalists are already intimately familiar with every passage they can throw at us, having studied Scripture far more in depth than they likely have (as much as it might sound like it, this isn’t bragging; this is simply stating a fact), and that we in fact actually believe every one of those passages they’re using. The difference is, because we’ve actually studied Scripture in context, we know what those passages actually mean, and aren’t just eisegeting them the way Infernalists are forced to do in order to defend their doctrine.

    So, Infernalists, rather than just quoting passages you don’t even know the meaning of, and which we Universalists actually agree with wholeheartedly (because we actually understand the meanings of those passages), perhaps try looking into what it is those passages really mean. I wrote an in-depth study explaining what pretty much every single supposed Infernalist “proof text” actually means, and while I’ve asked hundreds of Infernalists to refute it, and a number of them have promised to do so since I wrote it many years back, literally zero Infernalists have gotten back to me with their promised refutations. Meanwhile, a number of Infernalists who actually took the challenge to read it got back to me telling me they’re now convinced that everyone indeed will eventually experience salvation. So if you want me (or any of us) to believe in Infernalism again (because I was once an Infernalist too, before I took the same challenge to look into the scriptural interpretations and arguments I later laid out in that article after I realized I couldn’t refute them myself), you’re going to have to show us where we went wrong in our exegesis as discussed in that article — which you can find for free here: What the Bible really says about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation

  • Proof that everyone will eventually repent and believe the Gospel

    It’s actually very simple to prove that everyone will eventually repent and believe the Gospel. You see, the word “repent” simply means “to change one’s mind.” And so, even if someone doesn’t change their mind about how one is saved and come to believe the Gospel (which is the good news that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day) before they die, after they’re resurrected from among the dead at the Great White Throne, they’ll certainly change their mind about salvation at that point (meaning they’ll have “repented”), and will also pretty much certainly finally believe that Christ did indeed die for their sins, and that He was buried and rose again the third day, at that point (it would be hard to deny when Christ is standing in front of them).

    So even if someone thinks that people definitely have to “repent and believe the Gospel” in order to experience salvation (because they don’t understand the difference between salvation from an absolute perspective, salvation from a relative perspective, and salvation from a physical perspective), it seems like a pretty sure thing that everyone will have repented (changed their mind about salvation) and believed the Gospel at that point, which means everyone would eventually get to go live on the New Earth at some point, if that’s how one actually gained the salvation Paul primarily taught about (which it isn’t, as explained here, but that’s a whole other discussion).

  • Cult leader?

    I’ve been accused of being a cult leader many times over the years, and it just happened again today, so I thought I’d write this post quickly because I know I’m not the only one who gets handed this accusation.

    Apparently, simply by virtue of writing articles or books about what we believe — or even creating YouTube or TikTok videos on these topics — we must be cult leaders (even though this would mean we must have dozens of cult leaders in our “cult,” which is interesting considering the amount of disagreement over doctrine there is within our church, outside of the most important doctrine, of course: Paul’s Gospel).

    Now, to be fair, as I discussed in my Comparing the Christian religion vs the body of Christ to the BITE model article, any group of people dedicated to any particular topic can, by definition, be called a cult, so every single church and fandom out there technically is a cult. But, of course, most people are referring to the authoritarian cults that people tend to think of when accusing us of leading (or even simply being in) a cult. However, if you’ve read that article about the BITE model that I just linked to there, you already know that no human other than Jesus has any authority over anyone else in our church, so we certainly can’t be an authoritarian cult. We do have teachers, but none of our teachers can tell anyone else in the body of Christ what to do or believe, or mete out punishments if someone doesn’t obey them, and many of our teachers publicly disagree with each other on many theological topics, so when someone accuses me of being a cult leader, I just roll my eyes and send them that link, and so far none of them have been able to come back at me to explain how we actually are an authoritarian cult in a way that lines up with the BITE model after reading it. So if anyone accuses you of the same (being in, or leading, a cult), feel free to share that link with them as well, and I can pretty much guarantee that they won’t be able to come back at you with anything from the article demonstrating you to be an authoritarian cult leader (or even just cult follower) either.

  • If you’re wrong…

    While watching a YouTube video after getting home from talking with the Toronto street preachers I mentioned in my last post, I heard Martin, a fellow believer, say something that reminded me of what Henry, another of the so-called “evangelists” there, said. Basically, he tried to “Pascal’s Wager” me by saying something along the lines of, “If you’re right, then I’ll miss out on some stuff, but I’ll be okay in the end. However, if I’m right, you’re going to burn in hell for eternity.”

    It’s interesting how they believe it’s more important to accept a doctrine because it might have a worse possible outcome than accepting its alternative might have, regardless of whether that doctrine is correct or not, but I’m far more interested in truth than I am in worrying about threats (although this, along with what I wrote in that last post, demonstrates just how much Christian doctrine is based on fear). As I pointed out to him in response, though, if I’m wrong, I’ve still believed the Gospel, so that isn’t actually the case at all (although he seems convinced that I haven’t, because he thinks I’m teaching false doctrine and hence it’s impossible that I have). But Martin said something even better, which is something along the lines of the fact that, if I’m wrong, I’ve been teaching that God is better than He really is, since I’m claiming He’s actually succeeded in accomplishing His will that everyone be saved, whereas if the street preachers are wrong, they’ve spoken terrible blasphemy, basically accusing God of doing horrible things to the creation He supposedly loves by torturing them in fire with no chance of escape. And if we’re going to worry about a “Pascal’s Wager” sort of scenario, I’d much rather be on the side of accusing God of being too good and too loving and too successful than the exact opposite.

  • Nobody fears truth quite like a Christian does

    For nearly two years now I’ve been asking Christians to read an article I wrote which explains why I believe the Bible teaches what I believe it does about heaven, hell, judgement, death, and salvation (which you can find here), and for nearly two years it’s been the exact same result: a small handful read it and end up telling me they’re now convinced the Bible actually does teach that everyone will eventually experience salvation, and a few promise to read it and but don’t (oh, some claim they read it, but from their responses it’s evident they merely skimmed a few paragraphs but didn’t actually read the whole thing). However, the vast majority simply outright refuse to read it.

    The problem is, if I’m wrong about what I believe, I need to know it, which means I need someone to actually read it so they can show me where my scriptural interpretations and arguments in it went wrong, and until someone does that, I have absolutely no basis for thinking I’m wrong (especially after 20-plus years studying the Scriptures carefully to see what they have to say about soteriology). Today, however, I was finally told the reason that so few are willing to even give reading it a try.

    Now, I’ve long since assumed this was the exact reason, but at least two of the Toronto street preachers I’ve mentioned many times in my articles over the years outright confessed to me, at two separate times in the last couple hours, that it’s because they’re afraid to read it. One of them, a fairly pleasant young man named David, said to me, “I’m a sinner, so if I read it I might be convinced you’re right,” as an explanation of why he won’t read it. And a less pleasant member of their troupe who goes by the name of Ted also admitted that he was afraid to read it.

    And while the reason is sad, it’s also very refreshing to finally hear sincerity from a Christian (from two Christians within such a short period of time even, something so rare that I almost can’t believe it actually happened), and it confirms my long-held suspicions that this is the exact reason most of the Christians I’ve asked to review and refute my article on soteriology for me refuse to even try to do so. I’d say I don’t know what came over them to reveal their hearts, but I know exactly what it was. For a fleeting moment, God inspired them to tell the truth for a change.

    It’s almost funny, or at least it would be if it weren’t so sad, because outwardly they sound so certain that they’re right and I’m wrong, and that their interpretations of Scripture can’t possibly be mistaken, yet they know deep down that their doctrine is built on a foundation of sand, not stone, and so they realize that if they read it they might have to admit they’re wrong about at least something. The truth is, their admission demonstrates just how little confidence they actually have that their theological views are correct, but also just how much they desperately want to hold on to their opinions regardless of how accurate they might be.

    I don’t think they even realize now that this is the reason for their brief moment of uncharacteristic honesty, but listening to me proclaim what the Gospel that Paul preached means might have, just for a moment, given them a clue as to what the true Gospel of salvation is. Sadly, the god of this world has blinded their minds, so any flash of light that might have oh-so-briefly shone on them was quickly blocked from sight, but for just a second I believe that at least one of them (David) was able to see why he might be wrong about some of what he believes, and that scared him so much he had to quickly run away from it.

    Thankfully, at the end of the ages, even they’ll enjoy salvation, despite the fact that they’ve rejected Paul’s Gospel, but they’re going to miss out on so much in the meantime if they don’t repent and believe the good news, so I pray that God will open their eyes to the truth before then. That said, if He doesn’t, we’ll know that‘s what His will for them was from before the foundation of the world, and I suspect I’ll get to have an interesting “Joseph and his brothers” type conversation with them at the Great White Throne.

  • Meet other members of the actual body of Christ

    If you’ve read my Bible studies and articles here on this website, you know that I’m not a Christian. Instead, I’m a member of the true body of Christ (if you don’t know the difference, please read this long study which explains it). You might then be wondering who else is in this true body of Christ. Well, I can’t introduce you to all of them, but if you’d like to know who some of them are, here’s a list of many of their websites and YouTube channels.

    Before you click the links, 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, in fact, many are somewhat opposed to the translation, mistakenly believing it to be largely mistranslated). Still, it’s good to get to know your brothers and sisters in Christ if you are a member yourself. I do try to keep this page up to date, so if you notice any broken links, please let me know.

    Websites:

    YouTube channels:

  • Questions you must answer

    In order to convince us Mid-Acts Dispensationalists we’re wrong about our belief that there is more than one Gospel proclaimed in Scripture, one has to be able to first answer some questions. If one can’t answer these questions, they won’t be able to convince us that we’re wrong (it’s as simple as that).

    First, would you agree that the word “Gospel” literally means “Good News,” or “news which is good”? Next, would you agree that the word “news” quite literally refers to “a series of specific words which, when laid out in a specific order, conveys specific information about a specific subject,” and that if you have another set of specific words which, when laid out in their own specific order, convey some other sort of specific information about that subject, you can’t say that you have the same news, even if both sets of news are good in nature, or even about the same person?

    Presuming your answers to the above questions are “yes,” you next need to answer these questions: Was the news which is good that Paul preached to the Corinthians about Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection on the third day? If so, did the news which is good that Jesus’ disciples preached during His earthly ministry (known as “the news which is good about the kingdom”) contain Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection? (Remember, even when Jesus explained to them that He was going to die, they didn’t understand that fact.) If the news which is good that they preached didn’t contain information about Christ’s death for our sins (which it couldn’t have), were these two sets of news which are good the same news which is good? And if they aren’t the same news which is good, how can you say that there’s only one set of news which is good preached in the Bible?

    If you’d like to learn more about the two different sets of news which are good, you can do so here: Things that differ

  • 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.