Author: D.C.

When discussing the topic of Universal Reconciliation, some Christians like to argue that God wouldn’t force everyone to live with Him forever in heaven, because they think He wouldn’t do anything that would go against our supposed ”free will” (many also try to sanitize the idea of never-ending torment in hell or in the lake of fire by claiming that it would somehow actually be more cruel to force people to be in His presence, or to live with Him in heaven, than it would be to let them suffer forever in a lake of fire or to cease to exist forever, although this assertion just goes to show that they don’t even know what the word “heaven” really refers to in Scripture, or just how enormous it is, not to mention the fact that many who die will be resurrected to live on the New Earth as regular, mortal humans again — yes, there will be mortal humans, and even death, on the New Earth during the final age, at least for those who don’t reside in the New Jerusalem, as Isaiah 65:17-20 tells us — and if someone really doesn’t want to be in God’s presence during that particular age, they can do so by simply avoiding the New Jerusalem, since that’s where God will be at that time, at least until the fifth and final age ends).

Now, while their assumptions about “free will” aren’t actually supported by either Scripture or science (we all have a will, but it certainly isn’t free), they are correct that God won’t force everyone (or even anyone) to go to heaven against their will, because the only people who will get to live in heaven are the relatively few people to whom He gives the will to want to be with Him there, and once He’s given them the will to want to be there, it could no longer be said to be against their will (and there’s no scriptural basis for saying that God can’t or won’t change people’s wills; the idea that He can’t or won’t is simply a presupposition one is forced to read into Scripture, since this assumption is, in fact, quite contrary to what Scripture actually teaches). This fact is technically irrelevant to this particular discussion, however, because going to heaven isn’t what we’re talking about when we say that God will save everyone anyway. Salvation — at least the type referred to in Paul’s Gospel — is primarily about being made immortal, and hence sinless; it has nothing to do with “going to heaven” at all, at least not when we’re talking about salvation from an absolute perspective. Of course, there is a form of salvation that does include getting to live in heaven (since the word “salvation” has multiple meanings in Scripture), and it’s true that not everyone will get to experience that particular form of salvation, just like not everyone gets to experience the type of salvation Jesus spoke about while He walked the earth either, but the apostle Paul is very clear that everyone will eventually be made immortal and sinless because Christ died for our sins, and because He was buried and rose again the third day, which is the same thing as saying that everyone will eventually experience the salvation he wrote about because of what Christ did, at least from an absolute perspective.

The confusion arises because most Christians aren’t aware of what Scripture actually says about what’s to come, and hence read the soteriological and eschatological presuppositions they’ve been taught by their religious leaders (as well as the so-called ”free will” that they worship so heartily) into Scripture rather than carefully studying Scripture for themselves to find out what it actually teaches. Most Christians just aren’t aware of the fact that a literal afterlife realm called “hell” is not a scriptural concept at all (the English word ”hell” is a figurative term with many different meanings, depending on the context of the passage it’s used it, and none of them have anything to do with what people typically think of when they hear the word), or that the lake of fire is something entirely different from what they’ve assumed it is as well. And, in fact, few are aware that it’s actually mortality and death (and sinfulness because of our mortality) that we’re saved from, not hell or the lake of fire (although those who join the body of Christ will have the added benefit of not having to worry about the second death, as will the Israelites who experience the Resurrection of the Just, but that’s because we’ll have been made immortal and won’t be able to die a second time when the lake of fire becomes a place people can die a second time in rather than for the reasons that most Christians assume).

So when we take the facts into consideration, and realize that salvation from an absolute perspective means being resurrected from the dead (if one has died) and being made immortal (and hence sinless), the argument against Universal Reconciliation based on the idea that forcing people into heaven, or even into God’s presence, against their will would be wrong becomes quite silly, because we aren’t claiming that God is going to do anything of the sort anyway. Anybody who hasn’t joined the body of Christ and has died will be resurrected to live on the new earth, not to live in heaven with the body of Christ, and being resurrected without prior permission is going to happen whether one likes it or not, according to the Bible (and I’m not aware of any Christians who disagree with this fact, since it would be difficult for the dead to be judged at the Great White Throne without first being resurrected), so it can’t be a resurrection without prior permission that they’re complaining about. And if God later resurrects those people who happen to die a second time in the lake of fire without their permission (as He told us He will through the apostle Paul), well, A) I see no reason why He’d need to have their permission for that resurrection any more than He would have needed to for their first resurrection, but B) I’m pretty sure everyone who died a second time will be happy to be resurrected a second time as well anyway, so it’s likely a moot point.

And if it’s okay for God to resurrect everyone without their prior permission, I see no reason to claim it would then be wrong for Him to eventually also make everyone immortal and sinless — meaning to save everyone — without their permission, if that’s what He wants to happen (which it is). In fact, it would be difficult for an Infernalist (meaning a believer in eternal torment) to argue that it would be wrong for God to make someone immortal against their will, because they already believe He’s done so, based on their belief in the unscriptural doctrine of the immortality of the soul, which means all they can really argue is that it would be wrong for God to make people sinless without them first choosing to be sinless apart from Him giving them the will to be sinless, and to not punish people without end (even if it would go against their will to be punished) if they don’t choose to do what the Christians think they themselves did in order to get saved (which is what this whole disagreement about Universal Reconciliation is actually about). But even if it were true that God had to respect our choices over His own (which isn’t actually a scriptural assumption, but for the sake of argument, let’s pretend it is for a moment), it seems likely that the people He resurrected would prefer to be made immortal and perfect rather than die a third time anyway, so this would also likely be a moot point if God actually had to respect our wishes over His own.

The real problem, as I see it, isn’t in God choosing to save everyone without their prior permission. The real problem is in how the Infernalists and Annihilationists ignore what Scripture teaches about salvation and the future of humanity, preferring to believe what they’ve been taught by their religious leaders rather than taking the time to study the Scriptures for themselves to find out what God really says about the subjects, and also preferring that other people be punished forever if they don’t first have to do what the Christians believe they themselves had to do in order to get saved.

[By the way, I also recommend reading my older article, Is God a gentleman?, for another take on this topic.]

Pretty much anyone who has ever affirmed the truth that God really is the Saviour of all mankind to an Infernalist (someone who believes in the doctrine of everlasting torment) or to an Annihilationist (someone who believes that some people will cease to exist forever after the Great White Throne Judgement) has been asked a variation of the question, “If everybody will be saved, what’s the point…?”

There are a number of ways the question can go from there, but we’ve all heard one or more of those variations at one time or another. I’ll get to each of the variations momentarily, but before I do, it’s important for you to realize that these questions say a lot more about the person asking them than they do about the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation itself. Anyone who asks any of these questions is demonstrating just what the extent of their reasoning abilities, not to mention their scriptural knowledge, really is, and they’re also revealing something about their true character to us. And so, with that in mind, let’s take a look at some of the variations of this very common question:

• If everybody will be saved, what’s the point of Jesus’ death?

Any Christian who asks this question should be deeply ashamed of themselves. Why? Well, let’s reword it slightly: “If anybody will be saved, what’s the point of Jesus’ death?” The answer to both questions is the exact same: “Without His death, nobody could be saved.” You’d think this would be obvious, but because most Christians don’t actually think Jesus accomplished anything through His death (since most of them believe that nobody is actually saved by His death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection, but rather that we have to do something to help save ourselves on top of what He accomplished, by having to choose to believe and/or do something specific, thus completing the last step of our salvation for ourselves), it often slips their minds entirely that, whether only one person gets saved or whether everyone gets saved, His death for our sins (and subsequent burial and resurrection on the third day) was still 100% necessary for that salvation.

So if you’re a Christian who has asked this question, go contemplate why you think so little of what Christ accomplished through the cross. And if you’re a believer who has been asked this question by a Christian, consider whether your time might be better spent doing pretty much anything other than discussing spiritual matters with that person.

• If everybody will be saved, what’s the point of being good or avoiding sin or evil?

This is often followed up with a statement along the lines of, ”If I knew for sure that everyone would be saved in the end, I’d be out there raping and murdering people, since I’d know there would be no consequences for it.” Now, I sincerely hope they’re not being serious when they say things like this, but considering the number of Christians who have made statements like this to me, I’m beginning to wonder. I mean, I personally believe that everyone will experience salvation in the end, and it’s never even crossed my mind to do those sorts of things, so it’s very disturbing, to say the least, that this is where so many Christian minds immediately go.

However, while it’s tempting to skip over this question because of how depraved it tells us the minds of the ones making these assertions might be, I’m going give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that they’re simply using hyperbole there (although I still wouldn’t spend any time alone with them, just to be safe), and I’ll go ahead and answer the question (and, to be fair, there are a few people who ask the question without including that additional disturbing statement as well).

Now, there are a number of answers to this question, but the first thing to consider is that doing good is often a reward in and of itself (at least for people who aren’t sociopaths). I personally do as much good as I can simply because I enjoy doing nice things for people, and I avoid doing evil to people because I don’t want to hurt other people. That said, it’s true that doing good can instead result in evil being done to the person doing good at times, so that isn’t necessarily going to be the strongest motivation for everyone at all times. However, Scripture also tells us that we’ll reap what we sow, even if perhaps not in this lifetime, so it’s ultimately still worth it in the long run.

The next thing to consider, especially if one is a member of the body of Christ, is that there are rewards to be had in the impending ages for the actions we take today (I’m not talking about salvation, but rather rewards on top of the salvation and reconciliation Christ won for us through the blood of His cross), and I would personally like to enjoy as many of those rewards as I can when the time comes.

And as far as everyone else goes, this next part is going to sound strange to most Christians, because few Christians are particularly familiar with what Scripture teaches, but the end result of the Great White Throne Judgement is based entirely upon the actions of those being judged there, and has nothing to do with whether one has been saved or not. While those who have been saved prior to this judgement will get to miss out on being judged at that time, the end result of this judgement has no connection with salvation beyond that, but is instead based entirely on whether one’s works were primarily good or primarily evil (and not based on whether they sinned, I should add, since ”sin” is something entirely different from “evil” — not to mention the fact that all sin has already been dealt with completely by Christ’s death, and is no longer something anybody should concern themselves with any more).

The fact of the matter is, most people who are going to be judged at the Great White Throne will actually get to go live on the new earth (only a relatively small number of people — basically the worst of the worst — will die a second time in the lake of fire). Now this probably sounds confusing to most Christians, because most of them have assumed that salvation is from being punished forever in the lake of fire, but that’s not quite right. While it is true that anyone who is saved in this lifetime won’t have to worry about the possibility of suffering the second death, this is because salvation from an absolute perspective is ultimately about being made immortal (and hence sinless), and nobody who will be judged at the Great White Throne will have been made immortal at that time, which means getting to live on the new earth after this judgement isn’t the same thing as being saved (the fact that they haven’t been made immortal also means that nobody can suffer any longer than it takes to burn up in the lake of fire, I should add). Now, that doesn’t mean anyone who manages to avoid the lake of fire will necessarily also eventually die a second time because they haven’t been made immortal, but this is because many of them will instead be amortal instead.

This probably calls for a quick lexicon break. Basically, there are four states that a human can be in. The first state is mortal. This means that one’s body is in the process of slowly dying, and that it eventually will die if something doesn’t happen to change their state before their death occurs. The second state is dead (which I assume I don’t have to go into too much detail on, except to say that one who is dead is no longer conscious in any way). The third state is immortal. This means that one’s body is no longer in the process of slowly dying, and in fact that they are now incapable of ever dying (Christ Jesus is currently the only human who is immortal, at least as of the time this was written, but as each human finally fully experiences their own eschatological salvation, they’ll be made immortal as well). And the fourth state is amortal. This means that one is not in the process of slowly dying the way we mortal beings are now (partaking of the fruit of the tree of life once a month would be one reason for someone to be in this state, for those who have never heard of this concept and are wondering how it could be possible), but that they are still capable of being killed, and even of entering the state of being mortal again (if one stopped eating the fruit on a monthly basis, it would seem they would become mortal again). Adam and Eve were in this state prior to their sin (they couldn’t have been immortal, or else they wouldn’t have been capable of becoming mortal after they sinned, and in fact likely wouldn’t have even sinned in the first place), and Jesus was also likely in this state while He walked the earth, prior to His resurrection and quickening (quickening meaning the process of being made immortal).

So with that in mind, it should go without saying that people should try to avoid being the worst sort of evil-doer so that they can avoid dying a second time in the lake of fire after the Great White Throne Judgement, but people also need to try to live good lives if they want to avoid other negative sentences at this judgement. For example, Jesus explained that people who don’t forgive others’ debts will have to ”pay the last farthing” (perhaps as prisoners, or perhaps even as slaves of some sort to those people they wronged) while on the new earth prior to getting to enjoy their time there. And for those who are concerned that this means one can earn their salvation through works, salvation is connected with being made immortal, not with being mortal, as these people will be, or even with being amortal, as these people will be for some time after they’ve paid their debt, so this isn’t about salvation at all. That being said, Paul tells us that, by the end of the ages, everyone who is amortal on the New Earth will eventually experience salvation by being made immortal, and even those who have died a second time in the lake of fire will be resurrected, and this time to immortality, because of what Christ accomplished.

So bottom line, doing good and avoiding evil will still be extremely beneficial to anyone who is able to do so.

• If everybody will be saved, what’s the point of telling others to be good or to avoid sin or evil?

Aside from what you just read, telling others to be good or to avoid sinning isn’t going to save them anyway (since salvation isn’t based upon works), so the same question could be asked of anyone who doesn’t believe in the salvation of all. But what I wrote above does still apply, so I think that’s probably all that needs to be said as far as this variation of the question goes.

• If everybody will be saved, what’s the point of believing the Gospel?

Well, first things first, one either hears the Gospel and believes it, or they hear it and they don’t. A person can’t choose to believe anything (outside, perhaps, of some extreme form of self-inflicted brainwashing, but I doubt even that’s possible), so whether or not one believes the Gospel after hearing it comes down to whether their brain is currently in a state that’s receptive to believing it at that time or not, and if it is, they will believe it and they will be saved (although, whether it is in such a state at that time is entirely based on God making sure it is, because only the elect can believe the Gospel in this lifetime, with the rest having their minds blinded by the god of this world, but that’s a whole other discussion for another time). Of course, it also helps to know what the Gospel actually is and what it means (but that’s probably also a discussion for another time).

That said, those who do happen to believe the Gospel that Paul taught will get to enjoy “everlasting life” in the heavens (which is just a figurative term that means one gets to enjoy life in the kingdom of God during the next age or two, prior to the time everyone else will experience salvation), and perhaps even reign in the heavens during the next two ages, and I’d rather enjoy that than miss out on it, even if I’d still get to enjoy salvation later if I missed out on it. But if someone isn’t interested in “everlasting life,” that’s their prerogative (from a relative perspective, of course), and they’ll still get to enjoy salvation at the end of the ages, even if they miss out on a lot of bliss in the meantime.

• If everybody will be saved, what’s the point of preaching the Gospel?

Humans can’t help but share news, and that goes for good news too. So even though I don’t have to do so, I can’t stop myself from proclaiming the good news that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, and that, because of this, everyone who has been made mortal because of what Adam did will also eventually be quickened (meaning they’ll be made immortal, also known as experiencing salvation) because of what Christ did. But if you don’t feel so inclined to share this good news, or at least don’t find yourself wanting to (or perhaps able to) share it with everyone, that’s okay, because everyone will still experience salvation in the end because of what this good news means.

”That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” – Romans 10:9-10

Misunderstanding what Paul wrote in Romans 10:9-10 has caused a lot of confusion and consternation among many people, and has also led to some pretty bad doctrines (such as “Lordship salvation,” as just one example). Even many within the body of Christ have read this passage and wondered how to square it with Paul’s Gospel, which is simply the Good News that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day.

Now, those of us in the body of Christ are well aware of the fact that everyone has already been saved from an absolute perspective — and that everyone will eventually experience that salvation physically (meaning they’ll be made immortal and perfect) by the end of the ages — because of what the Good News proclaimed by Paul ultimately means. (If you aren’t already familiar with this fact, please read this article.)

But what about salvation from a relative perspective (meaning the salvation which brings one ”eternal life,” which is a figurative term that simply refers to enjoying life in the kingdom of God during the impending age known as the Millennium)? Well, as the article I linked to above explains, there are different types of “relative” salvations, and different ways of experiencing “eternal life” in the kingdom (some will do so on earth, and some in the heavens), but the two salvations we’re concerned with here are the salvations experienced from a relative perspective under the Gospel of the Circumcision, also known as the Gospel of the kingdom, and from a relative perspective under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, also known as Paul’s Gospel. (For those of you who aren’t familiar with the scriptural basis for the difference between these two Gospels, please read this article.)

As I’ve discussed in many places on this website, anyone to whom God has given the faith to truly believe Paul’s Gospel will experience “eternal life” in the heavens, which is salvation from a relative perspective under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. This means that, while it isn’t the choice to believe the Good News Paul preached as his Gospel that saves someone (our relative salvation is based on God’s sovereign election of those of us in the body of Christ long before we were ever born, and has nothing to do with any decisions we make), someone who does truly understand and believe the Good News that Christ died for our sins (which means that everybody’s sins have been taken care of and are no longer an issue for any human who ever has existed or ever will exist, and thus everyone will eventually experience salvation), that He was buried (which means that He ceased to exist as a conscious being when He died), and that He rose again from His metaphorical sleep on the third day (which means that He was resurrected from the dead into a physical body here on earth and not as a ghost in an ethereal afterlife dimension), has been brought into membership in the body of Christ and will enjoy “eternal life” in the heavens at the Rapture. One thing you’ll notice that Paul didn’t mention in that message of good news, which is what he told his readers they believed when they were saved (relatively speaking), is that they had to confess Jesus as Lord in order to be saved, and yet verse 10 of Romans 10 seems to make it clear that the salvation written about there is based on confession. Now, this doesn’t mean that Jesus isn’t Lord to us, of course, since we’re told elsewhere that He is, but His Lordship isn’t something Paul said his readers confessed at the time they were brought into membership in the body when he explained what they did when they were saved (nor does he say it’s something that they or we have to confess in order to be brought into the body; in fact, it’s having faith that the good news is true which he considers to be the important thing we do, as he makes clear all throughout the rest of his epistles, so there’s no good reason to take this one reference to confession being necessary for salvation that happens to be sitting in the middle of a series of chapters which were primarily about Israel and their salvation and applying it to us, especially when it would contradict everything else we know about our salvation).

On the other hand, while Romans 10:9-10 says that someone who experiences the salvation that “confessing Jesus as Lord and believing God raised Him from the dead” brings will indeed believe God resurrected Jesus (just as we believe), which means they would obviously also have to believe that He died (just as we believe), there isn’t anything in that verse about His death being “for our sins,” which is a crucial part of what we believe when we’re saved under our Gospel. The most important part of the belief connected to the sort of salvation Paul is talking about in Romans 10 is Jesus’ resurrection, not His death for our sins. It might not seem like it, but these are important distinctions between these two different sets of belief here.

Of course, most people are under the impression that there’s only one Gospel to be believed in Scripture. This right here, however, demonstrates quite clearly how there is definitely more than one thing that a person can believe in order to be saved (figuratively speaking; again, it isn’t the actual belief that saves us). As I’ve already alluded to, something we need to keep in mind is that Romans chapters 9 through 11 are primarily about Israelites (it’s not 100% about Israelites, but they’re the main focus of those chapters, including in the passage in question), and Paul’s point about confessing and believing in that passage was connected to what Israelites have to believe in order to be saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision, which is that Jesus is the Christ, aka the Messiah, and that He is the Son of God. Salvation/“eternal life” under this Gospel has nothing to do with the salvation of all humanity the way Paul’s Gospel does, nor does it have anything to do with residing in the heavens during the impending ages, but is actually about getting to live in the part of the kingdom of God that will be on planet earth — specifically in Israel — during the Millennium. Christ’s death “for our sins” wasn’t included anywhere in the Gospel that Jesus or anyone else preached prior to Paul proclaiming his specific Gospel to the nations, and Jesus’ resurrection was only an important part of their Gospel inasmuch as it proves He’s still able to be their Messiah because He’s no longer dead (with the confession about Him being Lord being connected to Him being the Son of God).

So don’t worry if you haven’t verbally proclaimed that Jesus is Lord. One day you, and everyone else, will, of course. But in the meantime, the only way to be saved under Paul’s Gospel is for God to choose to give you the faith to understand and believe what it means that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day.

Did Jesus Christ save you, or did you save yourself? Most Christians will claim to believe that Jesus saved them, but when you look at the facts it becomes apparent that they actually believe God only helps those who help themselves, and that they believe they are, in fact, their own (at least partial) saviours, even though they might not realize this is what they actually believe.

How can I say that? Well, as Paul told us, Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and He rose again the third day. This truth is what Paul called his Gospel, or the good news that he preached. Does this good news mean that Christ saved me? If I’m saved because of the fact of Christ’s death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection, and because of that fact alone (regardless of whether I believe it or not), then it can indeed be said that Christ saved me (and that He saved everyone else too). In fact, it’s because His death for our sins, and subsequent burial and resurrection, did save everyone that Paul called this the good news which he proclaimed (and note that it is indeed a proclamation, not a proposition).

If, on the other hand — after Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection — I’m not saved, because I haven’t believed the fact that He did the above, then it can’t be said that Christ actually saved me (because I haven’t actually been saved yet), nor can it be said that He is my Saviour (because someone can’t be said to be a person’s saviour without having actually saved that person, or at least guaranteeing their future salvation), and really, this “gospel” can’t actually be called good news at all, at least not for most people (it might be good news for a small number of people who are able to believe it, in the sense that they themselves will get saved, but even for the relative few who do believe, most of them will lose all sorts of loved ones forever, possibly even to be tortured in fire, which can really only legitimately be called good news to the most selfish sort of person — meaning the sort of person who can be happy with their loved ones suffering forever and never seeing them again as long as they themselves get to escape being punished — but that’s really a whole other topic so I’ll leave it at that).

And so, even though Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, most Christians teach that I still have to help myself before God will help me, because there’s still something specific I myself have to do in order to get saved, which is choose to believe a very specific thing. (And hopefully I was born smart enough and/or wise enough and/or humble enough and/or righteous enough, or at least have built up the necessary intelligence and/or wisdom and/or humility and/or righteousness at this point in my life to be able to make the right decision to believe the necessary thing that saves me, because what Jesus did wasn’t enough on its own to save me without my choice to believe in that specific thing, and if I can’t help myself by bringing myself to choose to believe that specific thing, I’m out of luck and God just won’t help me, so here’s hoping that whatever isn’t in those who can’t bring themselves to choose to believe the right thing is in me so that I can, or if it’s the other way around, hopefully whatever is in them that prevents them from choosing to believe the right thing isn’t in me so that I can.) Of course, some will also add certain actions — such as repentance of sin, confessing Jesus as Lord, and even water baptism, among other things — to the requirements for salvation, but for now let’s keep it simple and just leave it at having to choose to believe something very specific in order to get saved, especially since adding additional requirements on top of choosing to believe something specific won’t actually change anything about my point that the common belief is Jesus’ death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection, just wasn’t enough to save anyone without them having to add to what He did by choosing to believe something specific.

What is that specific thing I have to choose to believe, though, in order to be saved? Well, it can’t be that I have to believe Jesus is my Saviour, or that Jesus saved me, because we’ve already determined that He isn’t my Saviour (since otherwise I’d already be guaranteed salvation) and that He didn’t save me yet, so to believe He did save me when He didn’t actually do so would be believing a lie, and I hope no Christian would claim that we have to believe a lie in order to get saved (or that believing a lie somehow turns said lie into the truth).

If there is anything we have to choose to believe in order to be saved, I would suggest that it’s simply the Good News that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day. But even if choosing to believe that Good News is what saves us, we still can’t legitimately say that it’s Jesus who saved us. We can say that He contributed to our salvation, and even that what He contributed was a crucial component of our salvation, but at the end of the day we could only claim that we ultimately saved ourselves, or at least participated in saving ourselves by completing our salvation through choosing to believe the right thing.

If this still isn’t clear, remember that we weren’t saved prior to our choosing to believe the good news (at least according to the traditional Christian perspective). Up until we hear the good news, Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection, accomplished absolutely nothing (at least for us) because we’re still not saved yet. Think about it: if the traditional Christian perspective is correct, at the time that Jesus walked out the tomb, nobody could have possibly been saved yet, which means His death for our sins, His burial, and His resurrection had accomplished literally nothing for anybody yet. At that point, He wasn’t anybody’s saviour because nobody had been saved yet, since nobody even knew about — much less believed in — His death for our sins and His resurrection yet, which means that even His disciples couldn’t have been saved at that point — contrary to what Luke 10:20 seems to imply — because they didn’t even believe in His resurrection yet, nor were they aware that His death was for our sins (and it’s important to remember that Jesus’ disciples didn’t even understand that He was going to die prior to it actually happening).

What actually can save us, according to Christianity, is our choice to believe the Good News that He died for our sins and was buried and rose again the third day, after we hear this Good News. If we hear it and don’t choose to believe, we’re still not saved. If we hear it and do choose to believe it, we get saved. So, in the end, what is it that makes the difference as far as our salvation goes? Well, if we aren’t saved prior to our choice to believe, then obviously it’s our choice to believe that makes the difference. This ultimately means that, even if Jesus contributed a vital element of our salvation by doing the thing we need to choose to believe in so that we can be saved, it’s our choice to believe that message which ultimately seals the deal and saves us, meaning that we are our own saviours, and that we save ourselves by choosing to believe the Good News. Which also means that Jesus Christ is not your saviour, but only a contributor to your salvation (at least if the traditional Christian idea that we can’t be saved if we don’t choose to believe the Gospel is true).

So make sure to choose to believe the Gospel in order to save yourself, since Christ wasn’t able to save you on His own, and God won’t help you if you don’t! And if you did choose to help yourself, congratulations on your salvation!

Now, I’m sure it’s obvious that I don’t believe the above, and that I believe everyone has already been saved because Christ died for our sins, and because He was buried and rose again the third day. But I should say that I also believe that people don’t actually get saved until they’ve believed the Gospel. If that sounds like a contradiction, it’s only because you might not be aware of the fact that there are different types, or stages, of salvation written about in Scripture (and that not everyone experiences every type of salvation either, which means that some people never get saved, yet still get saved at the same time). But even with that being the case, it’s important to note that the sorts of salvation those who are brought into membership in the body of Christ experience are still entirely a gift from God, and this includes the faith itself (our faith that the good news is true isn’t of ourselves, but is itself a gift from God, just like the grace and salvation are, since if we had to build up our own faith it would be a work — and presumably an impossible work at that; nobody can force themselves into believing something they don’t currently already believe to be true, at least not without some serious brainwashing, and if one has been given the faith to believe the good news, it means they already believe the good news and hence have already been saved), which means that the saying shouldn’t be, ”God helps those who help themselves” (which is what we’ve determined most Christians actually believe, despite not realizing it), but should rather be, ”God helps those whom God helps.” And, praise God, He ultimately helps everyone, even if each in their own order.

Just as a quick postscript, I should probably say that what I’ve written above technically might not apply to Calvinists, because they tend to agree that everyone for whom Christ died has indeed been saved, just as those of us in the body of Christ teach. The difference between them and most Christians (and between them and those of us in the body of Christ) is that they don’t believe Christ technically died for everyone’s sins (at least in the sense that they believe His death for sin only takes care of the sins of the elect — the elect being the relatively few people they believe God has chosen to save). This causes other problems for them, however, because if the Gospel one needs to believe is that Christ died for our sins, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, then to share that Gospel message as something one needs to believe in order to be saved would be the equivalent of asking the majority of the people they share the Gospel with to believe a lie, because He didn’t actually die for the sins of most of the people they’d ask to believe that Good News. Basically, if Calvinism were correct, Paul’s Gospel would have to instead be that “Christ died for the sins of the elect, that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day,” and that’s what they’d have to ask the people to whom they evangelize to believe instead. But since that isn’t what Paul taught, this disqualifies Calvinism right from the start.

After all, is it God’s fault that He made 90% of humans too stupid or foolish or selfish or stubborn to choose to get saved? I’m sure He did everything He could think of to get as many people saved as He possibly could, but at the end of the day He made humans in such a way that, when given a choice, their “free will” would almost always lead them to choose the wrong thing. Seriously, what more could He possibly have done? It’s not like He’s smart enough to think of a way to get more than the relatively few people He does manage to convince to make the right choice to do so, or powerful enough to break through their natural stubbornness, is He? And there’s definitely no way He could have made humans just a little bit smarter or wiser or more humble or more righteous so that they might choose to get saved, right? He was clearly forced to make them the way they are. I mean, what are you trying to suggest, that He might actually be smart enough and powerful enough and wise enough to be able to find a way to save more than a tiny percentage of humanity, or even all of us? That would mean He was omniscient and omnipotent, and maybe even the Saviour of all men, as 1 Timothy 4:10 says, and nobody really believes that about God, do they? Don’t be ridiculous. He’s only the potential saviour of all men, but really only exclusively of those that believe, as I’m sure Paul actually meant to write. Because even if God wills all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth, God doesn’t always get what He wills. Who do you think He is, after all, God? Next you’ll be saying He works all things after the counsel of His own will. Seriously, stop hinting that you think God is God! The only one who always gets what they will when it comes to the salvation of humans is God, and only humans get what they will when it comes to salvation (when humans don’t have the will to be saved, God fails to have His will for their salvation realized and simply says, “Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done,” to them instead). If they want to be saved, they will be, and if they don’t want to be saved, they’ll also get their will and avoid it. Either way, God definitely won’t save them if they don’t have the will to be saved, because if He always got His will then He’d be God, but we all know that only humans are allowed to have their will be done when it comes to salvation. So stop blaming God for all those lost souls. He tried His best to save everyone and live up to His title of the Saviour of all men. And is it really His fault that His best just wasn’t good enough?

In case it wasn’t obvious, the above isn’t what I believe, but is what pretty much every Christian actually believes, even though they aren’t aware of it.

After first learning about the doctrines held to by those of us in the actual body of Christ, some Christians will accuse us of being in a cult, which is pretty ironic, for reasons that should become clear after reading this post.

Now, to be fair, any group of people dedicated to a particular topic can, by definition, be called a cult. Anyone who is as big a fan of Star Trek as I am, for example — referring to those of us who are sometimes known as Trekkies — can legitimately be said to be in a cult, but it’s not a cult by the typical understanding of the word, and it’s basically a harmless cult (die-hard fans of specific sports or other sorts of activities can also be said to be in a similar sort of cult). I’m talking about harmful cults in this post, however, and for the most part, fans of specific sports and/or science fiction series aren’t harmed by enjoying these things, so we’re going to basically leave the more general definition of “cult” (which is perhaps more helpfully labelled as a “sub-culture”) aside for now and focus on the harmful, religious sort of cult that most people think of when they hear the word.

When it comes to these harmful sort of cults that I’m discussing in this post, Dr. Steven Hassan is generally recognized as the leading expert on the topic, and he’s come up with what is known as “the BITE Model of Authoritarian Control” for recognizing whether one is in such a group or not, with “BITE” standing for: Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control. You can find a lot of the details explained on his website here, and I’ll be using the breakdown of each of the four parts of BITE listed on that page for the rest of this article, so please go check it out before proceeding.

Once you’ve looked over that list, you can take a look at some of the points in the four categories and see if they apply to the Christian religion, as well as to the body of Christ. We’ll do them in order:

B — Behaviour Control

• Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates: This doesn’t necessarily apply to all denominations within the Christian religion, but some of the more conservative denominations definitely do, especially when it comes to marriage (they misapply the advice to not be “unequally yoked” to marriage, and while it is helpful for spouses to have common ground, this wasn’t specifically what Paul was talking about in that passage). As far as the body of Christ goes, we don’t tell anyone who they can or can’t live or associate with. Some of us might choose not to fellowship with specific individuals who have left the faith (in the “gathering as the church” sense), but it’s far more common that those who stop believing as we do simply stop fellowshipping with us.
• When, how and with whom the member has sex: This has somehow become the most important part of the Christian religion in most denominations, or at least it sure seems that way based on what they say. Most Christians insist that only people of the opposite sex from each other who happen to be legally married to each other in a monogamous relationship are allowed to have sex with each other. Those of us in the body of Christ, for the most part, do not have these rules. As long as one isn’t breaking the law of the land or worshiping other deities in their sexual activities, we generally don’t care what one does with their genitals.
• Control types of clothing and hairstyles: While most Christians don’t have specific dress codes (although some do), Christians often insist that women shouldn’t dress in “provocative” clothing that might cause men to “lust.” And just try showing up to a Christian church service in a bathing suit. Meanwhile, most of us in the body of Christ know what “lust” in Scripture is actually a reference to, and we know that it has nothing to do with how one dresses, or to do with enjoying the way someone looks, or even to do with fantasizing about someone in a sexual manner.
• Regulate diet – food and drink, hunger and/or fasting: Not really an issue with most denominations, but a small number of them do have dietary rules, as well as prescribed times of fasting (such as Lent). As for us, well… we don’t.
• Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence: Not a problem with all denominations, but some do require tithing, as well as other sorts of monetary “offerings,” and those that preach the so-called prosperity gospel often do manipulate their members into giving the leaders more money than they can afford to. Meanwhile, few of us ever ask anyone for money, aside from the few of us who might charge for a book we’ve written (and even then, many of us tend to give them away for free), or to help cover the cost of a conference one might attend (but it’s never mandatory).
• Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet: Some are worse than others, but anyone who hints that they might attend less church meetings is familiar with the guilt they’ll feel, or that will be imposed upon them, for thinking about “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” (A phrase that has nothing to do with “going to church” at all, by the way.) Few of us in the body of Christ, on the other hand, live close enough to other believers to meet at all regularly, and many never even meet another believer in person throughout their life, other than perhaps at the odd conference (which is never required).
• Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative: Aside from the obvious threat of never-ending torment or permanent annihilation after death if you don’t do or believe the right thing(s), some of the more strict denominations also practice this to various extents in other manners too. You definitely won’t find that happening in the body of Christ, though, since we believe that all actions and beliefs are predetermined anyway.
• Discourage individualism, encourage group-think: I think it goes without saying that this is how the majority of Christian denominations act, at least it sure does in my own experience. As for those of us in the body of Christ, there are certain “core doctrines” that everyone holds to, more or less (most of which I cover throughout the articles on this website), but these aren’t even a statement of faith one is required to sign so much as what everyone in the body comes to eventually believe by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and beyond those, one can interpret Scripture basically however they like and still be considered members.
• Impose rigid rules and regulations: Rules and regulations are an important part of most Christian denominations. Those of us in the body of Christ do tend to encourage following those of Paul’s exhortations that are relevant to us, as we understand them, but they aren’t rules one is required to follow “or else,” since all is allowed us, even if not everything is expedient.

I — Information Control

• Minimize or discourage access to non-cult sources of information: This isn’t something all Christian denominations do, but I have met quite a few Christians who believe that they should only read the Bible and nothing else, as far as studying theology goes. There are definitely no such restrictions among those in the body of Christ (you can read whatever you want, as far as we’re concerned).
• Encourage spying on other members: I doubt this is practiced in most denominations, but gossip is definitely a big problem among Christians, and spying does happen in some churches. There’s no reason for this to happen among the body of Christ, though, since we generally don’t care much what others are doing (we tend to mind our own business).

T — Thought Control

• Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth: Very true in most Christian denominations. To be fair, it would be weird for a religious group not to encourage this, and even the body of Christ encourages it as far as our own doctrines go, but we certainly don’t require it of anyone.
• Use of loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words: This is basically the basis of the Christian religion. You’ll hear all sorts of loaded language, including phrases such as ”damned to hell” or ”free will,” not to mention that you’ll hear people saying things like, “Ask Jesus into your heart,” or “God is a gentleman, so He wouldn’t force salvation on anyone,” among other unscriptural and meaningless expressions that keep one from understanding the truth. In fact, there are so many terms which Christians use that outsiders don’t understand without having them explained that these phrases fall under the label of “Christianese.” Now, to be fair, I don’t think this is necessarily a sign of a cult on its own, since all groups use lingo that outsiders won’t necessarily be familiar with, and many in the body of Christ use language that is unfamiliar to most Christians and others too (although the reason some of the language many members use is so unfamiliar to most Christians is simply because, until very recently, most English-speaking members of the body have tended to favour literal translations of Scripture over the less literal Bible versions over the last century), so it’s more a matter of whether it’s used in conjunction with a number of the other points mentioned in the BITE model or not.
• Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts: Enough said, as far as Christians go, whereas we aren’t into that sort of mind control.
• Hypnotic techniques are used to alter mental states, undermine critical thinking and even to age regress the member: Have you ever attended a “worship service” prior to the taking of the offering and the sermon at church? It’s all about getting you into a mindset of being open to suggestion. And the more liturgical church services have similar results. Meanwhile, at the odd gathering of our church, you’ll rarely even hear any music, and you definitely won’t be put into a trance state prior to a discussion, or prior to listening to a presentation by one of our teachers.
• Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism; Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed: Don’t criticize the “man of God” or the pastor — or any doctrines in the statement of faith, not to mention the various creeds — under any circumstances in most Christian churches. Meanwhile, if you follow the public teachings of any of our brothers for very long you’ll find plenty of public disagreement when it comes to certain topics, but we’re still able to remain friendly with each other (for the most part, although there are some exceptions to this, unfortunately, since some teachers are a little less thick-skinned than they probably should be, but nobody is rejected).
• Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful: To be fair, I don’t actually see this as necessarily being problematic, as long as we’re careful not to take it too far. Anyone with any form of doctrines is going to do this to some extent, and I think it’s fine as long as it isn’t labelling good things as evil or evil things as good (which, sadly, a lot of Christians do).

E — Emotional Control

• Manipulate and narrow the range of feelings – some emotions and/or needs are deemed as evil, wrong or selfish: I’m sure it goes without saying that this happens in most Christian denominations. That said, some things are evil, wrong, or selfish. The problem is, most things Christians tend to think fall into those categories often aren’t.
• Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s fault: So true in so many Christian denominations. As far as the body of Christ goes, we don’t actually have any leaders or human hierarchy to begin with (we have some teachers, but none of them have any authority whatsoever over anyone else in the church), and “the group” that makes up our church is so diverse that it would be difficult for anyone to ever blame it for something, but if we could somehow be blamed for something, I feel like we’d take responsibility (at least I sure hope we would).
• Promote feelings of guilt or unworthiness: That’s basically the main point of most of Christianity, whereas most of us in the body of Christ will tell you that you should reckon yourself dead to sin (meaning that sin no longer has any authority over you, and that one should just ignore sin altogether rather than worry about it at all), so why would you still feel guilty when sin has been entirely dealt with for almost 2,000 years?
• Instill fear: There’s so much fear within the Christian religion of things like never-ending punishment in hell, of “losing one’s salvation,” of being punished by God even in this lifetime, not to mention fear that one was never truly saved to begin with. We, on the other hand, will point out that everyone has already been guaranteed salvation (at least from an absolute perspective), and that God is not imputing our trespasses against us.
• Extremes of emotional highs and lows – love bombing and praise one moment and then declaring you are horrible sinner: This isn’t necessarily the norm among all denominations, thankfully, but it is still common in some of the more strict churches. As far as the body of Christ goes, see the last point.
• Phobia indoctrination — inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority: Again, not necessarily the norm within Christianity, but it definitely does happen more than it should, whereas you won’t find this in the body of Christ at all (especially since we believe in “eternal security,” even as far as relative salvation goes within the body).

I didn’t cover every single point in the list, but that should be enough to point out how the Christian religion seems to fit the definition of a harmful cult, and why membership in the body of Christ is extremely different. Of course, I’m well aware that the idea that only a relative few are chosen by God to believe the truth in this lifetime, as we teach, and that even all the other Christian Universalists out there who don’t understand and believe Paul’s Gospel as we do aren’t a part of the body of Christ, is a pretty exclusivist claim, and it’s easy enough to see why this might make the body of Christ seem like a cult to some. There are lots of small churches or denominations within the Christian religion that we left behind which make similar sorts of claims, after all, stating that only they are among the elect and that everyone else is going to suffer in hell forever (even all the other Christians), and they definitely are cults.

One thing that makes the body of Christ different, as the above breakdown of the BITE model helps makes clear, is that there’s no threat of never-ending torment in hell for those who haven’t been blessed with faith by God to believe Paul’s Gospel, and the whole point of Paul’s Gospel is that everyone, even those who don’t believe it, will still be saved whether they believe it or not. Because Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day, every single person will one day be resurrected (if they’re dead) and made immortal, and hence sinless (no longer subject to corruption and failure), which is what salvation is ultimately all about (it has nothing to do with being saved from a torture chamber called hell, and everything to do with being saved from subjection to mortality, death, and failure, also known as sin). The only real difference between believers and unbelievers from this perspective is that God chose to let some people believe the truth now and experience salvation a little early, but everybody is still going to experience it at their appointed time.

Another thing that differentiates the body of Christ from the Christian religion is that there are no authoritarian leaders telling us what to do in the body. Yes, we do believe (for the most part) that there are certain things one must believe in order to know they’re in the body of Christ (but not that those beliefs are what save us or bring us into the body; we believe the truth only because God has elected us for membership in the body, and has then given us knowledge of the truth as evidence of said membership), but nobody is telling us what to do, or begging us (or forcing us) to give them money, or making us shun our family members and friends who don’t believe similarly to us, or threatening us with negative consequences if we stop attending our local assembly on a regular basis (as if many of us can even find enough brothers and sisters to fellowship with in person where we each live to make up a local assembly).

So if you’ve ever worried that you might be in one, as a member of the body of Christ, you can rest assured that you’re not in a cult (outside of the broader definition of “cult” that every group falls under). And yes, I’m sure that many cult leaders give the same sort of reassurance to their members. Fortunately, the only ones we’re following are Paul (from a relative perspective) through his epistles, and Christ and God (from an absolute perspective) through Paul’s writings and by the leading of the Holy Spirit. We might have other teachers who help us understand what Scripture means a little better, but none of them are expecting you to obey them or even believe that what they teach can’t possibly be wrong in some regards.

Believers in Universal Reconciliation are often asked, “What if you’re wrong?” Well, if we are, all that’s happened is we’ve accused God of being more successful and more loving than He really is, but we’ve also still believed the Good News that Christ died for our sins, and that He was buried and rose again the third day, so we’ll still end up saved, which means it’s really not a gamble for us to believe that God might be greater than traditional Christians make Him out to be.

However, let’s now turn that question around and ask the Infernalists (believers in Everlasting Torment), “What if you’re wrong?” Because, if it does turn out that the Infernalists are wrong, they’ve accused God of being far less loving than He actually is (unless one can somehow call allowing the majority of creation to be tormented without end loving), not to mention calling Him a failure (Paul called God the Saviour of all mankind, so if He ends up failing to save all mankind, what would that make Him?). Also, if it turns out that the end result of the Gospel is the salvation of all humanity, as I believe it to be, it means they’ve failed to believe what the Gospel means (and hence haven’t really believed the Gospel at all) and will very likely miss out on ”everlasting life” (life during the impending age, and perhaps even life during the final age on the New Earth). Yes, they’ll still experience salvation at the end of the ages, but in the meantime, they’re likely going to miss out on a lot.

Bottom line, it seems far safer to believe that God truly is the Saviour of all mankind than to accuse Him of missing the mark (which is the definition of sin, by the way) when it comes to saving the majority of His creation, so please think very carefully about the possible consequences of being wrong about your beliefs when it comes to salvation. And if you do still need a bit of convincing that God will not fail to accomplish His will to save everyone, here are a few articles I wrote that discuss what Scripture says about the topic:

• How Paul used parallelisms to teach the salvation of all“
• …all men, especially…”
• To be “in Christ,” or not to be “in Christ”? Is that the question?

As I mentioned in my last article, few Christians understand what it is that the Gospel which Paul taught means, and because of that, it seems safe to say that very few Christians have been saved yet. (I’m referring to salvation from a relative perspective, I should say, meaning the salvation that brings one into membership in the body of Christ; from an absolute perspective, of course, everyone has already been saved because of what Christ accomplished.)

As I wrote in that last article, the end result of the Gospel which Paul preached is the salvation of all humanity, and because you can’t believe something without understanding what it means, and because very few Christians have actually understood what the Gospel really means, we have to conclude that most Christians haven’t actually believed the Gospel at all, which means they haven’t been saved yet.

Now, one could try to argue that anybody who believes that the words in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (which is where Paul summarizes his Gospel, not to be confused with the Gospel of the kingdom) are true is saved, but every single Independent Fundamentalist Baptist, every single Roman Catholic, every single Mormon, and every single Jehovah’s Witness can honestly say that they believe the words in that passage are true, and yet nearly everyone in each of those groups would argue that those in the other groups haven’t been saved because they don’t understand what the words in that passage mean (and hence haven’t actually believed the Gospel). Well, I would agree with all of them, that nobody in any of those groups understands or believes what it is that Paul’s Gospel means, and because of this, almost nobody who calls themself a Christian has been saved yet, especially among those who are not Universalists, since it’s impossible to believe Paul’s Gospel without being a Universalist, considering the fact that the end result of his Gospel is the salvation of all. (Although I should clarify that being a Universalist doesn’t mean one has been saved yet either, since simply believing that everyone will be saved isn’t enough; one has to also understand and believe the reason why everyone will be saved, as explained in Paul’s Gospel, in order to truly join the body of Christ now — and they have to also understand what it is Christ’s death and burial actually means as well, I should add.)

Bottom line, if you want to join the body of Christ and experience the salvation that Christ won for us before everyone else gets to, you need to truly understand and believe what it is Paul’s Gospel means. But everyone will still get to experience salvation eventually — even Christians.

When you bring up the fact that Scripture teaches the eventual salvation of all humanity, many Christians will attempt to object by saying that it can’t be true because it would violate our so-called “free will.”

The thing is, whether or not “free will” exists, it just doesn’t matter when it comes to salvation, because the choice isn’t about getting saved vs not getting saved in the first place. The actual choice (at least as far as Paul’s Gospel goes) is about experiencing salvation early vs experiencing salvation at the end of the ages.

The confusion arises because most Christians assume that people have to decide between “accepting Jesus as their personal saviour” or being damned for eternity, when the choice is actually between A) believing that God will save everyone through what Christ accomplished, and getting to enjoy that salvation early if you believe this Good News, or B) not believing this Good News and having to wait until the end of the ages to experience salvation.

The thing is, the Good News which Paul taught isn’t that you can escape never-ending punishment if you believe the Gospel now, as most Christians have mistakenly assumed it to be. The Good News (well, the end result of the Good News) is that you will experience salvation because of Christ’s death for our sins, and His subsequent burial and resurrection. And if God happens to gift you with the faith to believe what this Good News means now, you’ll get the special salvation Paul wrote about in 1 Timothy 4:10, which is an early experience of that salvation (which is ultimately about immortality and sinlessness, not about escaping a torture chamber called hell).

To put it another way, the Good News isn’t that you can escape never-ending punishment if you happen to choose to believe the Good News that you can escape never-ending punishment. (Think about it, that’s what the traditional Christian message actually is: believe the Good News and you’ll be saved from “hell,” with the Good News you need to believe being that you can be saved from “hell” if you believe the Good News that you can be saved from “hell” — it’s an entirely circular doctrine if you really break it down, although almost no Christian ever does.) In actuality, the Good News is simply that you will be made immortal and sinless because Christ died for our sins, and because He was buried and resurrected; and if you happen to believe this Good News, you’ll even get to experience said immortality and sinlessness earlier than everyone else will (but you will still experience it eventually regardless).

This means, I should add, that very few Christians have been saved yet (at least from a relative perspective; everyone can be said to be saved from an absolute perspective because of what the Gospel means). Because you can’t believe something without understanding what it means, and because very few Christians have actually understood what the Gospel really means, we have to conclude that most Christians haven’t actually believed the Gospel at all, which means they haven’t been saved yet (although they will be saved eventually, of course, because of what the Gospel means).

Oh, and before someone brings it up, yes, there are passages which teach us that not everyone will be saved, and they’re equally true to what I wrote above. The reason for that, however, is that they’re talking about an entirely different sort of salvation from the one Paul wrote about, as I explained here.

As for those who are reading this and aren’t familiar with the fact that the end result of Paul’s Gospel means that everyone will eventually be saved, I’ve written about this in various places on this website, but I’d suggest beginning with the following three articles to get started on your understanding of the true meaning of his Gospel:

• How Paul used parallelisms to teach the salvation of all
• “…all men, especially…”
• To be “in Christ,” or not to be “in Christ”? Is that the question?

Most people, thanks to the bad influence of conservative Christians and other religious conservatives, believe that modesty means not revealing too much skin or the outline of one’s body, and that a modest girl or woman will not be too revealing when it comes to her body and clothing. The truth, however, is that a woman can walk around topless — or even naked — in public, and still be completely modest, because modesty is actually the opposite of vanity, not the opposite of nudity.

Nudity was extremely common in Bible times, yet never called a sin in the Bible. God did not condemn Adam and Eve for being naked (in fact He created them naked and saw them as “very good,” and if nudity wasn’t inherently sinful before the fall then there’s no reason to claim it suddenly became sinful after the fall), but rather asked them who told them they were naked after they sinned and realized they were. He didn’t say, “Oh no, your nakedness has been exposed! How could this have happened?!” since He made them that way and left them to enjoy the garden that way. The reason they sewed and put on clothing was because they were suddenly ashamed, not because they were suddenly naked (and the reason God made new clothes for them out of animal skins was because the dead animals covering them were a type of Christ covering sin, not because they suddenly needed clothing — they already had clothing at that point, after all). The truth is that sin distorts our perceptions and makes people feel ashamed of their bodies, just as it makes them feel guilt and shame over all sorts of innocent things. Puritanism over our physical bodies is not a scriptural virtue, but it is a form of gnostic dualism, which is enough to tell us we should be avoiding that kind of prudishness. In fact, God even sent Isaiah out to prophesy naked, so obviously nudity just can’t be considered sinful.

Modesty is still important, but it’s about not showing off, not about not showing skin or curves. When Paul called for modesty in the church, and asked women to dress modestly, he meant to dress “with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” It had nothing to do with their bodies and everything to do with their attitudes. Basically, he was telling them not to wear fancy outfits that would make them appear more important than those who weren’t able to appear as wealthy as them. Similarly, Peter wrote that beauty should not come from “outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” Nobody in their time would have looked twice at somebody showing a bit of skin, or even at being completely naked, and Scripture certainly didn’t condemn it, so neither should we. But Scripture is clear that we should not try to make ourselves look better or more important than those around us with expensive clothing and lavish hairdos, so true modesty (humility) is something we should certainly aim for.

And as for the concern that not dressing like a prude might cause men to lust or feel sexual desire, anyone who knows what “lust” really refers to in Scripture knows that the idea as religious conservatives understand the concept isn’t actually a problem at all. Just as modesty doesn’t mean what most Christians have misunderstood it to mean, the lust that’s condemned in Scripture isn’t about enjoying the way someone’s body looks, or even about fantasizing about them in a sexual manner, so if someone tries to use that argument, they need to go back and learn the facts about lust as well. (I’ve written about it here, so please go read that article if you aren’t familiar with the truth about what Scripture actually says about lust and sexuality. In fact, this post you’re reading now is taken from a small section of that article.)