Salvation with a Focus on Israel Identity

Salvation with a Focus on Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

Two schools of salvation are discussed with a focus on salvation according to the Israel Identity folks. Israel Identity is known as British-Israelism, Christian Identity, and Kingdom Identity.

Salvation

Two schools of salvation are (1) salvation is by faith and faith alone, and (2) salvation is by faith plus some other condition. The first school reads John 3:16 literally and does not attach any conditions. The second school reads John 3:16 with conditions attached, although the verse and surrounding verses do not mention any conditions. John 3:16 reads:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

According to the salvation by faith-only school, anyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah who guarantees everlasting life has everlasting life as taught in the Gospel According to St. John. According to the faith plus school, a person must not only believe in Jesus but must also meet some other qualification to be saved. To be saved, he must also:

– be baptized, although the proper form of baptism is disputed,

– repent,

– be obedient until he dies,

– attend church regularly,

– be a member of the proper denomination (several denominations contain the condition),

– believe the Trinity Doctrine,

– be chosen by God for salvation,

– be a descendant of Israel,

– whatever, or

– any combination of the above.

Thus, the second school reads John 3:16 as follows:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life if he is baptized, repents, is obedient, attends church regularly, is a member of the proper denomination, believes the Trinity Doctrine, is chosen by God, is a descendant of Israel, or complies with whatever.

Most Israel Identity people believe that the Bible is written about and for the Israelites and applies only to them and no other ethnicity. Therefore, John 3:16 reads:

For God so loved the world [i.e., meaning the Israelites], that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever [i.e., meaning Israelites and only Israelites who] believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Israel Identity

The following is a further discussion of Israel Identity on salvation. Most of it is based on the works of Arnold Kennedy. He is typical of the Israel Identity adherents.

According to Kennedy, the Bible is written about and for the Israelites and applies only to them and no other ethnicity. Jesus came to redeem and save only the descendants of Israel; therefore, no other people, including non-Israelite Whites, can be saved unto everlasting life. Only unadulterated descendants of Israel can be saved.

In one place, Kennedy suggests that non-Israelites cease to exist when they die. Yet, in another place, he suggests that since the Bible does not say what happens to non-Israelites when they die, people should not speculate about their fate. (Which is it, Kennedy? In one place, you speculate that they cease to exist when they die, and in another place, you write that people should not speculate about their fate.) 

According to Kennedy, racial genes come from the male side only. Consequently, males determine the race of the offspring; females never do. Therefore, the genes that fix a person's race are on the male Y chromosome. If true, how do women, who lack this chromosome, acquire their race? Although racial genes come from the male side only, the female must be of suitable stock for the offspring to be genetically acceptable to God — presumably, a descendant of Israel, but he does not define what makes a woman suitable stock.

When an Israelite male begets a child by a Negro female, the offspring is a mulatto. Why, if the male fixes the race? Should not all the children of a male Israelite be White? Anyway, the Negro female is not a suitable stock, and, therefore, the offspring is not genetically acceptable to God.

Moreover, according to Kennedy, God incorporated a "spirit" component into the Y chromosome of Abraham. This spirit component passed to Isaac, then to Israel, afterward to his twelve sons, and onward to all their male descendants. Somehow, Esau failed to receive this spirit component. Furthermore, he suggests that possessing this spirit component is essential for salvation, even though females do not receive it because they do not have the Y chromosome. (He is unclear whether a male offspring of an Israelite male and a non-Israelite female inherits this gene. He seems to imply that he does not; for this gene to pass, the Israelite’s mate has to be a woman of suitable stock. In any event, dilution of the spirit content from race-mixing leads to rejection by God.) Since females lack the Y chromosome, they do not possess this spirit component. If this spirit component is necessary for salvation, then how are women saved? 

Like all Israelite Identity adherents whom I have encountered, Kennedy fails to explain how one distinguishes between an Israelite White and a non-Israelite White. Whites also descended from Japheth or Shem who are not descended from Israel. Since the law requires Israelites to marry only Israelites, then one has to be able to distinguish between the two so that he does not violate the law. (Joseph's wife was a White non-Israelite Egyptian, who bore Ephraim and Manasseh; she was not an Israelite. Was she suitable stock? If she were not, Israelite Identity collapses. If she is, then at least some females who are not descendants of Israel are suitable stock. Who are they? [According to most Israel Identity adherents, the descendants of Ephraim inhabit England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Manasseh's descendants inhabit the United States.])

Without an accurate genealogy tracing all of one's ancestry back to Israel (Jacob), how does one prove without question that he is an unadulterated descendant of Israel? (I do have a genealogy that traces my ancestry back to Israel, but I have no confidence in it, especially when it gets into the Dark Age and beyond. Much of it was probably invented to satisfy some king's ego. However, I cannot trace all my ancestors back to Israel.)

Based on conjecture and speculation, Kennedy is convinced that he is an Israelite. However, he offers no convincing evidence that he is. Although Kennedy seems certain that he is an Israelite, how does he know that he is? Does he have an accurate genealogy that traces all of his lineage back to Israel with no adulteration? Can he prove that all his male ancestors and female ancestors are descendants of Israel? If he can, he is the only human who can. His belief that he is an Israelite is based on supposition and wishful thinking.

I have not read all of Kennedy's works, so he could have resolved some of the issues that I have raised in the unread articles and books.

(For more discussion on Israel Identity and salvation, see “Israel Identity” by Thomas Allen. Also, see "Questions on Israel Identity" by Thomas Allen.)

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Unitarianism Around 1860

Unitarianism Around 1860 

Thomas Allen 

In Unitarianism Defined: The Scripture Doctrine Father, Son and Holy Ghost; A Course of Lectures (Boston: Walker, Wise & Company, 1860), Frederick A. Farley, describes Unitarianism in the mid-nineteenth century. (Today, like most Trinitarian denominations, most Unitarian denominations believe in woke agnosticism that stresses social justice much more than the message of the Bible. Since man can save himself, the state has replaced Jehovah as the God and savior of mankind. Along with worshiping the state, they also worship Moloch and Gaia.) The following is quoted from his book, pages 255 to 259.

  Christian Unitarianism affirms in the first place — That there is One only God; that He is one Person, One Being; that He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God and Father of all mankind. It lays stress not only on the strict personal Unity of God, but especially on His Divine Fatherhood. “To us, there is but One God, the Father.” (1 Cor. 8:6. )

In the second place it affirms — That Jesus is the promised Christ; the Divinely-appointed Messiah or Anointed of God; pre-eminently the Son of God, preeminently the Son of Man: the most distinguished Messenger and Representative, the brightest visible Manifestation of the Invisible God; second only to God in the glory of that office and rank with which He has invested him; one with God by a moral union and harmony of wisdom, will, holiness, and love; acting with the delegated power and authority of the Supreme; by His indwelling Spirit given him without measure, the infallible Teacher of God’s holy Truth; and exalted with the right hand of God to be a Prince and All-sufficient Saviour, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins. “To us there is . . . One Lord, Jesus the Christ.” (1 Cor. 8:6.) 

In the third place it affirms — That the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, is the Spirit of God; not a distinct person, or person at all; but by and through which, God is always present with us and ready to help, inspire, succor, comfort, enlighten, and sanctify the spirits of His children, will they but seek the precious Gift. (Luke 11:13.)

In the fourth place it affirms — That all men are born innocent; free at birth from all taint of sin and guilt, as they are destitute of holiness; gifted with a nature of glorious capacities, but exposed to temptation, liable to sin, actually sinners; needing the provision which God in His abounding mercy has seen fit to make in the Gospel of His Son for their regeneration and salvation; but free to choose, and therefore, free to accept or reject the offered grace.

In the fifth place it affirms — That the Atonement — At-one-ment — is the Reconciliation of man to God; not of God to man, for that could not be necessary. As the All-gracious Father, He never needed to be reconciled to his human family; but on the contrary, as the crowning expression of his exhaustless compassion and boundless Love, He sent His only-begotten Son into the world, to teach and bear witness to the truth, to labor, suffer, and die for us, that we might live through him. (1 John 4:9.) The divine instructions, the miraculous works, the sinless and perfect life and example, the sufferings and death, the Resurrection, Ascension, and present Intercession of Christ, being all part and parcel of the means appointed in the counsels of the Infinite Mind, for accomplishing this great Reconciliation and Salvation of the world. (Rom. 5:10; 8:30; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19.)

In the sixth place, it affirms — That the Bible is the History and Record of God’s Revelations to our race; furnishing, especially in the New Testament, the Divine, and therefore sufficient Rule of Faith and Practice to all Christian Believers; the Holy and inestimable Volume, which the Inspiration and Providence of God have caused to be written, preserved, and transmitted, for the Religious Instruction of mankind in every succeeding age.

Finally, it affirms — That the present is a life of moral discipline and probation, introductory and preparatory to a higher and an eternal life, in which a righteous judgment and retribution await all, and God will render to every man according to his deeds.

Thus much for the positive or affirmative side. But while thus on the one hand, in contradistinction to all systems of mere Naturalism or Rationalism, Christian Unitarianism affirms the reality of God’s last and fullest revelation in and by Christ and his Gospel, and these as the chief and leading doctrines of that Gospel; on the other, in contradistinction to the popular or received Orthodoxy of the Church, it denies and rejects the following dogmas, viz.:

1st. A Tri-personal God, or Three co-equal, co-eternal Persons in the Godhead.

2d. The Supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. It holds, asserts, maintains as earnestly as any form of faith in the Christian Church, his Divinity — his Divine Mission, Office, and Authority; but denies that he is God over all, the Supreme and Eternal God.

3d. The Personality and Deity of the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit; denying that it is literally a Person; or God in any sense, except as the spirit of a man is the man himself.

4th. The expiatory, vicarious, and infinite Atonement of Christ; with the entire doctrinal scheme of Calvin.

Upon other points, Unitarians, recognizing in others and claiming for themselves the right of private judgment, do not entirely agree, viz. :

I. As to the metaphysical nature of Christ.

1st. Some believe him to have pre-existed, the first in order of time of all created intelligences [sic]; — 

2d. Some believe him to have been born of Mary, but miraculously conceived;—

3d. And some rest on his own declaration for the present, and await God’s pleasure for further light; — “No man (no one) knoweth who the Son is, but the Father.” (Luke 10:22.)

II. As to the Future Punishment of Sin. While they agree in rejecting the popular belief in the eternal damnation of the impenitent, and all believe in a righteous judgment and retribution hereafter; —

1st. Some believe, that the sufferings or punishment of the impenitent will terminate in their annihilation; — 

2d. Others, that all punishment under the righteous and benevolent government of God, must be disciplinary and remedial; and must finally result in the universal recovery of the lost to holiness and happiness;

Finally, others believe, that while progress is the law of the soul, the eternal consequences of unfaithfulness here will be realized hereafter, in the consciously lower plane on which the unfaithful and impenitent must enter, and forever relatively continue, in “the world to come.”

One important item that Farley does not discuss is salvation. Is salvation by faith and only by faith in Jesus and nothing else? Or, is it by faith plus something else, viz.:

– faith in Jesus plus baptism,

– faith in Jesus plus baptism and repentance,

– faith in Jesus plus good works,

– faith in Jesus plus reliance on and commitment to Jesus,

– faith in Jesus plus obedience;

– faith in Jesus plus perseverance until death,

– faith in Jesus plus membership in the correct church or denomination,

– faith in Jesus plus belief in the Trinity Doctrine,

– faith in Jesus plus believing that Jesus is the one true God, i.e., he is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

– faith in Jesus plus speaking in tongues;

– faith in Jesus plus whatever.

Likely, most Unitarians of this era were like most Trinitarians: Salvation was by faith in Jesus plus something else.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Commentary on John 20:28

Commentary on John 20:28

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The texts of the verses cited in this article are given in the appendix that follows.]

And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (John 20:28)

Trinitarians consider John 20:28 as one of their strongest proofs of the Trinity Doctrine, which is Jesus is God the Son, the second person of the Triune God. This verse refers to Jesus as God. (According to the Trinity Doctrine, God exists as three distinct coequal, coeternal persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Yet these three persons are one person.)

To the extent that this verse declares Jesus to be the Supreme God, it supports modalism more than it supports the Trinity Doctrine. According to the modalist doctrine of God, God is one person who reveals himself in three modes or manifestations: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Most modalists believe that God revealed Himself as Jehovah in the Old Testament and as Jesus in the New Testament.

Consequently, Thomas' calling Jesus God supports modalism. To support the orthodox Trinity Doctrine, Thomas would have had to call Jesus God the Son.

In John 20:28, Thomas calls Jesus “my Lord and my God.” According to Trinitarians, if Jesus were not the Supreme God, God the Son, he would have corrected Thomas for calling him God. For Thomas to call Jesus God if Jesus was not God would have been blasphemy. Since Jesus did not correct Thomas, Jesus agreed that Thomas was correct; he was the Supreme God.

This Trinitarian explanation is based on Thomas, who had earlier doubted the resurrection of Jesus, suddenly understanding what no other apostle or early Christians including Paul understood. Upon the sight of Jesus, Thomas understood the Trinity Doctrine that Jesus was God the Son, the second person of the Triune God. However, this knowledge was lost with Thomas’ death and was not again discovered until the fourth century.

According to Trinitarians, Thomas recognizes and confesses that Jesus is God, that is, Jesus is the second person of the Godhead, God the Son. Nevertheless, according to some Trinitarians, if Thomas’ exclamation is to be considered a confession of faith, it goes far beyond what the early apostles taught.

Based on this verse, some Trinitarians claim that to be saved, a person has to declare that Jesus is his Lord and his God. (Does he also have to recognize the Father and the Holy Spirit being God?) Thus, to be saved, one must believe that Jesus is the divine Savior, i.e., God present with His people giving them eternal life. (If true, almost no one was saved before the fourth century because almost no one believed that Jesus was God in the Trinitarian sense.)

A Unitarian response to the arguments of the Trinitarians is that Thomas did not use the word “God” in the narrow sense of referring to the Supreme God, Almighty God. Instead, he used it in a broader sense. In biblical times and in the Bible, “god” is used in reference to angels, prophets, rulers, and judges. In Acts 12:22, a ruler, Herod, is called “god.” In 2 Corinthians 4:4, Paul calls the Devil “god.” Judges are called “god” in Exodus 21:5-6 and 22:8-9. Moses is called “god” in Exodus 4:16 and 7:1. Even Jesus refers to humans as “god” in John 10:35-36. Thus, beings other than the Supreme God can be called “God.”

Consequently, Thomas called Jesus God because Jesus represented the Father, who is the Supreme God, and had divine authority. Thomas recognized that Jesus was the Messiah, who according to Old Testament prophecies would be a man. (Likewise, Paul calls the Messiah a man [1 Timothy 2:5].) Also, Jesus knew what Thomas meant; Jesus knew that Thomas did not mean that he was the Supreme God.

Another explanation is that Thomas addressed his remark to both Jesus and Almighty God. Thus, the “Lord” is Jesus, and “God” is the Father, who is Almighty God. However, this is a weaker explanation.

Whatever Thomas meant by his comment, he did not mean that Jesus was God the Son, the second person of the Triune God.

Appendix. Cited Bible Verses

These verses are from the American Standard Version.

Exodus 4:16: And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a mouth, and thou shalt be to him as God.

Exodus 7:1: And Jehovah said unto Moses, See, I have made thee as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Exodus 21:6 then his master shall bring him unto God [the judges], and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.

Exodus 22:9 For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith, This is it, the cause of both parties shall come before God [the judges]; he whom God [the judges] shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbor.

John 35-36: 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (and the scripture cannot be broken), 36 say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Acts 12:22: And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man.

2 Corinthians 4:4: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them.

1 Timothy 2:5: For there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ Jesus.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Is Jesus Impeccable?

 Is Jesus Impeccable?

Thomas Allen

In “Why Is Christ’s Impeccability Essential?” (Grace in Focus Magazine, January/February 2023, pages 36-38), Anneka Muller argues that Jesus not only did not sin, but he also was incapable of sinning. The foundation of her argument is the Trinity Doctrine: Jesus is God the Son. Since God cannot sin, Jesus, who is God, cannot sin. Moreover, his impeccability is essential for the assurance of salvation.

Muller briefly discusses Hebrews 4:15 (“For we have not a high priest that cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”) People who believe that Jesus could sin, but did not, cite this verse to support their claim that Jesus was capable of sinning. She refutes this claim by arguing that whether or not Jesus “was capable of sinning has no effect on His ability to be tempted and to sympathize with us in our temptation” (p. 38).

True, the ability of Jesus to be tempted is independent of whether he could sin (is peccable) or could not sin (impeccable). However, Hebrews 4:15 goes beyond this. It says that Jesus was tempted as we are tempted. If sinning were impossible for him, he could not have been tempted as we are because we can sin. He had to be able to sin if he were tempted as we are.

According to the Christology of the Trinity Doctrine, Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man. As stated by Muller, the Deity part of Jesus makes him impeccable. Thus, if Jesus’ Deity affected his experience of temptation and prevented him from sinning, he could not be tempted as we are. Based on James 1:13 (“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man:”), God cannot be tempted. (Muller uses this verse as proof that Jesus cannot sin because he is God.) Consequently, being God, Jesus could not be tempted and, therefore, could not have given in to temptation and sin. Accordingly, his temptations were not a genuine test of character. Being God, not only could Jesus not be tempted as we are, but he also could not have been tempted at all because God cannot be tempted.

Hebrews 4:15 argues against the Christology of the Trinity Doctrine and the deity of Christ. If Jesus were God, he could not have been tempted and could not have sinned. However, this verse claims that he was tempted in every way that we are, which means that he could have succumbed to temptation and sin. Only if Jesus were not God and could have succumbed to temptation and sin, could he have been tempted as we are. (Unitarians use this verse as a proof text against Trinitarians [Jesus is God the Son] and Modalists [Jesus is God]. If Jesus were God as the Trinitarians and Modalists claim, he could not be tempted as we are because God cannot be tempted. Since he was tempted as we are, he is, therefore, not God.)

Furthermore, Muller asserts that because Jesus was God and could not succumb to temptation and sin, the temptations that he endured were far worse than the temptations that we can endure because we can succumb to temptation and sin. In effect, what she is saying is that for a person to resist temptation and not sin is worse than succumbing to temptation and sinning. Nevertheless, for someone who is impeccable, temptation is meaningless.

If Muller’s premise that Jesus is God is true, then her conclusion that Jesus is impeccable is true. However, if her premise is false, then her conclusion is false; Jesus is peccable.

Is Jesus impeccable? If one believes in the man-derived Trinity Doctrine and its Christology of the dual nature of Christ, the answer is “yes.” However, if one believes in the God-inspired Hebrew 4:15 as it is written, the answer is “no.”

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Three Schools of Thought on Salvation

Three Schools of Thought on Salvation

Thomas Allen

The three primary schools of salvation are predestination, unconditional salvation, and conditional salvation.

Adherents of the predestination school believe that God decided whom He would save and whom He would condemn before creation. Faith in Jesus, good works, repentance, baptism, etc. are irrelevant. Adherents of this school tend to place heavy stress on good works to prove to themselves and others that they are among the saved. Nevertheless, they do not know if they are saved until after they die.

Proponents of the unconditional salvation school claim that salvation depends solely on faith (or trust) in Jesus for salvation unto everlasting life. As for salvation, works are irrelevant. Works merely determine a person’s status or rank in the age to come. According to this school, a person is guaranteed salvation that cannot be lost — no matter what the believer does after believing in Jesus. Therefore, salvation is assured.

Proponents of conditional salvation believe that salvation unto eternal life depends on more than belief in Jesus. It also depends on works. To be saved unto everlasting life, a person must not only believe in Jesus, he must continue to believe in him until the moment he dies. Moreover, to be saved, a person must constantly live in obedience to the commandments of God. Only by continuously believing  and obeying the Gospel until death can one receive everlasting life. Thus, adherents of this school stress doing good works to assure their salvation. However, according to this school, a person does not know if he is saved until after he dies. Salvation is assured but not guaranteed.

To support their claim, adherents of the unconditional cite the following verses among others:

– John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life."

– John 3:18: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."

– John 6:47: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

– John 10:28: "and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand."

Unconditional salvation adherents read these verses literally. According to these verses, salvation depends solely on belief in Jesus. Once a person believes in Jesus, he is guaranteed everlasting life in the age to come. That is, he cannot lose his salvation.

However, proponents of conditional salvation do not read these verses literally. They add conditions to them. Thus, for example, they read John 6:47 as “he that believes on me [Jesus] has eternal life if he continuously obeys God and continuously believes in Jesus, that is if he preservers in his faith in Jesus and his obedience to the commandments of God until the moment that he dies.”

Likewise, predestinationists do not read these verses literally. They read John 6:47 as “he that believes on me [Jesus] has eternal life if God has predestined him to eternal life.”

Some of the verses that adherents of the conditional salvation school cite to support their doctrine are:

– John 15:10: "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love." 

– John 15:6: "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers."

– John 15:14: "You are my friends if you do what I command you." 

– Hebrews 3:14: "We share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end." 

– Colossians 1:23: "He has now reconciled . . . , provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the Gospel which you heard."

Conditional salvation proponents read these verses as requiring continuous obedience to the commandments of Jesus and God as necessary for salvation. However, unconditional salvation proponents read them as concerning a person’s status or rank in the age to come.

A major difference between the unconditional salvation school and the conditional salvation school is that the unconditional salvation school preaches salvation by faith alone, i.e., salvation by faith without works. On the other hand, the conditional salvation school preaches salvation by faith plus works, i.e., faith alone does not save a person. Consequently, the unconditional salvation school guarantees salvation, and, therefore, salvation is assured. The conditional salvation school assures salvation but does not guarantee it because no one knows if his faith and obedience will preserve until he dies or that his faith and obedience are sufficient to earn everlasting life.

To summarize, according to the predestination school, salvation depends solely on God’s arbitrary choice and has nothing to do with faith in Jesus or obedience to the commandments of God. According to the unconditional salvation school, salvation depends solely on faith in Jesus. According to the conditional salvation school, salvation depends on faith in Jesus and obedience to the commandments of God; moreover, a person’s faith and obedience must be continuous until he dies.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Comments on Wilkin’s The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible

Comments on Wilkin’s The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible

Thomas Allen

With The Ten Most Misunderstood Words in the Bible (2012), Robert N. Wilkin has written an interesting and enlightening book. He discusses and explains in detail faith, everlasting, saved, lost, heaven, hell, repentance, grace, gospel, and judgment. Also, he briefly discusses eleven other often misunderstood words. Below are several questions, observations, and comments about his discussions.

1. One of the attributes of God is that He is omnipresent: He is everywhere simultaneously. Nowhere and no place exists where He is not. Nothing exists where He is not. If there is somewhere or something where He is not, then He is not omnipresent.

Therefore, He has to fill every void, every particular, every wave, every energy, every force, every spirit, and every whatever simultaneously, including the Lake of Fire (what most people mistakenly called Hell) and even Satan himself. Since the inhabitants of the Lake of Fire, the unbelievers, are tormented forever, then beings tainted with a sin nature exist forever. They have everlasting life. How can God, whose holiness is beyond our comprehension, tolerate the everlasting sin nature of unbelievers? Further, how can He tolerate the everlasting existence of Satan and his gang of fallen angels?

2. Wilkin is an adherent of the free grace doctrine of salvation. Thus, he claims that everlasting life is obtained by believing in Jesus for it. Then, he claims that unbelievers are tormented forever in the Lake of Fire. To be tormented forever requires unbelievers to have everlasting life so that they can endure everlasting torment. Consequently, based on Wilkin’s description of believers and unbelievers, all humans have everlasting life once they are conceived. This means that humans must be innately immortal. Though the physical body dies, the conscience essence lives forever.

If belief in Jesus and a lack of belief in Jesus determine where believers and unbelievers spend their everlasting lives — the New Earth or the Lake of Fire — then believing in Jesus does not guarantee everlasting life. Humans already have that. Therefore, believers do not obtain everlasting life by believing in Jesus. Being innately immortal, they already have everlasting life. Belief and the lack of belief merely determine their ultimate destination, where they will spend their everlasting life. (If a believer obtains everlasting life by believing in Jesus, does an unbeliever obtain everlasting life by not believing in Jesus?)

Some of the doctrines that Wilkin condemns, such as annihilation, overcome the problem of humans being innately immortal, having everlasting life. Contrary to Wilkin’s doctrine, they really do have Jesus giving everlasting life to people who believe in him for it.

3. I have always been told that the New Earth (what most people mistakenly called Heaven) is a place of everlasting happiness, joy, bliss, contentment, serenity,  peacefulness, etc. It is a place without sorrow, sadness, suffering, etc. How can one live forever in peaceful bliss, etc. knowing that one’s spouse, children, siblings, parents, and other relatives and close friends are tormented forever? Such a person would naturally feel sadness, sorrow, etc. Moreover, how can a truly compassionate empathic believer find peaceful bliss void of sorrow in the New Earth while knowing unbelievers are tormented forever in the Lake of Fire?

(According to Wilkin, Heaven or more correctly Paradise is not the permanent residence for believers; the New Earth is. Before Jesus’ ascension, Paradise is that part of Hades or Sheol where believers stay temporarily, and after Jesus’ ascension,  Paradise is that part of the third heaven where believers stay until their judgment. Furthermore, Hell is not the permanent residence for unbelievers; the Lake of Fire is. Hell is that part of Hades or Sheol where unbelievers stay temporarily until their judgment.)

4. Wilkin argues that repentance refers to temporal life and never to avoiding eternal condemnation in the Lake of Fire. Further, he claims that repentance leads to a longer and better physical life.

This conclusion seems questionable. If people who abuse recreational chemicals and pharmaceutical drugs are omitted, the “good” seem to live no longer than  unrepentant “bad” persons. On the contrary, the opposite often seems true. The old saying that “the good die young” came into being because people noticed that many good people die young while really evil people, including Satanists and Luciferians, live into their late 70s and 80s and even 90s.

This rule that repentance leads to a longer and better life seems to have as many exceptions as the “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’ or when sounding like ‘a’, as in neighbor or weigh” rule. This rule has more words that are exceptions than words that comply with it. Perhaps, someday someone will do a study to find out if repentance results in a statistically significantly longer life and a more healthy, prosperous, and joyful life.

5. Wilkin notes that in the world to come, the police, jailers, lawyers, thieves, and other occupations related to the criminal justice system cease to exist because they are not needed in a sinless world. He also notes that some believers will be rulers. The legitimate function of government is to protect life, liberty, and property from trespasses from others, and, much beyond this, the government morphs into a state, which is a form of idolatry. (For example, public works not paid for by user fees, public education, and public welfare are the actions of a state.) Since no real government will be needed, what is the function of these rulers? Is it to feed their egos by giving them people to boss?

Moreover, being God the Son, Jesus is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Therefore, why does he need anyone to assist him in ruling? If Jesus does not need any assistant rulers, what is the purpose of making some rulers, other than feeding their egos so that they can boast “I made the cut and you didn’t?”

6. Since the streets of the New Jerusalem are paved in gold, women will not be able to wear high heels when they cross a street. Moreover, transportation will be difficult, unless some kind of antigravity form of transportation is used. Because of its malleability, Gold is too soft for pavement.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Israel Identity

Israel Identity

Thomas Allen

Israel Identity, also called British-Israelism, Christian Identity, and Kingdom Identity, claims that the lost tribes of Israel became the Germanic and Celtic tribes that invaded Europe and settled in Western Europe. The following presents Charles Weisman’s version of the Israel-Identity doctrine as it relates to salvation as given in Is Universalism of God? In this book, Weisman refutes the doctrine of the Universalists that all humans are eventually saved regardless of race or merit.

Weisman appears to be a Calvinist — only more so. Calvin believed that God arbitrary chooses whom to save to everlasting life and whom to condemn to everlasting torment without any foreknowledge of merit. (Thus, Calvin declared that God is not omniscient.) Unlike Calvin, who seems to believe that people of every ethnicity and race have a chance of salvation, Weisman seems to argue that only the unmixed descendants of Israel are saved. However, he is somewhat fuzzy about non-Israelite Whites. Sometimes, he seems to allow the descendants of Abraham (except the Arabs) and possibly Heber a chance of salvation. At other times, he seems to include non-Hebrew Whites in the salvation lottery, but, at other times, he excludes them.

Like all Israel Identity adherents, Weisman includes all Israelites and their modern-day descendants in the salvation lottery. Nevertheless, he is unclear about which Israelites are saved. Does God save nearly all, most, many, or just some? (Israel Identity adherents run the gamut from nearly all to just some.) According to Weisman, if a person is saved, he is merely a robot whom God has programmed to believe in Jesus — although he is not this blatant. As mentioned above, Weisman is hazy about whether God chooses any non-Israelite White for salvation, although he seems inclined to believe that God does not choose any non-Israelite White for salvation. However, he is certain that God chooses no nonwhites for salvation, and, by that, He condemns all nonwhites to eternal damnation.

At the time of Israel’s birth, circa 1844 or 1837 B.C., and the Israelite migration to Egypt around 1715 or 1706 B.C., Whites inhabited most of the Middle East, and much of Egypt and North Africa. Whites also inhabited Europe then. Consequently, Whites vastly outnumbered the Israelites, who were probably less than 100 persons. (Pure Israelites were 13.)

As far as known, none of Israel’s sons married their sisters. Thus, none of Israel’s daughters-in-law were true Israelites. According to the Bible, Joseph married an Egyptian by whom his sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, were born. (According to most Israel Identity adherents, the descendants of Ephraim inhabit England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Manasseh’s descendants inhabit the United States.) How can the descendants of Israel’s sons be pure Israelites if their mothers were not genetic Israelites?

Since the Israelites settled in lands, such as Mesopotamia, Syria, Asia Minor, North Africa, and Europe that already had a population of Whites greater and often much greater than the Israelite immigrants, what happened to these non-Israelite Whites? The Israelites did not kill all of them or even most of them. Apparently, the Israelites lived among these other Whites or alongside them.

Moreover, how does one distinguish between an Israelite White European and a non-Israelite White European? Like other Israel Identity adherents, Weisman does not satisfactorily answer this question. The closest that he comes to an answer is to declare that the people of the Nordic racial type are true Israelites. If true, this suggests that other Whites are either non-Israelite Whites or a mixture of Israelite and non-Israelite Whites.

As God saves only true Israelites, then He condemns these other Whites to eternal death. Consequently, since only a small number of Europeans are Nordic, God condemns most Whites to eternal death. (Exposure to the sun is the easiest test to determine if one is a Nordic. While most Whites tan when they expose themselves to the sun, Nordics redden.)

That most Israel Identity adherents are Nordic is highly unlikely. Moreover, that most Israel Identity adherents are some pure descendants with no admixture of non-Israelite Whites is even more unlikely. Therefore, if Weisman is correct, few, if any, Israel Identity adherents qualify for God’s salvation lottery.

In his book, Weisman exposes the error of the doctrine of the Universalists that all humans regardless of race or merit are eventually saved to everlasting life in heaven. He does so by arguing that God chooses only Israelites for salvation to everlasting life. Nevertheless, at times, Weisman suggests that some non-Israelites Whites are saved, while at other times, he suggests that no non-Israelite Whites are saved. Like other Israel Identity adherents, he fails to explain how one distinguishes between an Israelite White and a non-Israelite White. However, he is certain that God chooses not to save any nonwhites.

In part, Weisman condemns the Universalist salvation doctrine because it reduces the need for repentance and salvation and removes the fear of judgment; thus, it creates a false sense of security. Such notions encourage licentiousness and otherwise unchristian, unholy lifestyles. Yet, the salvation doctrine of Weisman does the same thing — even more so. As God has already decided whom He will save, then how a person behaves or what a person believes is irrelevant. If behavior and belief are important to salvation, then God programs the person to be saved how to behave and what to believe.

Since God never saves nonwhites, then their behavior and beliefs do not matter. They may as well live by their passions and appetites. Likewise, the same is true for Whites. Since no one knows for sure whether he is an Israelite or whether God has chosen him — although, like all other Israel Identity adherents, Weisman is convinced that he is an Israelite whom God has saved — he may as well act the way that he wants to act and believe whatever he wants to believe. God’s choice and his ancestry decide his salvation and not his behavior or beliefs.

However, Weisman is correct in that Universalism is an egalitarian doctrine that  leads to and encourages the sin of miscegenation. Moreover, Universalism is a false doctrine. Nevertheless, the Israel-Identity doctrine that Weisman substitutes for it is highly questionable.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Some Random Thoughts on Religion

Some Random Thoughts on Religion

Thomas Allen

Below the Bible is summarized in two sentences. Also discussed are two views of the Bible, the lack of clarity of the New Testament, the rapture, the sin of omission, the greatest sin, God’s love, hate, the love of money, Noah, and the wisdom of John (not the Biblical John). These are mostly observations.

The Bible in Two Sentences
The Bible is the story of God revealing Himself first through one biological race (or species of humans), the Aryan or White race, then through one family, Abraham through his grandson Jacob, which became the nation of Israel, and finally through one man, Jesus. All other nations and people mentioned in the Bible are merely a supporting cast in God’s process of revealing Himself through Jesus, His Messiah and Son.

Two Views of the Bible
Christians fall into two camps. One believes that anything that the Bible does not expressly forbid is allowed. In secular terms, they favor the Anglo-Saxon legal system: Anything that the government does not specifically prohibit is allowed, and a person is innocent until proven guilty.
The other camp believes that anything that the Bible does not command or expressly allow is forbidden. In secular terms, they favor the Napoleonic-civil-code legal system: Anything that the government does not specifically allow is prohibited, and a person is guilty until proven innocent. Of course, both camps hold that whatever the Bible commands is obligatory.

Lack of Clarity in the New Testament
The writers of the New Testament failed in writing with clarity. If their writing were clear, disagreement over various doctrines would be much less or nonexistent. Two examples illustrating the confusion that the unclear writing of the New Testament has caused are soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) and eschatology (the doctrine of the end of time, the Second Advent, and the final judgment).
First is salvation. Is salvation by predestination, faith only, faith plus works, or other means? All have their proponents who defined their doctrine with vigor. Further, some claim that once a person is saved, he cannot lose his salvation no matter what he later does. Yet, other claim that a saved person can lose his salvation. Moreover, disagreement occurs over the salvific effects of baptism, the proper form of baptism, and infant baptism.
Second is eschatology. There are several interpretations of Revelation: preterist, historical, apocalyptic, and futurist. Preterists interpret Revelation as describing the events taking place during the lifetime of John and in his environment (full preterists) or that most of these events occurred during the lifetime of John (partial preterists). Historicists interpret Revelation as revealing history from the time of Jesus until the Second Advent and beyond. Apocalypticist or idealists interpret Revelation as a religious philosophy of life.
Futurists interpret Revelation as describing the future, primarily the time immediately preceding the Second Advent and the millennium. Futurists fall into several camps: pretribulation (the rapture occurs before the seven years of tribulation), mid-tribulation (the rapture occurs in the middle of the tribulation), and post-tribulation (the rapture occurs at the end of the tribulation). Others teach that no rapture will occur. Also, there are premillennialists (Jesus’ Second Advent occurs before the  Millennium), post-millennialists (Jesus’ Second Advent occurs after the Millennium), and amillennialists (rejects the notion that Jesus physically rules on earth for a thousand years).
Does God enjoy watching men arguing about the correct interpretation of the Bible and even killing those who disagree with their interpretation? He must because He had His writers write with enough vagueness to cause bloody disputes. If that were not His purpose, He could have had His writers write with enough clarity to avoid such disputes.
Some old-time reform preachers declared that nothing brought God as much joy as tormenting sinners in Hell forever. They were wrong. God’s greatest joy seems to be watching His people arguing and fighting over what the Bible says.

Rapture
One thing is amusing about people who predict the date of the rapture, often down to the hour or minute. After the big day passes, the predictor finds that he is still on planet Earth. Immediately, he assumes that his calculation was wrong, and some redo the calculation. Never does it occur to the predictor that his calculation was correct — he was just among those left behind.
Another amusing thing about the rapture is the believers who sell all their property before the big day. Why? Do they plan to take the money with them? Do they plan to use the money for one big going away party?

Sin of Omission
Many clergymen teach the “sin of omission.” That is, if a person knows someone in need and he has the ability to help the needy person and does not, then he is guilty of the sin of omission. If true, then these clergymen have accused God of being the greatest sinner in the universe. Being omniscience God knows everyone’s needs. Being omnipotent, God has the ability to eliminate those needs. Since He does not (all the suffering in the world would immediately vanish if He did), God is guilty of the sin of omission. If these clergymen claim that God is not guilty of the sin of omission, then they hold their fellow man to a much higher standard than they hold God.
If the sin of omission exists, more evidence that God is the greatest sinner of all is natural disasters. Being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, He can prevent them and all the heartache and destruction that such disasters bring people. If a human can prevent someone from suffering from a natural disaster and does not, would he be guilty of the sin of omission? If so, the clergyman who makes such a claim holds God to a much lower standard than he holds his fellow man.

The Greatest Sin
What is the greatest sin of all? It is a sin so great that God does not allow it to exist anywhere in the universe. This sin is unquestionable, unhesitating, and unadulterated cooperation from all deities, angelic and spiritual beings, people, animals, plants, weather, mother nature, machines, things, etc., etc., etc.

God’s Love
If earthly parents expressed their love for their children the way that the Heavenly Father expresses His love for His children, they would have their children taken from them because of their cruelty and abuse. Furthermore, the parents would spend the remainder of their lives in prison. To love their children the way that God loves His, parents would beat their children until they looked like roadkill. Then, they would expect their children to thank them for not making their lives more miserable. At least, this is the impression that many Christians give of God’s love.  (Notice how God’s love connects with the sin of omission and the sin of cooperation.)

Hate
Most clergymen teach that Christians should not hate. However, God hates. Should a Christian hate whatever and whomever God hates?

Love of Money
1 Timothy 6:10 reads, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. . . .”  Except for misers, who really loves money per se? Nearly all who lust after money do not love money itself. They lust after money for what they can exchange it, i.e., for what they really desire: power, security, fame, lovers, big houses, fancy cars, status, etc. Money is just a means to an end.

Noah
I have concluded that Noah is the most selfish man in the Bible. He possessed not one altruistic bone in his body and only thought about saving his own scrawny hide. If he cared one bit about his decedents and fellow man, he would have refused to take black flies, fleas, ticks, mosquitoes, and all those other useless bloodsuckers on the ark.

Wisdom of John
I used to listen to a religious radio program hosted by John, whose last name I do recall and who died in 2012. He made two memorable comments. (1) He said that the quickest way to be thrown out of a church is to ask questions about its doctrine. (2) He was convinced that Christianity was the true religion because it has survived two thousand years of Christians.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3

Issues with Trinitarianism and its Christology — Part 3

Thomas Allen

    36. How could the preexisting God the Son become a man without any diminishment of his deity? How could God the Son live a fully human life while continuing to exercise his divine function?
    37. How can Christ be both finite (human) and infinite (Deity) simultaneously? How can one be both God and the Son of God simultaneously?
    38. Do today’s Trinitarians follow the early Trinitarians and believe the Trinity Doctrine and its dual-nature Christology because it is impossible?
    39. Jesus states that God is spirit. If Jesus is God, how could he be flesh — unless the heretical Docetists are correct?
    40. How can the Son be God’s equal if God has appointed the Son heir? If the Son is the heir, there must have been a time when he was not the owner. If Christ were God, he would be the owner, or under the Trinity Doctrine, part owner. Therefore, he could not be an heir.
    41. If the Son were equal to the Father, why did he derive his power from the Father? Would not he, being God and equal to the Father, already have these powers and authority?
    42. The Bible states that blaspheming the Son will be forgiven, but blaspheming the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are coequal persons in one God, should not the result of blaspheming one be the same as blaspheming the other? Why are these coequal persons treated unequally?
    43. Many verses of the Bible clearly and plainly call Jesus a man. Also, the Bible declares that “God is not a man” (Numbers 23:19), If God is not a man and if Jesus is a man, then how can Jesus, a man, be God, who is not a man? Likewise, if God is not “a son of man,” how can Jesus, who is called “a son of man,” be God?
    44. If Jesus Christ is God, why does he lack the attributes of God: self-existent, immortality, unchanging, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? The Trinitarian would reply that Jesus’ human nature lacks these attributes, but his divine nature does not.
    45. In developing their Christology, the Trinitarians abandoned the Scriptures in favor of the Church Fathers. The Scriptures did not support their dual-nature doctrine. However, they could find statements in some of the writings of the Church Fathers that did.
    46. Both God the Father and God the Son have thrones in heaven. However, God the Holy Spirit does not have a throne in heaven. Why not? (Anyone who claims that the Holy Spirit does have a heavenly throne, needs to provide the Scriptural support that explicitly states that the Holy Spirit has a heavenly throne.) If the Holy Spirit does not have a heavenly throne, how can he be equal to God the Father and God the Son as the Trinity Doctrine declares?
    47. According to the Trinity Doctrine, God the Holy Spirit is omniscient. Yet, Mark 13:32 declares that only God the Father knows when the end will occur. Not knowing when the end will occur, God the Holy Spirit is not omniscient. Nor is God the Son. However, Trinitarians avoid God the Son lacking omniscience in the passage by claiming that Jesus is speaking in his human nature and not in his God nature. Yet, unless Jesus had two minds, which Trinitarians deny, how could his mind both know an event and be ignorant of it simultaneously? Further, they do not have the dual-nature out for the Holy Spirit. Lacking omniscience, which is an essential characteristic of God, God the Holy Spirit is not equal to God the Father, who is omniscient. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine of three coequal Gods collapses.
    Further, Trinitarians may not even use the Jesus-speaking-in-his-human-nature argument to avoid God the Son’s lack of omniscience without risking heresy. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas or Twelve Chapters were accepted as orthodox at the Council of Ephesus (where Mary was formally declared the Mother of God) and the Council of Chalcedon (where Jesus was declared to have two independent natures and wills). The fourth anathema reads: “If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the Gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.” (The Word is the God the Son.) Thus, whenever Jesus spoke, he always spoke as God the Son and never as a mere human. As Mark 13:32 clearly shows, Jesus, who spoke as God the Son, was not omniscient. Not being omniscient, God the Son cannot be equal to God the Father. Thus, the Trinity Doctrine falls.
    48. If the Holy Spirit is one of the three coequal Gods of the triune God, how can he be given to people? How can such a divine person be given by another divine person unless he is under the authority of the giver? Coequals cannot be under the authority of other coequals and remain equal. Moreover, if the spirit of God is the third person of the triune God, how can he be divided and distributed?
    49. If the Holy Spirit is the third person of the triune God, why does the Bible fail to command the worship of the Holy Spirit? Being a coequal person of the triune God, should not the Holy Spirit receive the same amount of worship as the Father, who is his coequal?
    50. The description of the Holy Spirit given in the Bible suggests that he not be independent or self-existent, and, therefore, should be referred to as “it” instead of “he.” Moreover, the relation of the spirit of God is to God as the spirit of man is to man. If the spirit of man is not another person distinct from himself, and it is not, then the spirit of God is not another person distinct from Himself.
    51. Since the “breath of God” is synonymous with the “spirit of God,” is the breath of God a distinct person from God — one of the coequal Gods of the triune God? It is if the Trinity Doctrine is correct. Moreover, if the breath of God is a distinct person, then the breath of man has to be a distinct person from man. Likewise, the “spirit of God” is synonymous with the “hand” and the “finger.” Does this make the hand and finger coequal Gods of the Godhead? Or, are they and the spirit of God subordinate to the will of God?
    52. Every writer of the New Testament epistles identifies himself with God and the Lord Jesus Christ, yet none identifies himself with the Holy Spirit. Did they fail to understand the Trinity Doctrine and its importance, even its necessity, for salvation? Further, did they fail to believe in a triune God?
    53. The Greek word for “spirit” is neuter; therefore, the appropriate pronoun referring to the Holy Spirit should be “it” instead of “he.” (In Hebrew, the word for spirit is feminine.)
    54. Except for a few difficult verses that are often misunderstood, the Bible offers no incontrovertible proof or even indication that the Holy Spirit is a coequal, coeternal person with the Father and Son.
    55. God usually speaks through one or at most a few people. Almost never does he speak through councils and committees: for example, the 400 prophets of Ahab versus the one prophet of God. The unanimous majority of Ahab’s prophets were wrong, whereas the minority of one prophet was right. A majority in some council has adopted all the major creeds of Christendom.
    56. Trinitarians are notorious for changing the meaning of everyday words, e.g., person and begotten, when they apply to God. As most of the Bible is about God, how does one know what the words in the Bible really mean? Are they being used in the ordinary sense, or are they being used in a theological technical sense? Does a word mean what it means in its ordinary, everyday use, or does it mean something else? Only a trained, enlightened theologian knows. Therefore, only a trained and enlightened theologian can really understand the Bible. Unless such a theologian explains the Bible and its meaning to the laity, the laity forever remains ignorant even if he reads and studies the Bible daily. (Were the Bereans who searched the Scriptures to see if what Paul told them was true trained theologians? If not, were they wasting their time because they were searching in ignorance?)
    57. Trinitarians maintain that biblical truths are incomprehensible mysteries. Examples of such truths being mysteries are the Trinity Doctrine and the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ. Thus, Trinitarians depend on mysticism instead of the Scriptures and reason. Yet, speculation about this mysterious, unknowable God has brought forth the Trinity Doctrine. If God is incomprehensible, then how does one know that he is a triune God?
    Moreover, honest Trinitarians admit that they worship an incomprehensible Deity. Furthermore, no attempt should be made to try to understand their God.
    58. Most Trinitarians maintain that God had to die so that man could be saved; the crucifixion of a human who possessed no divine nature is not enough for salvation. Salvation depends on God dying. Besides the human egotism involved in this assertion, it also suffers from the inability of God to die and still remain God.
    59. An underlying premise of the incarnation of God is that it is necessary for the deification of man. Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius, and other Orthodox Trinitarians declared that God had to become man so that man could become God. Was not the desire to become like God the great sin of Eve and Adam? (Additionally, one of the Mormon doctrines that cause Trinitarians to consider Mormonism a heresy is the doctrine of man becoming a god.)
    60. Under the creeds related to the Trinity adopted by the ecumenical councils, salvation ceased depending on faith in Jesus or even good works. Salvation came from believing, or at least claiming to believe, in what some council said about Jesus.
    61. The notion that only an uncreated, eternal being, i.e., God Himself, can redeem mankind comes from Gnosticism and was incorporated into orthodox Christology. Where is the scriptural support for this notion? According to the Scriptures (v. Romans 5:15), redemption came from a man, Jesus Christ.
    62. If belief in the triune God of the Trinity Doctrine is necessary for salvation as many Trinitarians claim, why did Jesus never teach such a doctrine? Further, why did Jesus never even teach the doctrine of the Trinity? Nowhere does the Bible give a systematic presentation of the Trinity. Nor does it state that God is a triune God of three coequal, coeternal persons: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Moreover, it does not claim that Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
    63. Do Trinitarians agree with Bernard of Clairvaux that “faith in God has no merit, if human reason provides proof for it”? Is faith believing what one does not comprehend, or does faith require some kind of mental understanding?
    64. Why did Jesus teach his followers to pray only to the Father? Why did he not also teach them to pray to the Father’s coequal Gods: the Son and the Holy Spirit?
    65. Often, Trinitarians seem to stress the theoretical over the practical, a system of dogmas over the development of principles, and a series of unknown and unintelligible propositions that must be subscribed to and believed in over a revelation of truths which common minds may understand and sincere and honest hearts appreciate.

Copyright © 2019 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2

More religious articles.

The Beliefs of the Early Anabaptists -- Part 2

The Beliefs of the Early Anabaptists -- Part 2

Appendix. The Radical Anabaptists

by Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The following is a brief presentation of some radical Anabaptist leaders as presented in The Dutch Anabaptists: The Stone Lectures Delivered at the Princeton Theological Seminary, 1918-1919 by Henry Elias Dosker. Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to the Dosker’s book referenced above.]

    Many historians identify Thomas Münzer or Müntzer  (1489 – 1525) as a founding father of the Anabaptists, although the conservative wing existed in Switzerland before his arrival. Münzer and his followers “prided themselves on an inner light, rejected infant baptism, and preached a millennial kingdom of Christ, in which believers would rule the world, lead an idyllic life, and enjoy social equality and communistic wealth” (p. 29). Münzer believed that “people had the right to rebel against a government which refused to obey the gospel of Christ and to rule accordingly” (p. 82).
    Melchior Hoffman (c. 1495 – c. 1543) preached the imminent arrival of the millennium, which he expected to begin 1553 at Strasbourg, the New Jerusalem (p. 52). Several years before he died, he recanted this notion (p. 53). According to the judges who condemned him to death, Hoffman (1) denied both the divinity and humanity of Christ, (2) denied the presence of God, and the doctrine of election by which he impugned the plan of salvation and taught an absolutely free will, (3) attacked the comfort of the consciousness of the forgiveness of sin, and (4) assigned infant baptism to the devil and disrupted the communion of saints (p. 52).
    His followers, who were called Hoffmanites, were accused of impure living. To which, they replied that they were not sinning and could not sin because their old Adam was dead (p. 52). With his death, the Hoffmanites died out (p. 53).
    David Joris (c. 1501 – August 1556), whom the Reformed Protestants considered the greatest heretic (p. 53), elevated himself above Moses, the prophets, the apostles, and even Christ, whose revelations became void for salvation with the arrival of Joris. He (Joris)was the true Messiah (p. 54). “Christ did not rise in the flesh, but is now reincarnated in” (p. 54) him (Joris). Thus, he (Joris) could “absolutely pardon sin, and . . . [could] also damn forever; and, at the last day, he will judge the world” (p. 54). Furthermore, he (Joris) “will again raise the House of Israel and the true children of Levi, with the true tabernacle of God; not by the way of the cross and of death, like the other Christ, but with mercy, love, and grace” (p. 54). Contrary to the fundamental practice of other Anabaptists, he allowed infant baptism because he had “no faith in any external application of the sacrament” (p. 60). His two primary ideas were these: “First, the Scriptures, their commands and ceremonies, must not be taken literally, but must be translated into the terms of one’s environment. . . . And secondly, the believer is a changed man, drastically changed; he lives not only in a different sphere of thought, but in a really new world, he stands individually before the great question of life and salvation. No church, no theology, no dogma can help him. God lives in and with believers, in a sense they are deified” (p. 56). His theology was so radical and unscriptural that even the Anabaptists excommunicated him (p. 56).
    Adam Pastor (d. 1560s), whose original name was Roelof Martens, professed an anti-Trinitarian doctrine, for which the Anabaptists excommunicated him (p. 59). He rejected “the Trinity, the preexistence of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Ghost” (p. 60) Mostly ignoring or downgrading the epistles of Paul, he focused on Christ, his life and teachings, which became the content of his religion. “He was totally averse to the Münster spirit” (p. 60). (The Münster spirit was violence of the Anabaptists that nearly destroyed Münster.) Like other Anabaptists, he rejected infant baptism, “but was against the overvaluation of adult baptism on faith” (p. 60). His followers were called “Pastorites.”
     Sebastian Franck (1499 – c. 1543) was an extreme liberal, a radical of the radical Anabaptist. Along with opposing the Münster party, he “rejected the Church as an institution. with her dogmas and sacraments, and taught an undogmatic, anti-ecclesiastical type of Christianity entirely depending on individual convictions. . . . He considers the inward testimony of the Spirit far superior to the Word of God, and utterly denies the doctrine of the Trinity, whilst he derides preaching and preachers and the sacraments” (p. 61). Moreover, the “Church of God is found everywhere; not only among Christians, but also among Jews, heathen, and Turks. Everyone who fears God is our brother, even though he never heard of baptism” (p. 60). According to Franck, The Church abandoned and overturned the entire apostolic traditions; therefore, “the Church will remain a hopeless makeshift till the end of time” (p. 61). Moreover, “no man has the right to gather the dispersed body of Christ, unless God specifically commissioned him to do so” (p. 62). His followers were called “Franconists.”
    What Bolshevism was to the twentieth century, radical Anabaptism was to the sixteenth century (p. 64). Bolsheviks were atheistic communists; radical Anabaptists were “Christian” communists.

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen

Part 1

More religious articles

The Beliefs of the Early Anabaptists -- Part 1

The Beliefs of the Early Anabaptists

Thomas Allen

    The following is a brief presentation of the beliefs of the early Anabaptists as presented in The Dutch Anabaptists: The Stone Lectures Delivered at the Princeton Theological Seminary, 1918-1919 by Henry Elias Dosker (published by The Judson Press, Philadelphia, 1921). Page numbers enclosed in parentheses are to Dosker’s book referenced above.
    According to Doctor Harnack, the Anabaptists “‘were three hundred years ahead of their time’” (p. 1). “Doctor Vedder calls them ‘the radical Reformation’” (p. 2).
    Initially, two primary factions of Anabaptist existed: the radical and the conservatives. The radical faction lasted only about two decades before it burned itself out. However, their violent behavior left such a disdainful taste in Europe that Protestants and Catholics would persecute the Anabaptist for most of the sixteenth century and even beyond. Some of the beliefs of a few leaders of the radical Anabaptists are presented in the appendix.
    Furthermore, many beliefs of the conservative Anabaptists, such as their rejection of infant baptism and taking oaths, terrified both Catholics and Protestants alike. Thus, both persecuted even the conservative Anabaptist. Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Zwingli, and other Protestant leaders condemned them as disciples of Satan (pp. 44-45). Seldom did the persecutors distinguish or even attempt to distinguish the various factions of the Anabaptist. They were all the same: heretical enemies of Church and State.
    Unlike the radical Anabaptists, the conservative Anabaptists had no political aspirations or millennial dreams and shunned carnal lusts (p. 94). For the most part, the conservative “withdrew from the world with almost ascetic austerity” (p. 94). However, many of them manage to acquire a good deal of wealth. Unlike the radical Anabaptists, who paid little or no attention to the Scriptures, the conservatives “depended absolutely on the Scriptures for their faith” (p. 94).
    In their practices, the Anabaptist had “[n]o regular priesthood, great simplicity of worship, no bearing of arms, no oath, but simple affirmation, separation between Church and State, and rebaptism of those who joined them from the old Church” (p. 16). They did not recognize infant baptism; they only accepted “adult baptism, based on the confessed faith of the candidate” (p. 17). Anabaptists “were well versed in the Scriptures, exceedingly strict in their lives, and rigorous in their church discipline” (p. 33).
    They believed themselves to be the chosen people; all others were gentiles. Only they were true Christians (p. 189).
    Anabaptists had no fixed ecclesiastical organization. Each congregation was autonomous (p. 201).
    Anabaptists believed in the absolute authority of the Holy Scriptures. They relied “on the Scriptures and on them alone” (p. 151). Each individual decided for himself what the Scriptures meant. However, they gave little weight to the doctrine of inspiration. Furthermore, “they spiritualize the Scriptures . . . [and] believe them explicitly” (pp. 152-153).  Nevertheless, they tended to read the Scriptures extremely literally. Still, the Scriptures “have an inner meaning, which may or may not be the same to different individuals” (p. 153). Following the Church of Rome, nearly all Anabaptists seem to accept the Apocrypha of the Old Testament as canonical (p. 153).
    Baptism was a distinguishing characteristic of the Anabaptist. The distinction was not in the form or method of baptism. The Anabaptists followed the common practices of the day of using affusion, i.e., pouring water over the head, or sprinkling (pp. 32, 180). (Baptism by immersion was not used until the mid-seventeenth century when their Baptist descendants adopted immersion, which was the form used by the early Christians, as the only appropriate method of baptism [pp. 176-177, 182]) Initially, rebaptism was optional (p. 32).
    Their distinction was their refusal to baptize infants and to accept the baptism of infants. To the Protestants and Catholics of the sixteenth century, such treatment of infants made them child-murders because “the age-long doctrine of the Church of Rome anent the absolute necessity of baptism to secure the salvation of the child” (p. 44). (Most Anabaptists did not even accept the baptism of children or teenagers.) Thus, the distinguishing characteristic “is the status of the child in the church of God. . . . It is the question of the immutability of the God of the covenant [Old Testament] and of the permanency of the covenant of grace [New Testament] and therefore of the true Scriptural significance of the sacrament of baptism” (pp. 183-184).
    Anabaptists believed in “adult baptism on confession of a personal faith in Christ” (p. 176). According to Anabaptist teaching, faith must precede baptism. As infants and young children lack the capacity to understand the gospel, the baptism of infants and young children was rejected. Moreover, “[i]nfant baptism is anti-Christian and of Satanic origin” (p. 185).
    The Anabaptists were not Trinitarians in the orthodox sense of the Trinity. They objected to the Trinitarian teachings of “consubstantiality” and “person” because of their lack of Scriptural support. However, they freely used the term “Trinity” by which they seem to mean God’s impenetrability or an expression of God’s being (pp 153-154).
    They may not have been Trinitarians in the sense of the Athanasian Creed. However, many Anabaptists believed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were so intertwined that they were inseparable — the “one is not without the other,” that is, the “one must be conjoined with the other, or the entire Deity is denied”  (p. 156). Others held that only one God existed, and in the New Testament, this God is called the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (p. 156).
    For most, “the Holy Spirit has no independent personal existence. He is merely the ‘inspiration,’ ‘the inward moving of the heart to things that are good’” (p. 155). Moreover, “God’s Spirit cannot thus separate itself from God” (p. 155). Besides, “God’s Spirit can [not] be conceived apart from himself . . . [or else the Spirit] would form a separate, self-existent, personal being” (p. 155). Also, the Father is a self-existing being, but the “Holy Spirit is no independent or personal being” (p. 155).
    In summary, the Anabaptists lacked a clear idea of the Trinity. Some approached the Catholic Trinity Doctrine whereas others resembled  Modalism (God, who is one person, exists in three modes or manifestation: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Yet, others approached Unitarianism or Socinianism (p. 157).
    Some Anabaptists believed that Jesus Christ had two natures: divine and human (p. 157). Others denied Christ divine honors (p. 159). Still, for others, Christ had only a divine nature.
    On the incarnation, most Anabaptist believed “that Christ had not taken his human body from Mary” (p. 82). They rejected the notion that Christ was incarnated of the Virgin Mary because of her sinful flesh (p. 160). Christ, the Word, did not take “his flesh and blood from the Virgin Mary; but has become flesh and blood in Mary’s womb, that is, he has been changed into it” (p. 160).
    God “‘has sent his own eternal word of power into this world, in the flesh, which has become flesh and a body, in form like any other man, without sin, and that he has been a bodily, visible word of God. . . . He has not taken flesh unto himself, but has become flesh and a body’” (pp. 160-161). Thus, Christ did not take his flesh and blood from Mary. He, as the Word, was made flesh and blood in Mary. Therefore, Christ did not possess two natures (p. 162).
    Whereas the Mennonite Anabaptists and most other Anabaptists accepted the notion of a preexisting Christ and, by that, an incarnation similar to that taught by the Church of Rome, some rejected it. For those who rejected the incarnation, Jesus was a natural but a sinless man. However, “‘God’s word, God’s will, God’s spirit, [and] God’s nature’” (p. 163) indwelt Christ along with an imminent conversation with God, which made him more than Adam’s flesh. Christ was the Son of God, “in so far as he was like God, in all the operations of heart and soul and mind, and thus felt himself to be the Son of God” (p. 164).
    However, most Anabaptists accepted the divinity of Christ. As for his humanity, most believed that the “‘Word within the body of Mary was changed into flesh, without taking over anything from the nature of Mary’” (p. 165). Christ had abandoned “his first, eternal, divine substance or essence . . . [and] was changed into another, i.e., a human substance and thus became man, able to suffer and to die, and has lost his first essence’” (p. 166). Thus, Christ had no human father or mother or relations. Nevertheless, many embraced the Catholic concept of the incarnation (p. 170).
    Anabaptists believed “that sin entered this world through Adam’s disobedience” (p. 171). However, Christ removed everything that Adam’s sin introduced, including death, into the world. As for children, the obedience of Christ, not baptism, liberates children from the liability of eternal damnation. Thus, “‘they deny absolutely that original sin, in young children, tends to eternal death’” (p. 172). For most Anabaptists, the atonement of Christ wiped out original sin.
    Anabaptists believed that all have sinned, but most believed that all “are called to salvation, because Christ died for all. This universal call presupposes the power to answer it. The cause of one’s damnation never lies with God” (p. 174).  Although God forces no man, he desires all to turn from self to him. They contend that all “salvation is from grace, but that grace is common to all” (p. 175). Like the Church of Rome, “they saw in justification a medicinal rather than a forensic act of God” (p. 175).
    Anabaptists “believed in salvation through Christ, but they glorified the Christian life” (p. 152). This stress was the result of “the legalistic character of their theology” (p. 152). Many so overemphasized the Christian life in the present that little regards were given to heaven or hell (p. 175).
    Anabaptists opposed “the mass, with its altars, images, garments, and, all its
heathenish ceremonies” (p. 151). Most followed the teachings of other Protestants on the Lord’s Supper. However, a few modified it (p. 185). Their churches lacked musical instruments (p. 214).
    A major cause of strife among the Anabaptists was the “ban”, i.e., excommunication. One congregation would ban one of its members or even another congregation over matters ranging from important doctrinal issues to such trivial matters as how one walked. Although the Anabaptists were “governed by the principle of individualism” (p. 190), the ban became popular and was a major cause of controversy among the  Anabaptists and the primary cause of schisms.
    Anabaptists were “a body of believers who had deliberately turned their backs on the world and now were a people separate unto the Lord” (p. 189). Any member who failed to live up to the ascetic standards of the congregation was banned, excommunicated. Whereas some congregations were fairly tolerant, others were extremely strict and would ban a member for any deviation.
    An example of the rigorousness of the ban was a marriage between a church member and a nonchurch member. For some, only marriages between members of the Anabaptist church were recognized (in this regard, they were similar to the Church of Rome). Anyone who married someone outside the church was banned and could never be reconciled or readmitted to the church (p. 190).
    Besides an inappropriate marriage, a person could be banned because his house, furniture, clothing, or ornamentation was above the standards of the congregation. (Although the Anabaptists did not condemn wealth, they did condemn ostentatiousness [p. 199].) Likewise, one could be banned for social contact with nonchurch members or a banned person or for attending the funeral of a nonchurch member (p. 194).
    Members of the church were not to have anything to do with a banned person, even if the person banned was a parent, child, spouse, or sibling. The ban prohibited all intercourse with the banned person, including buying, selling, eating, drinking, or conversing (p. 193).
    Although eschatology was important to many Anabaptists in the early years, the fanaticism that it caused resulted in the Mennonite descendants of the Anabaptists virtually to ignore eschatology, the future, heaven, and hell (p. 196).
    Women were not allowed to speak in their meetings and were not allowed to vote in the election of elders and deacons (p. 17). However, women occupied an honored place in their church life (p. 214).
    Some beliefs peculiar to a small minority of Anabaptist were polygamy (because “the Bible saints had practised it” [p. 82]) and the refusal to wear clothes (because “they were the naked truth, the image of God, and therefore were ashamed of nothing” [pp. 88-89].
    As shown above, the Anabaptists lack uniformity in their beliefs. They were highly variable on many important doctrines of Christianity, which should be expected from its decentralized structure and individualism with each congregation and even each individual free to decipher the truth from the Holy Scriptures.
    Because of the fanatics, the name “Anabaptist” had become synonymous with “violence, outrage, rebellion, sensuality, and every kind of outrage” (p. 92). Because of the stigma attached to “Anabaptist,” most Anabaptists rebranded themselves under different names. They became the Baptists and Mennonites. Many faded into the nonconformist movement in the Church of England (p. 46). Also, included among their descendants are the Quakers, English Independents, and Congregationalists (pp. 292-293).

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen

Part 2: Appendix

More religious articles

Commentary on John 3:36

Commentary on John 3:36

Thomas Allen

    Illustrating the theological bias of translators is John 3:36. The King James version translates John 3:36 as follows:

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

In the American Standard Version, it is translated:

He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.

    Most translations follow the American Standard Version and translate ho apeithōn as “disobey” or words to that effect. A minority translates it as “disbelieve” or words to that effect. These translations include:
    – the New Jerusalem Bible (refuses to believe),
    – the Anointed Standard Translation (without persuasion),
    – the St. Joseph New Catholic Edition (unbelieving),
    – the Phillips New Testament in Modern English (refuses to believe),
    – the Bible in Basic English (has not faith),
    – the New King James Version (does not believe),
    – Williams translation of the New Testament (refuses to trust),
    – the New Testament revision of the Challane-Rheims Version (is unbelieving),
    – 21st Century King James Version (believeth not),
    – BRG Bible (believeth not),
    – Common English Bible (doesn’t believe),
    – Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (believeth not),
    – Holman Christian Standard Bible (refuses to believe),
    – Modern English Version (does not believe),
    – New International Reader's Version (does not believe),
    – New Life Version (does not put his trust),
    – New Matthew Bible (does not believe),
    – New Testament for Everyone (doesn’t believe),
    – Worldwide English (New Testament) (does not believe),
    – Wycliffe Bible (is unbelieveful to),
    – Young's Literal Translation (is not believing), and
    – God’s New Covenant (refuses to put his faith)
    Both the American Standard Version and the World English Bible have a footnote stating that “disobeys” can be translated “disbelieves.”
    Robert Wilkin states that the literal translation of ho apeithōn is “he who does not obey.” He writes, “Failure to believe in Jesus was disobeying the Father who sent him.” Thus, “he who does not believe” paraphrases the intent of the word. Supporting Wilkin is a footnote in the Revised Standard Bible, which defines “disobedience” as “unbelief.” According to Wilkin, “To gain eternal life one must obey God’s command to believe in His Son.”
    In his note on John 3:36, John Wesley remarks that disobeying Jesus is a consequence of not believing in him. Apparently, a person proves his faith via his works.
    Floyd Filson states that John 3:36 is as basics as John 3:16. That is, anyone who believes in the Son as sent of God to give life to those dead in sin receives eternal life. Then, he adds that he who refuses to believe the gospel message will not believe and obey Christ and, consequently, will not have eternal life. Thus, according to Filson salivation is by faith and proven by works, i.e., faith plus works.
    “Disobey” gives a different impression than “disbelieve.” “Disbelieve” suggests that everlasting life in the Kingdom of God, which is established when Jesus returns, depends on faith and faith alone. “Disobey” suggests that everlasting life depends on faith plus works; that is, everlasting life depends not only on faith, but it also depends on works. Such works include:
    – baptism, although there is much disagreement about the proper form of baptism (immersion, pouring, or sprinkling) and the salvific effect of infant baptism;
    – absolute obedience to the teachings of Christ, i.e., doing everything that Jesus says to do; thus, how much work is enough for salvation and how many transgressions are enough to cause a loss of salvation;
    – never sinning once one is saved (which may explain why Constantine waited until he was on his deathbed before he was baptized into the Catholic Church), especially committing a sin named in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10;
    – austerity, mortification, self-whipping, not bathing, and other similar practices that were considered virtuous and pious in times past;
    – failure adequately to recruit, i.e., proselytize;
    – perseverance to death;
    – failure to keep faith in Jesus and the Kingdom of God until death;
    – membership in the correct church, sect, or denomination (as several sects claim that one cannot be saved unless he is a member of that sect, one must be a member of all of them to guarantee salvation);
    – etc.
    As for faith, what does one have to believe in, on, or about the Son to have everlasting life? Is it believing that Jesus is;
– the giver and guarantor of eternal life (if true, does this mean that the soul is not innately immortal; if the soul is innately immoral, then believing in Jesus does not give eternal life as one already has that; however, if the soul is not immortal and the unsaved are tormented in hell forever, then in whom or what does one believe to be condemned to hell):
– God incarnated (if true, almost no one, except perhaps some gnostics, were saved before the fourth century AD);
– God according to the Trinity Doctrine, i.e., Jesus is eternal God, is equal to God the Father, and is very God and very man (if true, almost no one, was saved before the middle of the fourth century AD because almost no Christians believed Trinity Doctrine of three coequal, coeternal Gods or Persons being one God or Person, which was not formulated until 381);
– a man, human, who was uniquely begotten by God the Father in the womb of the Virgin Mary and only his Father is God (if true, only a few “Christians” have been saved since 400 AD);
– the Messiah, Christ, and the only begotten Son of God;
– sent by God the Father and that only the Father is God;
– sent by God to take away man’s sins and to give life to those dead in sin with his sacrificial death and resurrection;
– going to return to earth and establish his kingdom and that he meant what he said and did when he was here;
– etc.?
    Obviously, those who believe in salvation by faith and faith alone prefer translating ho apeithōn  as “disbelieve.” On the other hand, those who believe that salvation depends not only on faith but also on some kind or level of works prefer it translated as “disobey.”
    If for no other reason than parallelism, “disbelieve” is a better translation than “disobey.” In the second part of the sentence, “disbelieve” parallels with “believe” in the first part. “Disobey” does not.

References
Filson, Floyd V. The Gospel According to John. Editor Balmer H. Kelly. The Layman’s Bible Commentary. Volume 19. Richmond, Virginia: John Knox Press, 1970.

Wesley, John. Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. Reprint, London, England: The Epworth Press, 1948.

Wilkin, Robert N. “John.” The Grace New Testament Commentary. Editor Robert N. Wilkin. Vol.  1. Denton, Texas: Grace Evangelical Society, 2010.

Copyright © 2018 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More articles on religion.