Christian Universalism Debunked

Christian Universalism Debunked

By Eli Kittim

Introduction

Universal reconciliation (also called “apocatastasis”) is the belief that, in the end, everyone will be saved. Advocates of this position assert that the concept of an eternal hell was never part of Judaism or early Christianity. Although this is certainly a very appealing view, there are many problems with it. For one thing, it is, in effect, a denial of free will, as if God will somehow coerce us into union with him. For another, morality has been thrown to the wind, as if there is no punishment for lawlessness. This doctrine essentially urges us to do what we please because, in the end, we will literally get away with murder! It reminds me of Aleister Crowley’s occultic expression, “Do what thou wilt.” The motto is, eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we’re saved. Thus, whether or not you murder, torture, molest, or harass innocent human beings is unimportant and irrelevant. You’re going to heaven. So carry on. There’s no need to stop. This position reminds me of free grace theology which essentially says the same thing: don’t stop sinning because you’re already saved. Therefore, both views are unscriptural and unacceptable!

The New Testament does not support universalism, and in fact mentions the reality of hell many times. The belief in hell is also contained in the Nicene creed and in the writings of the apostolic fathers. In fact, universalism was officially condemned as a heresy in the second Council of Constantinople (553 AD), when Origen’s teaching of apokatastasis was formally anathematized. Universalism is, therefore, not only a heresy but a denial of scripture. Nevertheless, since the apostolic age, there have been quite a few people who have affirmed the doctrine of universalism. The latest proponent is religious studies scholar David Bentley Hart with his 2019 book, That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation.

Universalists come in many different flavors. Although some reject the existence of hell completely, others see it as a sort of purgatory prior to entering heaven. Universalists typically argue that the concept of eternal hell is based on a mistranslation of the Greek term αιών (aion). However, the word αἰώνιος means “ever-lasting,” or “eternal” (see Liddell and Scott. An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon). Moreover, the idiomatic phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» does mean “forever,” as seen in the following examples:

Gal 1.5 - ᾧ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν

αἰώνων ἀμήν.

Phil 4.20 - τῷ δὲ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ ἡμῶν ἡ

δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν

αἰώνων· ἀμήν.

1 Tim 1.17 - τῷ δὲ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων

ἀφθάρτῳ ἀοράτῳ μόνῳ θεῷ

τιμὴ καὶ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.

Rev 1.6 - καὶ ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς βασιλείαν

ἱερεῖς τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ

αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς

τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν.

Rev 1.18 - καὶ ὁ ζῶν καὶ ἐγενόμην νεκρὸς

καὶ ἰδοὺ ζῶν εἰμι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας

τῶν αἰώνων καὶ ἔχω τὰς κλεῖς

τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τοῦ ᾅδου.

The No-Hell Argument

Universalists claim that there’s no hell, and especially no “eternal hell.” Let’s see if their claims can be substantiated. How do the universalists explain the fallen angels who are locked away? Where are they imprisoned? (2 Pet 2.4). Doesn’t sound like the land of the dead (Sheol)! Plus, the Greek words that are used in these particular contexts suggest “eternity,” not annihilation or apocatastasis. For example, Jude 1.6-7 (NRSV) reads:

And the angels who did not keep their own

position but deserted their proper dwelling,

he has kept in eternal [ἀϊδίοις] chains

[δεσμοῖς] in deepest darkness for the

judgment of the great day. Likewise, Sodom

and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities,

which, in the same manner as they,

indulged in sexual immorality and pursued

unnatural lust, serve as an example by

undergoing [ὑπέχουσαι] a punishment

[δίκην] of eternal [αἰωνίου] fire [πυρὸς].

By the way, «αἰωνίου δίκην» means “eternal judgment.” So the question is, if all the damned are eventually saved (universalism), or if they simply die in the land of the dead (annihilationism), then why did God *prepare* (ἡτοιμασμένον) the eternal fire (τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον) for the devil & his angels? (Mt 25.41, 46 [eternal punishment; κόλασιν αἰώνιον]; cf. Mk 9.48; 2 Pet 2.4; Jude 1.13; Rev 14.11; 20.10)! The Greek phrase «κόλασιν αἰώνιον» actually means “eternal punishment.” Daniel 12.2, in the Septuagint (LXX), also mentions an “everlasting life” for the righteous, as well as an “everlasting shame” for the wicked:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι

ἐξεγερθήσονται, οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ

οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς αἰσχύνην

αἰώνιον.

English translation by L.C.L. Brenton:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of

the earth shall awake, some to everlasting

life, and some to reproach and everlasting

shame.

The Greek phrases «ζωὴν αἰώνιον» and «αἰσχύνην αἰώνιον» mean “everlasting life” and “everlasting shame,” respectively. Look up the phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» (Gal. 1.5; Phil. 4.20; 1 Tim. 1.17; 2 Tim. 4.18; Heb. 13.21; 1 Pet. 4.11; Rev. 1.6; 1.18; 4.9-10; 5.13; 7.12; 10.6; 11.15; 15.7; 19.3; 20.10; 22.5)! The phrase «εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων» means “for ever and ever.” Moreover, if the damned die once for all, then why is the word “eternal” used to frequently describe their punishment? Is it simply that our *memory* of them will be “eternal”? That’s not exactly what the Bible says. So, is the Bible (or God) lying to us or trying to confuse us?

Annihilationism: How ‬Bart Ehrman‪ Gets Things Wrong In His Book, Heaven and Hell

Although some believers in universal reconciliation (aka “apocatastasis”) might accept the notion of hell in some short-term temporal sense, they do not accept it either as a place of endless torment or as a place of ultimate “annihilation” for the wicked after the last judgment. And although this subsection is on the topic of annihilationism, I’m discussing it simply because it has a great deal to say about the term αἰώνιον (everlasting), which the universalists mistranslate!

In his “Fresh Air Interview” with Terry Gross, world-renowned biblical scholar Bart Ehrman falsely “states that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found in the Old Testament.” This statement directly contradicts the teachings of the Old Testament. Much to Bart Ehrman‪’s‬ dismay, there is a clear reference to a resurrection from the dead in the Old Testament in which there are definite rewards and punishments that await both the righteous and the wicked. In fact, these rewards and punishments are said to be “everlasting.” The following constitutes a further treatment of Daniel 12.2 (NRSV), which reads:

Many of those who sleep in the dust of the

earth shall awake, some to everlasting life

and some to shame and everlasting

contempt.

The so-called “Theodotion Daniel” form of the Septuagint (LXX) confirms that the rewards and punishments in the aftermath of the resurrection are indeed *continuous* by using the Greek word αἰώνιον, which means “everlasting.” Daniel Th 12.2 proclaims:

καὶ πολλοὶ τῶν καθευδόντων ἐν γῆς χώματι

ἐξεγερθήσονται, οὗτοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον καὶ

οὗτοι εἰς ὀνειδισμὸν καὶ εἰς αἰσχύνην

αἰώνιον.

The Hebrew text (BHS) of Daniel 12.2 reads:

‎וְרַבִּ֕ים מִיְּשֵׁנֵ֥י אַדְמַת־עָפָ֖ר יָקִ֑יצוּ אֵ֚לֶּה לְחַיֵּ֣י עֹולָ֔ם

‎וְאֵ֥לֶּה לַחֲרָפֹ֖ות לְדִרְאֹ֥ון עֹולָֽם׃ ס

The key Hebrew words are עוֹלָ֔ם ‘ō·w·lām (everlasting) and לְדִרְא֥וֹן lə·ḏir·’ō·wn (contempt). In short, the dead are not annihilated, nor do they sleep forever, as Ehrman mistakenly assumes, but are rather *resurrected* to exist either in an “everlasting life” of Blessedness or in “everlasting contempt.” What is more, Daniel 12 is found in the Masoretic and Qumran texts and is not, therefore, a later edition.

As for Ehrman’s other false statement “that eternal rewards and punishments aren’t found . . . in the teachings of Jesus,” he should go back and restudy the Koine Greek of the earliest New Testament gospel, namely, the gospel of Mark! The English translation of Mark 9.47-48 reads as follows:

And if your eye causes you to stumble, tear

it out; it is better for you to enter the

kingdom of God with one eye than to have

two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where

their worm never dies, and the fire is never

quenched.

Two things are indisputably mentioned by Jesus that are both unequivocal and categorical: the *punishment* is •everlasting• in that neither human beings nor the fires of hell (γέενναν) are put out or extinguished. In short, human beings never die and the fires of hell never end. And this pericope is considered to be part of the sayings of Jesus! Thus, in accordance with Daniel 12.2, Jesus definitely confirms the duration, rather than the extinction, of the afterlife! In fact, the Greek term πῦρ (“fire” of hell) in Mark 9.48 is the exact same term used to designate “the lake of fire” (Gk. λίμνην τοῦ πυρὸς) in Revelation 20.10! The Greek text (NA28) of Mark 9.48 is illuminating in this regard. It reads:

ὅπου ὁ σκώληξ αὐτῶν οὐ τελευτᾷ καὶ τὸ

πῦρ οὐ σβέννυται.

The Greek term σκώληξ (skóléx) means “worm,” “symbolizing perhaps the loathsomeness of the penalty” (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon) or it maybe used figuratively as a general term of contempt for a living being. Moreover, the Greek phrase οὐ τελευτᾷ means that their “organism” (or “worm”) never ceases to exist; it does not come to an end. Equally, the Greek phrase οὐ σβέννυται means that the fires (Gk. πῦρ) of punishment are not put out: they are not extinguished or quenched! It’s also important to note that Mark 9.48 is not an interpolation because it’s preserved in Isaiah 66.24. It’s part of the Old Testament tradition.

In other words, Jesus clearly teaches in Mark 9.47-48 that there are eternal punishments precisely because people do not cease to exist after death, nor are the fires of hell put out (cf. Mt. 25.46). And Daniel 12.2, among other places in the Old Testament (cf. e.g., Isa. 66.24), supports the New Testament teaching of the abiding presence of rewards and punishments for both the righteous and the wicked in the afterlife! Further supportive evidence comes from Rev. 20.10, which contradicts annihilationism by explicitly stating that the damned “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Gk. βασανισθήσονται ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων)! Besides, if annihilationism is true, why, then, will the damned be resurrected? To die again? (Jn 5.29). It doesn’t make any sense! It is, therefore, deeply misleading and particularly dangerous to assume that the Bible does not speak of an afterlife or that there are no ultimate consequences for our actions here on earth!

Universalists Misinterpret Scripture

Universalists are putting a spin on practically every scriptural verse they mention, adding a speculative (private) interpretation that is not in the text, while ignoring other parts of scripture that say the exact opposite. It’s a sort of *confirmation bias* in which they add interpretations to the text that are not explicitly stated. For the sake of convenience, I’ll simply mention a few verses that they often use to twist scripture in order to make it say what it doesn’t actually say.

For example, Rev 5.13 is talking about the new creation——that is, everyone who has been reborn in Christ——when it says that all will sing praises to God. But it doesn’t mean that the most violent and wicked demons that ever lived (such as Satan) will hold candles and sing praises to God. Or, take 1 John 4.14. Yes, Christ is the Savior of the world, meaning that his atonement covers all human beings, provided that they’re freely willing to come to him. But that doesn’t mean that the will of the people can be forced into salvation. Similarly, 1 Timothy 2.4-6 says that God wants all men to be saved. But this verse is simply informing us of God’s disposition, not that all men will definitely be saved. Along the same lines, Philippians 2.9-11 says that every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. But this could be referring to the new creation following the judgment, after the former things have passed away. Besides, during the judgment, the unsaved will certainly recognize that Jesus is Lord, even if they despise him. It’s a similar situation to the demons who acknowledge God’s existence in James 2.19. Moreover, the narratives in Ezekiel and Isaiah, which claim that all nations will come to worship God, are true. But they are symbolic of those particular nations that will be saved. They don’t imply that each and every person that ever lived will be saved, or that there is no judgement:

Psalm 1.5 - Therefore the wicked will not stand

in the judgment nor sinners in the

congregation of the righteous.

Psalm 7.6 - Rise up, O Lord, in your anger;
     lift yourself up against the fury of

my enemies; awake, O my God;

you have appointed a judgment.

Jn 5.24 - Very truly, I tell you, anyone who

hears my word and believes him

who sent me has eternal life and

does not come under judgment but

has passed from death to life.

Jn 5.29 - and [they] will come out: those

who have done good to the

resurrection of life, and those who

have done evil to the resurrection

of condemnation.

Rom 2.3 - Do you imagine, whoever you are,

that when you judge those who do

such things and yet do them

yourself, you will escape the

judgment of God?

1 Pet 4.17 - For the time has come for

judgment to begin with the

household of God; if it begins with

us, what will be the end for those

who do not obey the gospel of

God?

2 Pet 2.4 - God did not spare the angels when

they sinned but cast them into hell

and committed them to chains of

deepest darkness to be kept until

the judgment;

What is more, Ephesians 1.11 doesn’t say that God will bring all people under Christ, as some universalists have argued. Rather, it says that those who have been saved have been predestined to obtain an inheritance according to God’s will, and that all things work according to his will. Besides, in 1 Corinthians 15.22-28, Christ is said to eliminate all his enemies, and after that he will recreate a new universe in which God will be all in all (in the new creation, that is!). It means that God will be in all the righteous people that remain, not in all the wicked to whom he says “I never knew you; depart from me” (Mt. 7.23 ESV)! Moreover, if “the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Mt. 7.14 NRSV), does that sound like universalism? And if “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit” (Jn 3.5), how, then, can people who are not born of the Spirit be saved? And if all will be saved, then why are we commanded to preach the gospel? Why do we need to be reborn then? Why even believe in Jesus? Thus, universalism has clearly embraced aberrant teachings based on mistranslations and misinterpretations!

The Universalists Claim that Eternal Hell Does Not Exist Because God is Love

But God is also Justice. Everyone will be punished accordingly. Everyone will be judged. No one will get off scot-free. Everyone will get what they deserve. You don’t have to look very far to see the coming judgment, such as Jesus waging war on the Antichrist (2 Thess. 2.8), or waging a just war in Rev. 19.11, or the wrath of Christ that leaves corpses lying dead by the thousands (Rev. 19.18), or “the great winepress of the wrath of God”:

Rev 14.19-20

So the angel swung his sickle over the earth

and gathered the vintage of the earth, and

he threw it into the great winepress of the

wrath of God. And the winepress was

trodden outside the city, and blood flowed

from the winepress, as high as a horse’s

bridle, for a distance of about one thousand

six hundred stadia.

Rom 12.19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave

room for the wrath of God, for it is written,

‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the

Lord.’

Deut 32.35

for the day of vengeance and recompense,

for the time when their foot shall slip?

Because the day of their calamity is at

hand; their doom comes swiftly.

Isa 13.6

Wail, for the day of the Lord is near;

it will come like destruction from the

Almighty!

Isa 13.9

See, the day of the Lord is coming,

cruel, with wrath and fierce anger,
 to make the earth a desolation

and to destroy its sinners from it.

Jer 46.10

That day is the day of the Lord God of

hosts, a day of retribution,

to gain vindication from his foes.
 The sword shall devour and be sated

and drink its fill of their blood.


Does that sound like universal salvation? So even though God is good, he is also just.

Conclusion

There are two views on opposite sides of the spectrum. One claims that all the wicked will be destroyed, while the other asserts that they will be saved. Both are wrong! As we have seen, both annihilationism and universal reconciliation (apocatastasis) are not consistent with the teaching of Scripture. The Bible tells us that the wicked will continue to exist in “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12.2). Their everlasting abode is described as an eternal place “where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched” (Mark 9.48)! John 3.36 (NIV) says categorically and unequivocally: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them.”

“What is truth?” Pilate asked.

By Psychologist & Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

Feigned madness

Recently, I’ve had numerous Biblical debates with various people in many different groups. The topics were all different, but there was a common denominator: all my opponents refused to accept the indisputable and overwhelming evidence that I was presenting. This prompted me to seriously explore and investigate the cause of their reactions. In other words, when a scholar or a scientist provides irrefutable evidence that is not only obvious and clear but also demonstrably factual, then any refusal to accept it should be viewed as a form of mental illness or psychological neurosis. It can also be described as a *delusion*:

a persistent false … belief … that is

maintained despite indisputable evidence to

the contrary.

——- Merriam-Webster dictionary

It’s like giving someone all the facts that the earth is round, but they nevertheless still maintain that the earth is flat. Then there’s nothing further one can say. Anyone who pretends not to understand the evidence is therefore *feigning madness*:

‘Feigned madness’ is a phrase used in

popular culture to describe the assumption

of a mental disorder for the purposes of

evasion, deceit or the diversion of suspicion.

——- Wikipedia

It’s like a mathematician proving that 2+2 = 4. Only an insane person would disagree. Similarly, in one of my debates, I produced multiple lines of indisputable evidence to demonstrate that the pre-tribulational rapture is a false doctrine. Instead of accepting the evidence and thanking me for the proof-texts, my opponent got very irritable and hostile and started to insult me. He even called me a heretic. That’s when I knew I was dealing with a fanatic who probably had some form of mental illness. So, when a scholar or a scientist gathers the available body of facts about a particular topic and clearly demonstrates whether a belief or proposition is true or valid, then that should settle the matter, unless another scholar can disprove him. For example, when a belief or proposition is clearly proven to be false but certain people are unwilling to accept the evidence——to such an extent that they would even use insults to disrespect the researcher——then these people might be labeled fanatics. But what is actually happening psychologically is that these so-called “fanatics” who refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence are employing the defensive mechanism of *denial*:

Denial … is a psychological defense

mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst

Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced

with a fact that is too uncomfortable to

accept and rejects it instead, insisting that

it is not true despite what may be

overwhelming evidence.

——- Wikipedia

It seems that a lot of people are deceived about a lot of things because they are essentially BIASED. That is to say, they’re not open to other views. The way this works is that they typically have an obstinate belief that they wish to maintain no-matter what, and so they are not interested in objective truth. They are only interested in maintaining their beliefs. So if people challenge their beliefs, they think that abandoning their beliefs would eventually lead to chaos. So they cling to their beliefs for dear life, even if these beliefs have been totally debunked. They’re not really interested in finding out whether their beliefs are true or false because that would entail a complete restructuring of their entire belief-system. So, instead of abandoning their current beliefs, which could lead to terrifying thoughts and emotions, they’d rather hold on to these false beliefs as a coping mechanism against a potentially hostile reality:

The theory of denial was first researched

seriously by Anna Freud. She classified

denial as a mechanism of the immature

mind because it conflicts with the ability to

learn from and cope with reality.

——- Wikipedia

Seeking Truth

But when something is proved to be false, shouldn’t we disregard it? If it doesn’t matter whether we prove it or not, then why bother debating at all? Why bother interpreting scripture or translating the Biblical languages? Why bother studying the Bible? If truth no longer matters, then why bother explaining scripture? Who cares? Many people typically say, “I don’t care what scholars say or what they can prove. I believe what I believe and that’s final.” Well, if truth no longer matters, then what’s the point of reading the Bible or following God? God might not exist & the Bible might be false. So why should we even bother reading about Christ if we’re no longer interested in truth?

What I am trying to get across is that “truth” must be the basis of everything we do! We must change our beliefs if they are found to be false. We shouldn’t entertain “beliefs” for their own sake but only because they can be demonstrated to be true! If our “beliefs” or “traditions” line up with truth, then we should accept them. But if they don’t, then we should reject them. You see, beliefs can be false, even deceptive and misleading. For example, many liberal pastors have crept into the church and are disseminating many FALSE BELIEFS as if they were true. That’s why so many people are deceived and confused. Many don’t even know what salvation is because of these false teachings. Bottom line, we should not be searching for “beliefs.” We should be searching for the “truth”! Paradoxically, when we find the truth, we will also find Jesus. And when we find Jesus, we will also find the truth. Why? Because the truth is not a principle; it’s a person:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am … the truth.’

——- John 14.6 (NASB)

So, “seeking” the truth is a noble path. In fact, we must be reborn into the truth. Rebirth is all about a new way of seeing (Jn 3.3), when we get rid of our false beliefs about God and meet him existentially. That’s when we come to realize that many of our beliefs about him are false. God then becomes a reality and teaches us new things about him that we never knew before (Jn 14.26).

What is Truth?

When we say that God’s word is “true,” we don’t mean that every story in the Bible is literally true. It could be a parable, a poem, or an allegory. Rather, we mean that the essence of God’s teachings (behind the narratives) is true. And when we do Biblical exegesis, we should always strive to see what we can prove; that is to say, what is true. Otherwise, there’s no point in trusting scripture or following God. We study scripture to prove it is true. And we follow God because we believe that he is truth itself. In other words, truth should be our guide and our teacher:

you will know the truth, and the truth will set

you free.

——- John 8.32

First kings 17.24 reminds us that “the word of the Lord … is truth.” In the same way, Psalm 25.5 prayerfully says, “Lead me in Your truth.” Psalm 45.4 similarly suggests that God himself fights “For the cause of truth” (cf. Rev. 19.11). Moreover, Psalm 119.160 says to God that “The sum of Your word is truth,” while Isaiah 65.16 calls him Elohim, “the God of truth.”

Interestingly enough, Jeremiah 9.3 compares good and evil to truth and falsehood (cf. Jer. 9.5). That’s why Dan 10.21 calls the Bible “the book of truth”! John 5.33 speaks of testifying to the truth. Notice that John 8.32 claims that the knowledge of the truth is what sets people free. By contrast, the devil “does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him” (Jn 8.44). So the battle between good and evil turns out to be a battle between truth and falsehood. That’s precisely why the Holy Spirit is called “the Spirit of truth” (Jn 14.17). John 17.17 concludes that God’s “word is truth.” Thus, there is something special about truth that allows us to follow Christ. That’s why in his testimony before Pontius Pilate, Christ says:

Everyone who is of the truth listens to My

voice.

——- John 18.37

Therefore, we can rightly conclude that the difference between sinners and saints is the truth! How did people sin in the first place (according to Romans 1.25)? Answer: “they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood.” This means that the lies we believe are equivalent to sins. And if we are corrected but refuse to accept or even acknowledge the said edification, then we are deliberately sinning against God. Surprisingly, in Romans 2.8, truth is pitted against wickedness. That is to say, those who don’t obey the truth obey unrighteousness. In other words, being evil or morally wrong is directly related to a disobedience of the truth. That is why our defense against evil always involves criteria of truth (Eph. 6.14). As a matter of fact, 2 Thess. 2.10 attributes the state of damnation to a form of deception, in that those who are evil “did not accept the love of the truth so as to be saved.” So they will ultimately perish because they loved the lie more than the truth. Unlike Calvinism, which falsely preaches that God predestines people to hell, 1 Tim. 2.4 claims that God “wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Therefore, *salvation* comprises a reception of “the knowledge of the truth.”

That’s why 2 Tim 1.14 is an exhortation to guard the truth that has been given to us by the Holy Spirit. Why should we guard the truth? Because if we believe a lie, it could be the difference between life and death; between salvation and damnation; between eternal life and eternal hell. Second Timothy 3.7 describes sinners as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This means that one can have a vast amount of knowledge with regard to secular learning yet “never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” First John 4.6 separates the open-minded from the close-minded people in terms of whether they possess “the spirit of truth” or “the spirit of error.” In other words, the ability to listen objectively with an open mind is somehow related to the Holy Spirit. That’s why holding on to deceptive doctrines and “paying attention to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” (1 Tim. 4.1) is equivalent to the wide gate “that leads to destruction” (Mt. 7.13).

We know, for example, that we often deny the obvious truth because our defense mechanisms don’t allow us to hear it. That’s precisely why Jesus often says, “The one who has ears to hear, let him hear.” Only one question remains:

Are you willing to follow the *truth*

regardless of where it might lead?

——-

The Gospels are Nonhistorical Theological Documents: Only the Epistles Give Us the Real Jesus

By Bible Researcher Eli Kittim 🎓

The Theological Gospels Versus the Prophetic Epistles

First, the epistles are the more explicit and didactic portions of the New Testament.

Second, they are expositional writings, giving us facts, not theological narratives with plots, subplots, characters, etc. The gospels are more like broadway plays (theatrical productions) whereas the epistles are more like matter-of-fact newspapers.

Third, the epistles are not only devoid of all the legendary elements of the gospels, but they also apparently contradict the gospels with regard to Jesus’ birth, death, and resurrection, by placing them in eschatological categories. For them, Scripture comprises revelations and “prophetic writings” (see Rom. 16.25-26; 2 Pet. 1.19-21; Rev. 22.18-19)! According to the NT Epistles, the Christ will die “once for all” (Gk. ἅπαξ hapax) “at the end of the age” (Heb. 9.26b), a phrase which consistently refers to the end of the world (cf. Mt. 13.39-40, 49; 24.3; 28.20). Similarly, just as Heb. 1.2 says that the physical Son speaks to humanity in the “last days,” 1 Pet. 1.20 (NJB) demonstrates the eschatological timing of Christ’s initial appearance by saying that he will be “revealed at the final point of time.”!

Was There An Oral Tradition?

The oral tradition is hypothetical and presupposed. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the evidence seems to refute it.

There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition

Tumblr

There Was No Pre-Pauline Oral Tradition

By Eli Kittim 🎓 When asked why Paul didn’t give us more details about Jesus’ existence, some scholars often use a common strawman argumen

First, the gospels are written anonymously.

Second, there are no eyewitnesses.

Third, there are no firsthand accounts.

Fourth, how is a supposed Aramaic story suddenly taken over, less than 2 decades after the purported events, by highly articulate Greeks and written about in other countries like Greece and Rome? Do you realize that none of the New Testament books were ever written in Palestine by Jews? None! That doesn’t make any sense and it certainly casts much doubt about the idea of a supposed Aramaic oral tradition.

When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?

tumblr.com

When, Where, and By Whom Was Each Book of the New Testament Written?

By Writer Eli Kittim ——- The New Testament: Book by Book Matthew. Place Written: Antioch? Written in 80-85 CE. Author: anonymous; tradit

Fifth, you can certainly compare a novel with the gospels. Almost every event in Jesus’ life is borrowed from the Old Testament and reworked as if it’s a new event. This is called intertextuality, meaning a heavy dependence of the New Testament literature on Hebrew Scripture. A few examples from the gospels serve to illustrate these points. It’s well-known among biblical scholars that the Feeding of the 5,000 (aka the miracle of the five loaves and two fish) in Jn 6.5-13 is a literary pattern that can be traced back to the OT tradition of 2 Kings 4.40-44. Besides the parallel thematic motifs, there are also near verbal agreements: "They shall eat and have some left” (2 Kings 4.43). Compare Jn 6.13: “So they gathered ... twelve baskets ... left over by those who had eaten.” The magi are also taken from Ps. 72.11: “May all kings fall down before him.” The phrase “they have pierced my hands and my feet” is from Ps. 22.16; “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst” is from Psalm 69.21. The virgin birth comes from a Septuagint translation of Isaiah 7.14. The “Calming the storm” episode is taken from Ps. 107.23-30, and so on & so forth. Is there anything real that actually happened which is not taken from the Jewish Bible? Moreover, everything about the trial of Jesus is at odds with what we know about Jewish Law and Jewish proceedings. It could not have occurred in the middle of the night during Passover, among other things. This is historical fiction. That’s precisely why E.P. Sanders once called the book of Acts (the so-called fifth gospel) historical fiction:

“The majority of New Testament scholars

agree that the Gospels do not contain

eyewitness accounts; but that they present

the theologies of their communities rather

than the testimony of eyewitnesses”. — Wiki

“Many biblical scholars view the discussion

of historicity as secondary, given that

gospels were primarily written as

theological documents rather than historical

accounts”. — Wiki

Scholarship is not necessarily a bad thing for evangelical Christians. It actually helps them to clear up the apparent theological and historical confusion.

8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible

tumblr.com

8 Theses or Disputations on Modern Christianity’s View of the Bible

By Author Eli Kittim ——- A Call For a *New Reformation* A common bias of modern Christianity is expressed in this way: “If your doc

What About the Extra-Biblical Sources that Seem to Support the Historicity of Jesus?

First, Jesus is not your everyday, garden-variety Jew, as most apologists depict him when trying to explain why Jesus is never mentioned by any secular contemporary authors.

Mark 1.28

“News about him spread quickly over the

whole region of Galilee”.

Mt. 4.24

“News about him spread all over Syria.”

Matthew 4.25

“Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and

the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea

and from beyond the Jordan.”

So why is it that in approximately 65 years there is not so much as a single word about him in any extra-biblical book?

Why aren’t the meticulous Roman historians (who wrote just about everything) mentioning Jesus? Why is Plutarch and Philo unaware of Jesus’ existence? You’d think they would have, at least, heard of him. So something doesn’t add up. Not even the local Jewish writers mention Jesus, even in passing.

Second, the so-called extra-biblical sources that briefly mention Jesus have all been tampered with. The first mention of Jesus outside the New Testament was at the close of the first century by Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars know that this account is inauthentic and unacceptable, containing an interpolation. Josephus scholars suspect that Eusebius might be the culprit.

Third, Pliny the Younger, writing from the 2nd century, was in communication with Tacitus so his account cannot be viewed as an independent attestation.

Fourth, the Talmud was written many centuries later and contains no eyewitnesses. It is totally irrelevant.

Fifth, Tacitus’ Annals was in the possession of Christians (Medicis) and was most probably altered by 11th century monks:

“It is the second Medicean manuscript, 11th

century and from the Benedictine abbey at

Monte Cassino, which is the oldest surviving

copy of the passage describing Christians.

Scholars generally agree that these copies

were written at Monte Cassino and the end

of the document refers to Abbas Raynaldus

cu ... [sic] who was most probably one of

the two abbots of that name at the abbey

during that period”. — Wiki

Moreover, Tacitus probably lifted the passage from Luke 3.1 and even got Pontius Pilate’s title wrong. Scholars have found traces of letters being altered in the text, and they have pointed out that Tacitus, an unbeliever, would not have referred to Jesus as the Christ. Besides, these Roman writers were not even eyewitnesses and are too far removed from the purported events to have any bearing on them. If we can’t make heads or tails from the second generation Christians who themselves were not eyewitnesses, how much more information can these Roman writers give us, writing from nearly one century later? So it’s a strawman argument to use these 2nd century writers, who were drawing on earlier materials, as independent attestations for the existence of Jesus.

Sixth, a consensus can also be used as a fallacious argument, namely, as an appeal to authority fallacy. We know of many things that were once held to be true that were later proven to be false. Like the idea that everything revolved around the earth. That was once a consensus. It was false. Similarly, the current consensus concerning Christ may be equally false! If Bible scholars reject the historicity of Noah, Abraham, and Moses, then why do they support the historicity of Jesus? If there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, if Paul tells us almost nothing about the life of Jesus, if the Testimonium Flavianum and the Annals of Tacitus are inauthentic, and if Bertrand Russell and world-renowned textual critic Kurt Aland questioned the existence of Jesus (as if he were a phantom), then on what grounds does the scholarly consensus affirm the historicity of Jesus? It seems to be a case of special pleading. A nonhistorical Jesus would obviously put a damper on sales and profits. Jesus sells. Everyone knows that. Perhaps that’s the reason why the consensus is maintained!

But Didn’t the Early Church Fathers’ Writings Attribute Authorship to Jesus’ Disciples?

Let’s cut to the chase. The gospels were written anonymously. There were no firsthand accounts. And there were no eyewitnesses. The names of the authors were added in the 2nd century. Even the second generation Christians who wrote the gospels don’t claim to be eyewitnesses. They claim to know someone who knew someone, who knew someone, who knew someone, and so on. The earliest case of attributing a gospel to a particular person comes from the writings of Papias, whom both modern scholars and Eusebius distrust. Eusebius had a "low esteem of Papias' intellect" (Wikipedia). And scholars generally dismiss Papias’ claim that the original gospel of Matthew was written in Hebrew.

As for the purported authorship by the disciples themselves, that is utterly impossible for three main reasons. One, they would have been long dead by the close of the first century. Two, they were illiterate fishermen from the backwoods of Galilee. See Acts 4.13 in which Peter and John are described as uneducated and illiterate (ἀγράμματοι) men. Three, they were unable to write in highly sophisticated and articulate Greek. Not to mention that the authors of the gospels spoke very sophisticated Greek and copied predominantly from the Greek rather than from the Hebrew Old Testament. So, the traditional story that we’ve been told just doesn't hold water. It needs to be revisited.

Am I Inconsistent in Trusting Only Part of the New Testament While Tossing Out the Gospels and Claiming to Be a Follower of Christ?

First, I know what Christ’s teachings are by way of direct revelations from the Holy Spirit, similar to those Paul experienced and wrote about in Galatians 1:11-12 (NASB):

“For I would have you know, brothers and

sisters, that the gospel which was preached

by me is not of human invention. For I

neither received it from man, nor was I

taught it, but I received it through a

revelation of Jesus Christ.”

Second, I’m not trusting only part of the New Testament and tossing out the gospels, while claiming to be a follower of Christ. I actually believe in the entire New Testament. I have a high view of scripture and I believe that every word was given by inspiration of God (including those of the gospels). The Bible has many genres: poetry, parable, metaphor, wisdom, prophecy, apocalyptic, history, theology, etc. If someone doesn’t interpret poetry as history, that doesn’t mean that he’s tossing out the poetic part of scripture and claiming that it’s not inspired. He’s simply saying that this part of scripture is not meant to be historical but rather poetic. Similarly, my view that the gospels are theological doesn’t mean that they are not inspired by God or that they’re false. It simply means that I’m interpreting genres correctly, unlike others who have confused biblical literature with history, and turned prophecy into biography. It appears, then, that the theological purpose of the Gospels is to provide a fitting introduction to the messianic story beforehand so that it can be passed down from generation to generation until the time of its fulfillment. It is as though NT history is written in advance. So the gospels have a certain role to play.

There’s No Such Thing As a Follower of Christ

I keep seeing profiles on Facebook and Twitter where people claim to be “followers of Christ.” What does that even mean? You’re either in-Christ or out-of-Christ. Only someone who is not in Christ is a follower of Christ. People often confuse the terminology. They think that a true Christian is a follower of Christ. False! A true Christian is not following Christ. He is in Christ! Only those who have not yet been reborn are “followers of Christ,” seeking to become united with him. Those who are already reborn from above through the spirit (Jn 3.3; Acts 2.1-4) are already in-Christ. They’re not followers of Christ. And you don’t get to be in-Christ through belief alone (Jas. 2:19), professions of faith, the sinner’s prayer, altar calls, by an intellectual assent to the truths of Christianity, or by following Christ through performance-based behaviors (i.e. observing the commandments, etc.). These are all false conversions. You must first get rid of the false self and put on God as your new identity (the true self). I’m afraid there’s no other way.

How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?

tumblr.com

How Are We Saved: Is It Simply By Belief Alone, Or Do We Have To Go Out Of Ourselves Ecstatically In Order To Make That Happen?

By Author Eli Kittim ——- What does the Bible say about salvation? Romans 8.14 implies that if you’re not “led by the Spirit” you’re NOT a c

Hi, what is the difference between the Elect and those who have the Seal of God? Or are they the same? Thanks!

They are the same!

Easy believism

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Before the reward there must be labor.

You plant before you harvest. You sow in

tears before you reap joy. ~Ralph Ransom

Christians typically debate over the nature of the godhead (e.g. modalism vs. the trinity), the best English Bible translation (KJV only vs. Critical edition), the rapture (pre vs post-tribulation), and many other different doctrines that are peripheral to soteriology. However, the topic that we’re about to discuss is a salvation-issue of the utmost importance.

Easy believism holds that only belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation. Nothing else is required in order to be saved. Proponents of this view teach that no commitment to Christian discipleship or spiritual formation is required. In other words, no efforts whatsoever are necessary on the part of the believer in order to be saved. It is certainly very appealing, particularly to those who are lazy and who dislike efforts and commitments. Plus it allows you to indulge your carnal desires to your heart’s content!

There are only two categories in the spiritual life: the “saved” and the “unsaved”; the “saint” and the “sinner.” By that I mean the Christian and the nonChristian. That is to say, the person who has been born-again in a Holy Spirit experience versus the person who has not yet been regenerated. The topic of “easy believism” only concerns those people who have not yet experienced a rebirth. It refers to those people who are interested in salvation and want to know what they have to do to attain it. By contrast, those who have been reborn have received the Holy Spirit and are already saved!

Just because Jesus is said to die for our sins doesn’t mean that we should continue to practice sin, whether it be pedophilia, adultery, murder, or the like. The idea of making an effort to align our behavior with God’s will doesn’t mean that we are saving ourselves or that we reject Christ’s ultimate sacrifice. It is true that only Jesus can regenerate us. It is a gift of God. But those who are not yet regenerated need to purify themselves in order to receive God’s gift of salvation. Just like the farmer ploughs the field, prepares the soil for planting, and then plants the seeds and waits for the harvest, we, too, must prepare the soil of our heart in order to receive the harvest of God’s gift. It takes much time and effort. Not that rebirth itself has anything to do with us, but the preparation towards it definitely does. Once we receive it, God then does all the work inside us through his Holy Spirit!

Scriptural verses should be read in **canonical context,** not in isolation. The notion that we must do certain things (beyond just believing) is quite obvious throughout scripture. For example, Jesus says I know about your “deeds and your labor and perseverance” (Rev. 2.2), but you need to “repent, and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and I will remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent” (Rev. 2.5)! Notice that Jesus doesn’t say “continue to sin because you will be saved as long as you believe in my death, burial, and resurrection.” No! Jesus doesn’t say “sit back, relax, and do nothing because I will take care of all the details.” Rather, he says:

To the one who overcomes, I will grant to

eat from the tree of life, which is in the

Paradise of God (Rev. 2.7).

This is a theme that runs throughout the Bible. We have to struggle against sin so as to overcome. According to the Oxford Languages Dictionary, to overcome means to “defeat (an opponent); prevail.” We do not defeat anyone or anything if we don’t exert any effort at all. In Revelation 3.3, Christ commands the believers to stay alert and vigilant and to repent:

remember what you have received and

heard; and keep it, and repent. Then if you

are not alert, I will come like a thief, and you

will not know at what hour I will come to

you.

Proponents of easy believism claim that *repentance* and *avoidance of sin* are practices based on “works” and are, therefore, not required. Yet 1 John 1.6 declares:

If we say that we have fellowship with Him

and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do

not practice the truth.

Similarly, 1 John 3.4 says:

Everyone who practices sin also practices

lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.

In 1 Timothy 6.11-12, Paul addressed the believers and issued a categorical imperative to actively flee from sin. He pronounced a solemn exhortation:

flee from these things, you man of God,

and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith,

love, perseverance, and gentleness. Fight

the good fight of faith; take hold of the

eternal life to which you were called, and for

which you made the good confession in the

presence of many witnesses.

Paul is urging us to actively flee from sin and to practice righteousness. Just like Jesus, Paul is not telling us to do nothing except believe. On the contrary, he’s urging us to fervently fight against evil thoughts, against sinful emotions & desires, and against temptations to disobey God. If no efforts were required, then why would Paul say that we must fight and struggle against sin, against falsehood, and against everything that opposes the knowledge of God (2 Cor. 10.5)? In Ephesians 6.10-14, Paul writes:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the

strength of His might. Put on the full armor

of God, so that you will be able to stand firm

against the schemes of the devil. For our

struggle is not against flesh and blood, but

against the rulers, against the powers,

against the world forces of this darkness,

against the spiritual forces of wickedness in

the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the

full armor of God, so that you will be able to

resist on the evil day, and having done

everything, to stand firm. Stand firm

therefore, having belted your waist with

truth, and having put on the breastplate of

righteousness.

In 1 Corinthians 6.18, Paul’s caveat to “Flee sexual immorality” explicitly contradicts the doctrine of easy believism. So does John 8.11 where Jesus says “go, and do not sin again." Same with Ephesians 4.26: “Be angry but do not sin.” Are these verses teaching that only belief is necessary? In Romans 6.13, Paul issues a command: “do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness.” These proof-texts, therefore, expose the horrific errors of easy believism!

Paul never says “it doesn’t matter if you keep sinning as long as you believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Paul never says “don’t worry if you’re having an adulterous relationship with someone’s wife, or if you keep robbing people’s homes, or if you keep molesting little children, as long as you believe in the finished work of Jesus Christ.” That’s like saying that the head of the mafia may have already killed many people——and may kill many more in the foreseeable future——but he’s actually *saved* because he believes that Jesus is the Christ. How crazy is that? In other words, Free Grace theology holds that “carnal Christians” and “unbelieving Christians” who even denounce their faith will, nevertheless, be saved. Obviously, there’s something seriously flawed with the doctrine of easy believism!

This is a perversion of the gospel. In fact, Romans 8.5-8 says that “those who live according to the flesh” are not believers. Salvation is a gift. No one is denying that. But the goal is to take up our cross daily and die to ourselves so as to become more Christ-like (Mt. 16.24). Without preparation and discipleship we are not heading towards Christ. Therefore, easy believism is a false teaching that deceives and misleads people by offering them a fake salvation that does not save! In fact, Zane Hodges and the Grace Evangelical Society have gone so far as to say that it’s not even a requirement (for salvation) to believe that Jesus is God, or that he died for sin, or that he was bodily resurrected at some point in human history!

Easy believism is a perversion of the Bible (see Mt. 7.14; Acts 2.1-4, 15; Rom. 6.3; 8.9; 2 Cor. 5.13; Eph. 4.22-24; Gal. 2.20; Rev. 3.20)! Bottom line, unless you’ve had an *existential experience* of rebirth (Jn 3.3), you’re not saved. If you think salvation is so easy that all you have to do is simply name it and claim it, then you’re only having an imaginary relationship with Jesus. Paul demonstrates that there’s far more to salvation than easy believism. He exclaims:

Work out your salvation with fear and

trembling (Phil. 2.12).

The Da Vinci Code Versus The Gospels

By Eli Kittim 🎓

Bart Ehrman was once quoted as saying: “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it.” This is an amusing anecdote that I’d like to use as a springboard for this short essay to try to show that it’s impossible to separate literary characters from the literature in which they are found. For example, when Ehrman says, “If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it,” his comment presupposes that James is a real historical figure. But how can we affirm the historicity of a literary character offhand when the so-called “history” of this character is solely based on, and intimately intertwined with, the literary New Testament structures? And if these literary structures are not historical, what then? The fact that the gospels were written anonymously, and that there were no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts, and that the events in Jesus’ life were, for the most part, borrowed from the Old Testament, seems to suggest that they were written in the literary genre known as theological fiction. After all, the gospels read like Broadway plays!

Let me give you an analogy. Dan Brown writes novels. All his novels, just like the gospels, contain some historical places, figures, and events. But the stories, in and of themselves, are completely fictional. So, Ehrman’s strawman argument is tantamount to saying that if we want to examine the historicity of Professor Robert Langdon——who is supposedly a Harvard University professor of history of art and symbology——we’ll have to focus on his relationship with Sophie Neveu, a cryptologist with the French Judicial Police, and the female protagonist of the book. Ehrman’s earlier anecdote would be akin to saying: “if Robert Langdon did not exist, you would think Sophie would know it.”

But we wouldn’t know about Robert Langdon if it wasn’t for The Da Vinci Code. You can’t separate the character Robert Langdon from The Da Vinci Code and present him independently of it because he’s a character within that book. Therefore, his historicity or lack thereof depends entirely on how we view The Da Vinci Code. If The Da Vinci Code turns out to be a novel (which in fact it is), then how can we possibly ask historians to give us their professional opinions about him? It’s like asking historians to give us a historical assessment of bugs bunny? Was he real? So, as you can see, it’s all based on the literary structure of The Da Vinci Code, which turns out to be a novel!

By comparison, the historicity of Jesus depends entirely on how we view the literary structure of the gospel literature. Although modern critical scholars view the gospels as theological documents, they, nevertheless, believe that they contain a historic core or nucleus. They also think that we have evidence of an oral tradition. We do not! There are no eyewitnesses and no firsthand accounts. All we have about the life and times of Jesus are the gospel narratives, which were composed approximately 40 to 70 years after the purported events by anonymous Greek authors who never met Jesus. And they seem to be works of theological fiction. So where is the historical evidence that these events actually happened? We have to believe they happened because the gospel characters tell us so? It’s tantamount to saying that the events in The Da Vinci Code actually happened because Robert Langdon says so. But if the story is theological, so are its characters. Thus, the motto of the story is: don’t get caught up in the characters. The message is much more important! As for those who look to Josephus’ Antiquities for confirmation, unfortunately——due to the obvious interpolations——it cannot be considered authentic. Not to mention that Josephus presumably would have been acquainted with the gospel stories, most of which were disseminated decades earlier.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to downplay the seriousness of the gospel message. I’m simply trying to clarify it. The gospels are inspired, but they were never meant to be taken literally. I’m also a believer and I have a high view of scripture. The message of Christ is real. But when will the Jesus-story play out is not something the gospels can address. Only the epistles give us the real Jesus!