Author: D.C.

  • Who sends people to hell?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  • Justice for evil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The preceding dialogue was inspired by this tweet.

  • Who won the greater victory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Preacher: “Well, he saved me.”

    Hell: “Why?”

    Preacher: “Because I chose to get saved.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  • What does the Bible say that is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Paying the penalty in your place

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Then why are you preaching that He did?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “Right…” he said, hesitantly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    “But that sounds like Universalism!” he protested.

    “It sounds like that because it is.”

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

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

    “…”

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

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

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

    “Like what?”

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

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


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

  • Concordant Christology: Arianism vs Socinianism

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

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

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

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

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

  • The “Old Testament” proves Infernalism is unscriptural

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Out of the frying pan, into the fire

    Steve, one of the street preachers I speak with fairly regularly, likes to use his own conversion experience as proof that he’s been saved, and that those who disagree with his version of Christianity haven’t been. You see, he was apparently once a drug dealer on the streets of Toronto, involved in all manner of immorality, as he’d put it, and what’s worse, he even had long hair (he likes to show a picture of himself with longer hair from back then as a comparison to how he looks today with short hair, which he seems to think demonstrates to those who see it how much of a sinner he must have been at the time and how much better he is now), but at some point he remembered some of what he’d been taught about the Bible and started reading the Bible for himself and “got saved.”

    I wasn’t there at the time, of course, so I obviously don’t know all the details, but it sounds to me like he’d come to realize that some of the aspects of his life were destructive and he knew he had to change, and he probably would have changed regardless (as many people have done throughout history without becoming Christians). However, because he ended up having what’s known as a “conversion experience” at the same time, he ended up attributing that change to God and to ”getting saved” instead of that realization. And yes, God was indeed behind the change (at least from an absolute perspective), because God is behind absolutely everything that happens (all is of God, as Paul told us), but his changed lifestyle had nothing to do with getting saved in the scriptural sense of the term, because based on what Scripture says about salvation, it doesn’t appear that he’s actually been saved yet (from a relative perspective, of course). And so, what he doesn’t realize is that, while the life he left behind might have been harmful, the new life he swapped it for is far more dangerous, because he’s now a member of the Christian religion.

    How is the Christian religion more dangerous than drug dealing? Well, a drug dealer who hasn’t misunderstood Scripture yet can learn the Gospel and what it means and get saved, but it’s almost impossible for a Christian to do so, because they’ve deceived themselves into believing they’ve actually already been saved (relatively speaking), which means the vast majority of Christians are going to miss out on going to heaven at the Rapture, and will likely not get to experience salvation until the end of the ages, with many of them risking ending up in the lake of fire for a time instead (although, with God, all things are possible, and there are Christians who have gotten saved and left their religion, thankfully, even though it’s rare). You see, a drug dealer who hasn’t been corrupted by Christianity can hear Paul’s Gospel, which is the Good News that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, and realize this means that Christ has already dealt with sin once and for all, and that we no longer have to worry about sin at all because Christ took care of it for everyone (and so they can understand that this Good News means everyone will eventually experience salvation at some point, even if each in their own order). A drug dealer who hasn’t been been indoctrinated into believing the pillars of Rome by religious leaders can understand what it means that “He was buried,” because they haven’t been taught the doctrine that just His body was buried while He Himself went somewhere else altogether instead, as most Christians teach, and still understands what death actually is, and so they can actually believe all the elements of Paul’s Gospel and be saved. But perhaps most importantly of all, a drug dealer who hasn’t come to believe that he has to choose to believe something specific in order to get saved can still understand that he can’t save himself, as nearly all Christians believe and teach one must do (all the while not realizing they’re doing so, which might make this the most deceptive doctrine of Christianity there is, and please read that article I just linked to if you’re a Christian who thinks you don’t actually believe that, because unless you’re a Calvinist or a member of the actual body of Christ, you definitely do). And so, a drug dealer hasn’t yet been fooled into thinking they’ve been saved because they believed the false “gospel” of Christianity.

    Unfortunately for him (at least from a relative perspective, although God was ultimately behind it from an absolute perspective, so it will all work out for the best in the end), the devil made sure he misinterpreted the Bible, and so he joined the Christian religion instead of the body of Christ. Sadly, he also brought his family along with him for the ride, and most, if not all, of them have also joined this destructive religion of self-righteousness and self-worship, and they now regularly visit one of the most spiritually risky places a person can ever go: a church building. As many of us in the body of Christ have come to learn, it’s far safer, both physically and spiritually, to spend time in a strip club than in a church building, because at least in a strip club nobody is deceiving you about God and Scripture when they try to take a percentage of your money (nobody is teaching the false “gospel” of the Christian religion in a strip club, nor are they promoting unscriptural erotophobia, or teaching us that we should walk after the flesh rather than after the Spirit, the way the leaders of the Christian religion do).

    The problem is, while nearly everything Christians think is sinful actually isn’t, almost all of the actions and attitudes that they live by are extremely wrong (and often quite evil, all the while calling their actions and teachings righteous and good). As nearly everyone who looks in at it from the outside can see, greed, fear, paranoia, hunger for power, peer pressure, envy, hypocrisy, arrogance, prejudice, intolerance, anti-intellectualism, malice, spite, and all manner of other actual sins are the hallmarks of the Christian religion, but most Christians within the religion somehow just can’t see what is plainly evident to the rest of us. That said, where sin abounds, grace much more abounds, so even Christians can technically experience God’s grace (and eventually all of them will). But as far as those who don’t embrace His grace go, I really wouldn’t want to be a religious leader or Christian ”evangelist” at the final judgement, and those who willingly follow these leaders are in for a world of sorrow at that time as well (yes, it’s likely that most Christians will actually end up at the Great White Throne Judgement due to their believing a false gospel). If the citizens of the cities that rejected Jesus’ disciples are going to be judged more harshly than those of Sodom because they had the light revealed to them, how much more severely are those in Christendom who have the completed Scriptures going to be judged for ignoring, and even rejecting, the truths found therein, following the myths of their religious leaders instead because they prefer to have their self-righteous ears scratched?

    Now please don’t get me wrong. I like this guy and enjoy chatting with him, as well as with his sons, and he (and they) have never been anything but pleasant with me (unlike one of their fellow ”evangelists” who doesn’t let you get a word in edgewise between his “you’re walking in darkness” and “the Lord rebuke you” interruptions, seeming to be inspired by a demonic attempt to keep the truth from being spoken). In fact, it’s for this reason that I wish they would all see the light and join the body of Christ, because I feel badly for them. Sadly, the god of this world has blinded their minds, and so unless God opens their eyes, they won’t be able to believe the truth prior to the Great White Throne Judgement. But I’m not actually writing this for them (although I still pray they’ll read this, and that God will open their eyes) so much as for those of you who have actually been saved (relatively speaking), in order to remind those of you who might hear about a Christian’s “conversion experience” and may be tempted to think it means you’re actually wrong and should join (or return to) the Christian religion instead to remember that many people have changed their lives for the better without becoming Christians, and so joining this religion isn’t proof of anything (other than proof of their eventual “everlasting” destruction if they continue down the road they’re on, although, thankfully, ”everlasting” doesn’t mean ”without end”). And if fruit is evidence of having believed the truth, just remember the fruit of all those Christians you’ve met throughout your life (and even those who might be living better lives now in some ways than they were before they converted all have “secret sins” they hide from the rest of us, so remember that you’re only seeing the “fruit” they’ve made public). As nearly everybody who hasn’t been blinded by the “light” of the leaders of the Christian religion knows, the fruit of Christianity is anything but good, so don’t be tempted to return to it if you’ve already been saved from it, or to give it a try if you’ve been blessed enough to never have been imprisoned by it.

  • Events still to come

    I wrote the following in response to a post on Reddit some time back, and I thought it might be useful to share on my website as well, for those who aren’t necessarily entirely familiar with eschatology and what the various books of the Bible say is still to come. I should say, this is an updated version of an older article I once published, for those who find it familiar. I’ve now added links to scriptural references, in order to support the various assertions I make throughout the article, and have also edited it somewhat, which is why I’m re-publishing it (so please be sure to click the links as you read if you aren’t familiar with the scriptural basis for some of the claims). Keep in mind that the following is based on the common interpretation of those in the true body of Christ, which means it’s coming from a Premillennial Dispensationalist perspective (and a Hyperdispensationalist perspective at that, although there are Ultradispensationalist “Concordant” believers, and even the odd traditional Dispensationalist “Concordant” believer, as well) rather than an Ammillennial or a Preterist (or even a Partial Preterist) perspective. And so, without further delay, here is a list of events that are still to come:

    Before the tribulation begins (or at least by the midway point, although more likely shortly before it begins), the dead members of the body of Christ (meaning those who believed Paul’s Gospel) will be resurrected, and they, along with the still living members, will be quickened (made immortal) and taken to the heavens (which means taken somewhere in outer space) at the event known as the Rapture.

    Next comes the tribulation, in which 144,000 Israelites (these won’t be Gentiles, but will be taken from each of the 12 tribes of Israel, although many of them will quite likely not have known they were Israelites — of the 10 “lost tribes” — since they’ll have grown up in Gentile nations) will proclaim the Gospel of the kingdom and help many Jews come to believe in Jesus as their Messiah and as the Son of God. This is too big a topic to explain here, but many of us believe that, near the beginning of the tribulation, the Christian religion will become very popular, at least in North America (with Islam probably becoming very prevalent in Europe instead), likely having been popularized by the one known as the false prophet and the one known as the beast (sometimes referred to as the antichrist), although it will be destroyed around the mid-way point, and many of its followers will be killed by spirits, with the false prophet then proclaiming the beast as the one to worship. Around the mid-point of the tribulation, the beast will betray Israel, and many Israelites will become slaves among the Gentile nations.

    Near the end of the tribulation (some believe right at the end of it, but it could be as much as a year prior to the end of the seven-year period), Jesus will return to the earth, eventually touching down on the Mount of Olives the same way He left, and will cast the beast and the false prophet into the lake of fire (most likely referring to evil spirits possessing actual humans, with the humans presumably dying in the process, since mortal humans can’t live while on fire).

    After returning, He’ll send angels to gather all Israelites from all over the world to Israel to judge them, and those who believed their Gospel and endured to the end will get to live in the kingdom in Israel, while the others will be cast into the metaphoric “furnace of fire,” meaning they’ll weep and gnash their teeth because they’ll have to live in the “outer darkness” of the rest of the world, far from the light of the kingdom (although some will be cast into the actual lake of fire instead, depending on their actions, which will be located in the Valley of Hinnom — which is also synecdochically translated as “hell” in the KJV — at that time).

    He’ll also gather the nations to Israel to be judged, around that same time, and those who treated believing Jews well during the tribulation (it’s believing Jews who are Jesus’ brethren in this judgement, not Gentile Christians) will get to live in Israel, while everyone else will also be forced to live in the figuratively named “everlasting fire,” which is the same “furnace of fire” that the non-believing Jews will have to live in, meaning parts of the planet that aren’t Israel, where they (well, more likely their distant offspring) will be prepared for the devil and his angels to rise up against Israel one last time at the end of the Millennium (the “fire prepared for the devil and his angels” isn’t the lake of fire; it’s a figure of speech for the locations that the “goats” will be living in).

    Next, 75 days after the tribulation ends (compare the numbers in Daniel 12:11-13 to the numbers in Revelation 13:5 to understand the 75 day difference), those dead members of the Israel of God (meaning all the righteous Israelites throughout history up to that point, as well as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and any of their righteous family members) will be resurrected and quickened (this is known as the resurrection of the just, as well as Israel’s “first resurrection”). I’m not dogmatic about this next statement, but my belief is that the still living members of the Israel of God will not be quickened at this time, but will remain alive during the Millennium by eating of the fruit of the tree of life, which will likely be returned to the earth at that point, or moved from a hiding place to Israel if it’s been on earth all this time. Either way, they’ll remain on earth to help the 144,000 rule over the earth.

    Satan is also bound up in the “bottomless pit” around this time, where he’ll be bound for 1,000 years to plot his revenge, which he’ll carry out when he’s released at the end of the Millennium, as already mentioned, although he’ll once again fail, and this time be bound in the lake of fire for the duration of the fifth and final age (I should note, for those who aren’t familiar with the doctrine of the ages — also known as the doctrine of the eons — we’re currently living in the third age, with the Millennium being the fourth age).

    Afterwards, earth and the rest of the universe will be destroyed, but a new heaven and a new earth will be created to replace them (this is necessary because the universe as it currently is would eventually go through heat death anyway, so the whole thing has to be “rebuilt” in order for it, and us, to exist forever), and anyone who is dead will be resurrected (but not quickened) for the Great White Throne Judgement (this Judgement might take place prior to the creation of the new heaven and new earth, but they both take place around the same time).

    Some will then be cast into the lake of fire to die a second time, although I suspect most will make it onto the new earth to live through that final age in mortal and/or semi-mortal bodies (“semi-mortal” meaning bodies that don’t die as long as they partake of the fruit and leaves of the tree of life, although there will still be mortal humans and death on the new earth, at least until the final age ends, as well, even if those who get to live in the New Jerusalem never have to worry about dying again). During this age (as well as the one before it, which was the Millennium), the body of Christ is reconciling “fallen” spiritual beings to God, and the Israel of God is bringing humanity under subjection to Christ (although, as far as humans go, this was likely all accomplished during the Millennium).

    Finally, at the end of this final age (at the time those of us in the body of Christ refer to as the end of the ages), after all still living humans and all spiritual beings (including Satan) have been reconciled to God, Christ will resurrect those who died and who were burned up in the lake of fire, and quicken them, along with all the mortal and semi-mortal humans (presumably including the members of the Israel of God who haven’t been quickened yet, assuming they weren’t quickened at the second coming), which will be what “destroys death,” as Paul put it. He’ll then turn all reign over to His God and Father, who will then be All in all (not just All in some), which means every human who will have ever lived will have been saved by this point. I should add, details when it comes to the final age are not particularly clear (some of it is based on having to properly interpret parables, among other highly figurative language), and there is reason to believe that some will be working in some way to pay “the uttermost farthing” during it (don’t confuse this for working for salvation, though, since this isn’t actually connected to salvation, at least not the salvation under Paul’s Gospel), or perhaps that those who died the second death will be resurrected (but not quickened) at various points during the age as well, after their “sentence” has come to an end, but what we do know for sure is that they’ll all be resurrected and quickened (which means finally saved — one hasn’t fully experienced salvation until they’ve been quickened) by the end of it.

  • How one baptism proves two Gospels

    Apparent contradictions in the Bible are some of the greatest evidences that there are at least two Gospels. Please note that I’m not saying these things actually are contradictions. I’m just saying that they seem to be contradictions if one doesn’t consider the proper context of each passage, and also that taking the context into consideration demonstrates how there has to be at least two separate sets of teachings for two separate groups of people in Scripture, including two separate Gospels.

    For example, Paul wrote in Ephesians 4:4-6 that “there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Now think carefully about what he said in that passage. He told his written audience that there’s only one baptism, and yet we know from the rest of Scripture that there are many different baptisms, not just one (some dry and some wet; while the word “baptism” can mean to wash something in water, the word literally just means “submersion” or “immersion,” and not all immersions in Scripture are in water). How can Paul teach that there’s only one baptism without contradicting the rest of the Bible? I mean, just look at all the different types of baptism mentioned in Scripture:

    • Baptism into Moses (1 Corinthians 10:1-2): Paul talks about Israel’s baptism into Moses “in the cloud and in the sea.” Water was present, of course, but the people remained dry.
    • Israel’s ceremonial cleansings (Numbers 19:13Leviticus 11:25Exodus 30:17-21Hebrews 9:10): When John the Baptist started dunking people in water, they already knew exactly what he was doing and why. Nobody asked him, “What are you doing? Why are you getting all of these people wet?” This is because water baptism was something that was required under the Mosaic Law for the cleansing of the people, so they were already quite familiar with the concept.
    • Levitical priesthood baptisms (Exodus 29:4Leviticus 8:6Numbers 8:7): These were baptisms in water which were required in order to become a priest under the Mosaic law.
    • John’s baptism (Matthew 3:5-6Mark 1:4Luke 3:3John 1:31Luke 7:29Acts 10:37): John baptized Israelites with water for the forgiveness of sins, so they could live in the promised kingdom when it begins on earth (specifically in Israel), and could identify their Messiah.
    • The baptism of Jesus to fulfill the law (Matthew 3:13-17Mark 1:9-10): Jesus, who didn’t need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, since He never sinned himself, was nevertheless baptized by John to “fulfil all righteousness” under the law.
    • Baptism with fire (Isaiah 4:4Malachi 3:2-3Matthew 3:11Luke 3:16): Jesus will baptize Israel with purifying (albeit mostly figurative) “fire” when they go through the Tribulation.
    • Pentecostal water baptism (Acts 2:38Mark 16:16Acts 22:16Ezekiel 36:25): Water baptism for the forgiveness of sins in the name of Jesus. This was the same sort of baptism as John’s baptism, but was now being done in the name of Jesus, and was quite necessary for salvation under the Gospel the disciples preached.
    • Baptism with (or in) the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 44:3Matthew 3:11Mark 1:8Acts 2:17-18Acts 8:15-17Acts 11:16): This is the baptism with the Holy Spirit, poured out from heaven by Jesus upon the believing remnant of Israel with signs and powers following.
    • Baptism into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13Ephesians 4:5Colossians 2:12Galatians 3:27Romans 6:3-4): The immersion of a believer into the body of Christ, which identifies them with what He experienced in His body, including His death, His burial, and His resurrection. This baptism is performed by the Spirit — not with (or in or of) the Spirit — at the time one believes the Gospel, and is immersion in the body of Christ, not immersion in water.

    There are other types of baptism I didn’t include in that list as well, but that should be enough to prove that there are many different types of baptism mentioned in the Bible. So how is it that Paul can say there’s only one baptism when there are clearly so many? Well, by realizing that Paul simply meant there’s only one type of baptism for those among his written audience, meaning for members of the church called the body of Christ. He wasn’t saying that there aren’t other types of baptisms which those outside the body of Christ (such as those in the Israel of God) can participate in, though; just that the “one baptism” he was referring to was the only baptism for those of us in the body of Christ (and I trust it’s clear that the “one baptism” he wrote about would have to be the final one in the list).

    Now, some do claim that Paul just meant we should only be baptized in water once in our lives rather than repeatedly, but he preceded the words “one baptism” with the words ”one hope” and ”one faith,” and I certainly hope nobody would think we should only have hope or faith once in our lives, so that interpretation doesn’t really fit with the rest of the passage, which tells us he’s really just saying that there’s only one type of baptism for us — one which doesn’t involve water at all.

    I should say, yes, members of the body of Christ did get baptized in water at the beginning of Paul’s ministry, and he even baptized a few members himself, back when he was still trying to convince Israelites to follow their own Gospel (the Gospel of the Kingdom, also known as the Gospel of the Circumcision). But by the time he got closer to the end of his ministry, the glorified Christ had taught him that the dispensation (or administration) of the body of Christ has no rudiments (meaning elements) or ordinances at all because we are complete in Christ, who is the end of all religion for those in His body. Returning to the shadows and types of rituals and rites in any way whatsoever would rob us of the full enjoyment of both our possessions and freedom in Christ, and so we no longer baptize members of the body of Christ in water. But we do still get baptized, by the Holy Spirit (and not with, or in, the Holy Spirit), into Christ’s body. We just don’t get wet when we get baptized, the way Israelites were supposed to (and are still supposed to when they come to believe their own Gospel).

    The fact that water baptism is said to be necessary for salvation under the Gospel of the kingdom, whereas our baptism doesn’t involve water at all, is really all the proof you need that there is more than one Gospel taught in Scripture, and understanding how to resolve apparent contradictions in the Bible like this one is not only beneficial to one’s faith, it also helps one properly interpret Scripture, because this isn’t the only apparent contradiction that is resolved by understanding the difference between the two Gospels. Scripture is full of things that differ, yet which reveal the existence of two Gospels because they do, so please read that article as well, to learn the multitude of differences between the body of Christ and the Israel of God, as well as what our respective Gospels (not to mention salvations) consist of.