Choose the Category for Gospel and Mathematics HERE


Universalism in Christ Alone – Secret of the Gospel – Apocalypse of Peter

———————————————- Announcement ————————————————————-


Lost Orthodoxy – Heart of the Gospel Book – Updated 3 December (Monday) 2018


Please find it attached.


Thank you for considering to read it!


Peace to you








(i) Book with Covers




(ii) Book with NO Covers



P/S 2: Why?


Why this Book? Justin and Irenaeous are considered the first Greek based writing – leaders before Clement of Alexandria. Their writings are next to New Testament Scripture and earliest writings such as Shepherd of Hermas only. So, they are very authoritative as accepted by all Christianity generally as Orthodox. Only that their writings are not easily and correctly understood as I tried to demonstrate. Logic: You can tell the same thing with Verses but unless an authority of Doctrine and ancient Biblical Koine Greek says the same, people won’t believe you. So this book attempts to bridge that gap and illustrate the Wisdom of Holy Scripture as understood by these earliest authorities.











1) What is the “Muratorian fragment”?


To Quote:


The Muratorian fragment, also known as the Muratorian Canon[1](18:02) or Canon Muratori, is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of most of the books of the New Testament.







2) Did the “Muratorian fragment” endorse the “Shepherd of Hermas” Book to be Accepted?


To quote:


“The text of the list itself is traditionally dated to about 170 because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (140—155), as recent:


But Hermas wrote The Shepherd “most recently in our time”, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.”





3) What does the “Muratorian fragment” say about the “Apocalypse of Peter”?


“In addition to receiving the Apocalypse of John into the church canon, the author remarks that they also receive the Apocalypse of Peter, although “some of us will not allow the latter to be read in church”[line 72]. However, it is not certain whether this refers to the Greek Apocalypse of Peter or the quite different Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, the latter of which, unlike the former, was Gnostic.”








4) What is the “Apocalypse of Peter”?


To quote:


“The Apocalypse of Peter is framed as a discourse of the Risen Christ to his faithful, offering a vision first of heaven, and then of hell, granted to Peter.”


When was it written?


“The terminus post quem—the point after which we know the Apocalypse of Peter must have been written—is revealed by its use (in Chapter 3) of 4 Esdras, which was written about 100 AD.”







5) How is the “Judgment in Hell” described in the “Apocalypse of Peter”?


To quote:


“The punishments in the vision each closely correspond to the past sinful actions in a version of the Jewish notion of an eye for an eye, that the punishment may fit the crime. Some of the punishments in hell according to the vision include:


Blasphemers are hanged by the tongue.


Women who “adorn” themselves for the purpose of adultery, are hung by the hair over a bubbling mire. The men who had adulterous relationships with them are hung by their feet, with their heads in the mire, next to them.

Murderers and those who give consent to murder are set in a pit of creeping things that torment them.


Men who take on the role of women in a sexual way, and lesbians, are “driven” up a great cliff by punishing angels, and are “cast off” to the bottom. Then they are forced up it, over and over again, ceaselessly, to their doom.


Women who have abortions are set in a lake formed from the blood and gore from all the other punishments, up to their necks. They are also tormented by the spirits of their unborn children, who shoot a “flash of fire” into their eyes. (Those unborn children are “delivered to a care-taking” angel by whom they are educated, and “made to grow up.”)


Those who lend money and demand “usury upon usury” stand up to their knees in a lake of foul matter and blood.”











6) Does the “Apocalypse of Peter” agree with “eternal Hell” or the “Christ Centered Universalism found in the Sibyline Oracles”?


To quote:


“The Revelation of Peter shows remarkable kinship in ideas with the Second Epistle of Peter. It also presents notable parallels to the Sibylline Oracles[8] while its influence has been conjectured, almost with certainty, in the Acts of Perpetua and the visions narrated in the Acts of Thomas and the History of Barlaam and Josaphat. It certainly was one of the sources from which the writer of the Vision of Paul drew. And directly or indirectly it may be regarded as the parent of all the mediaeval visions of the other world.”




7) Is it True that the “Apocalypse of Peter” proves “Christ Centered Universalism only” and “NOT eternal Hell”?


To quote:


“There is also a section which explains that in the end God will save all sinners from their plight in Hell:


“My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, … It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men… ”


Thus, sinners will finally be saved by the prayers of those in heaven. Peter then orders his son Clement not to speak of this revelation since God had told Peter to keep it secret:


[and God said]”… thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin”.”



Final Conclusion


The “Muratorian fragment” indicated that both the “Shepherd of Hermas” & the “Apocalypse of Peter” are TRUE —–> then why is it NOT canonized or read openly in the Church?


As mentioned above, to quote this SECRET REASON:


(i) The “Muratorian fragment” regarding the “Shepherd of Hermas” to be kept a secret quote:


‘But Hermas wrote The Shepherd “most recently in our time”, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it CANNOT be read PUBLICLY to the people in CHURCH either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.’




(ii) The “Apocalypse of Peter” keeping the “Christ Centered Universalism” as per the “Sibyline Oracles” a Secret because:

“There is also a section which explains that in the END God will SAVE ALL SINNERS FROM their plight in HELL (1 Timothy 2:4-KJV, 1 Timothy 4:10, 1 John 4:14):


“My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, … It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men… ”

Thus, sinners will finally be saved by the prayers of those in heaven. Peter then orders his son Clement not to speak of this revelation since God had told Peter to keep it secret:


[and God said]”… thou must NOT TELL that which thou hearest unto the SINNERS lest they TRANSGRESS the MORE, and SIN“.”








To Quote from the ‘Apocalypse of Peter’ itself regarding these Rarely Known Truths, please consider:

“There is a great deal more of the Ethiopic text, but it is very evidently of later date; the next words are: Next: ‘ The Father hath committed all judgement unto the Son.’ The destiny of sinners -their eternal [AGE-DURING] doom- is more than Peter can endure: he appeals to Christ to have pity on them.


And my Lord answered me and said to me: ‘Hast thou understood that which I said unto thee before? It is permitted unto thee to know that concerning which thou askest: but thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin.’


Peter weeps many hours, and is at last consoled by an answer which, though exceedingly diffuse and vague does seem to promise ultimate pardon for all: ‘My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away,’ . . . ‘It is because of them that have believed in Me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in Me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men.’


The doctrine that sinners will be saved at last by the prayers of the righteous is, rather obscurely, enunciated in the Second Book of the Sibylline Oracles (a paraphrase, in this part, of the Apocalypse), and in the (Coptic) Apocalypse of Elias (see post).


Ultimately Peter orders Clement to hide this revelation in a box, that foolish men may not see it. The passage in the Second Book of the Sibylline Oracles which seems to point to the ultimate salvation of all sinners will be found in the last lines of the translation given below.


The passage in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elias is guarded and obscure in expression, but significant. It begins with a sentence which has a parallel in Peter. The righteous will behold the sinners in their punishment, and those who have persecuted them and delivered them up. Then will the sinners on their part behold the place of the righteous and be partakers of grace. In that Day will that for which the (righteous) shall often pray, be granted to them.


That is, as I take it, the salvation of sinners will be granted at the prayer of the righteous.

Compare also the Epistle of the Apostles, 40: ‘the righteous are sorry for the sinners, and pray for them…. And I will hearken unto the prayer of the righteous which they make for them.’ (Apocalypse of Peter)

Translation Source:

Please note ‘carefully’ that the ‘eternal hell’ translator tries to ‘deny’ these actual words found claiming that ‘we can’t be sure’ (and all the ‘usual evading drama’). ‘Universal Salvation for ALL MEN’ is clearly written in those Copyist Versions of the ‘Apocalypse of Peter’, the ‘Sibyline Oracles’, the ‘Coptic Apocalypse of Elias’ and the ‘Epistle of the Apostles’ as quoted by the ‘eternal hell translator’ himself. Isn’t it obvious?














P/S: Sadhu Sundar Singh


Surprisingly, a reliable Christian Universalist Witness of our time, Sadhu Sundar Singh echoed a similar tone of ‘secrecy’ as to ‘why’ this Greatest Truth that God Will SAVE ALL MEN eventually even some from HELL itself was ‘not’ shared easily by His Best Saints, to quote:


“The Sadhu’s Universalism recalls the famous Shewing to Mother Juliana of Norwich, ‘All manner of things shall be well‘, … The Sadhu faithfully obeys the injunction, “Don’t tell“.”


(Page 102, Chapter Ecstasy and Vision, The Message of Sundar Singh, B. H. Streeter, A. J. Appasamy, The Macmillan Company, 1921)

Please see attached image for this ‘similar truth’ too agreeing again to FIRST CHRISTIANITY in this aspect as well.














Verse for quote in Image:



“It is the Glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.” (Proverbs 25:2, NASB)


Peace to you


All Glory to Lord Jesus Christ, our God and Blessed Savior of the World!









Someone said, ‘God belongs to all free beings ??? nonsense… Everything belongs to GOD!’



Reconciliation Mystery – One Way vs Two Way

Yes, you are partially right.

“Everything belongs to God” (One Way reconciliation).

“God belongs toward everything” (Two way reconciliation is achieved) which happens only after He ‘fill all things by Himself‘ (Ephesians 1:23, Ephesians 4:10) achieving being ‘All in All’ (1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28, Colossians 1:20).


A Verse:


“In that Day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.” (John 14:20, NASB)

The Phrase ‘I in you’ —-> points to ‘Christ belonging in us’.

I believe that St. John Climacus refers to this ‘sense of belonging’ (that is, ‘He in us’) and NOT the ‘object ownership type of belonging’ as the English words means as well at the same time.


St. John Climacus must mean to all FREE BEINGS because NOT ALL has been set free from SIN YET but ‘those who believe in Him only’ (John 8:34, Romans 6:20 – 22) in the PRESENT TIME are RECONCILED (Colossians 1:21 – 22). ALL CREATION (Romans 8:22) will eventually be ‘set Free from this DECAY of SIN & its effects’ to share in this ‘area/aspect’ of our Freedom eventually as Prophesied Majestically (in Consecutive Verses, Romans 8:20 – 21).


So in light of this, I see nothing wrong in St. John Climacus’ quote.

It’s ok, if you interpret him wrongly. It remains your error. By the exegesis above, I see Climacus to be ‘right’. The ‘all things’ in each of the Verses quoted here refers to ‘all created things’ only as per the ONLY Biblical Definition as found in Colossians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 15:27 in light of THIS CONTEXT.




Yes ‘all things being Subject to Him eventually’ (as Prophesied Majestically in 1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28) in a ‘TWO WAY Reconciliation eventually too’ (Colossians 1:16 with Colossians 1:20) is TRUE but it has NOT yet HAPPENED for ‘All things in total yet’ (Hebrews 2:8). Peace.






P/S 2:  Here’s an Updated Post regarding St. Irenaeous of Lyons believing in the Trinity with the Zechariah 3:2 Mystery being Explained as well.


Trinity – Did St. Irenaeous of Lyons believe in the Trinity?




Thank you for reading and Blessings of His Peace to you!











Universalism Heresy?


1) Early Truth vs Heresies  – 1 John 2:2


Mankind only dies one common death (Hebrews 9:27).


The wicked undergo the Second Death (Revelation 20:11 – 15).

No one is denying Universal Salvation eventually (1 Corinthians 15:24 – 28, Colossians 1:16, 20, Ephesians 1:9 – 11, Acts 3:21, 1 Timothy 2:6).


Christ himself mentions the Resurrection of Judgment of the Wicked (John 5:28 – 29).


What is the Context and Meaning of 1 John 2:2?

“and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” – apostle John (1 John 2:2, NASB)

The Fact that afterlife Judgment precedes the Restoration of All is also taught by Clement of Alexandria & the ancient Alexandrian School as well, to quote (How did Clement of Alexandria understand 1 John 2:2 as he quotes it in the ‘Context’ or Discussion below? – Please read and notice ‘carefully’ as to how 1 John 2:2 is quoted below in the Context of Christ Centred Universalism ONLY):


“Ver. 2. “And not only for our sins,”–that is for those of the faithful,–is the Lord the propitiator, does he say, “but also for the whole world.” He, indeed, SAVES ALL; but SOME [He SAVES], CONVERTING them by PUNISHMENTS; OTHERS, however, WHO FOLLOW VOLUNTARILY [He SAVES] with DIGNITY of honour; so “that every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth;” that is, ANGELS, MEN, and SOULS that before His advent have departed from this temporal life.” – Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215)


Translation Source:



What I call as Heresy is Preterism and false concepts of Arminianism type of free will or the Gnostic heresy of claiming that ‘God’s Sovereignty includes doing evil as part of His Plan (Discussed in Pages 521 – 523 in the Book Lost Orthodoxy as Irenaeous points it out)’.


2) Preterism Heresy


Dear Preterists and those who believe in no immediate afterlife Judgment (as per Luke 16:19 – 31).


For those Universalists who think that ‘all are saved and there is no afterlife Judgment now nor Final Judgment later’ —-> explain Matthew 25:46, Revelation 20:11 – 15.


How can Christ Centered Universalism be True then?


It’s simple, they will be Saved after Mercy Triumphs over Judgment.


Afterlife Judgment must happen first before Mercy Triumphs over it (James 2:13).


Judgment is for the sins we do from our will (Galatians 6:7, Isaiah 3:11) but believers in Faith of Jesus Christ do not come under any afterlife Judgment at all (John 5:24).


I will stick to Revelation 20:11 – 15 to refer to the Final Gehenna Judgment (Matthew 10:28, John 5:28 – 29) as Irenaeous identifies these as equivalent (please refer to my previous write ups) instead of the modern Preterism heresy.


Irenaeous knows Revelation 20:11 – 15 better than any preterist Scholar because he heard from Polycarp who is the disciple of John the Apostle who wrote Revelation itself.


3) God’s Sovereignty in regards to our Free Will


There are parts we can choose and there are parts God decides regarding Free Will (not the Arminian definition but Irenaeous’ is correct which Proves God’s Sovereignty).


What does Irenaeous say?


Please consider (quoted from Pages 524 – 525 which discusses this in FULL showing Irenaeous’ translated writings too in ‘Lost Orthodoxy’ Book).


Please note the reason why God allowed Apostasy —> namely to HEAL ALL who are held in Apostasy first –> so, there is NO ETERNAL APOSTASY in an ETERNAL HELL or ANNIHILATION without RESTORATION of HEALING type of APOSTASY —> Can you REALLY SEE this ONLY BIBLICAL TRUTH? —> as Irenaeous’ Phrase ‘THINE OWN APOSTASY shall HEAL THEE’ means IRREFUTABLY.


4) Trinity


Trinity as ‘God in Three Persons’ is True: ‘God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit’. That’s why we get Baptized in the ‘One God in Three Persons’ as we CANNOT be Baptized in a ‘Creation’s Name’ (Matthew 28:19).


Yes, the very Fact that the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned together in Baptism (Matthew 28:19) Proves their EQUALITY of One God Manifested in Three Persons:


The Father as the Invisible God (John 1:18, John 6:46, .


The Son as the Visible Manifestation of God (God became FLESH – John 1:1,14 , 1 Timothy 3:16). The Son is the “Visible” Image of the “Invisible” God (Colossians 1:15, 19).


The Holy Spirit as the Spiritual Manifestation of God.


Denying the Trinity is about the Greatest HERESY of All. This is discussed in detail in Pages 538 – 543 in the Lost Orthodoxy Book focusing on Ireneaous’ Belief in it too.


5) Is God the Author of Evil?


Please consider ‘seriously’:

(i) There is no place in Scripture where we are told that evil is a creation of either man or the devil. —-> FALSE.


“But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by HIS OWN lust” (James 1:14, NASB)


(ii) When God does evil, it is according to His perfect wisdom —> FALSE.


“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God”; for GOD CANNOT be tempted by EVIL, and He Himself does NOT tempt anyone.” (James 1:13, NASB)




(iii) Isaiah 45:7, “I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and CREATE EVIL; I the Lord do all these things.”. —-> TRUE


But here’s the ‘Proper explanation’ by a ‘REAL Authority of Doctrine, St. Irenaeous of Lyons himself’ where Irenaeos does NOT refer to ‘evil done by man’ (e.g. a rape) but the JUDGMENT EVIL ONLY (see the difference?), to quote (from Page 12):


“… but to others, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting [AGE-DURING] FIRE, which My Father has prepared for the devil and his angels,” one and the SAME FATHER is manifestly declared [in this passage], “making peace and CREATING EVIL things,” preparing FIT THINGS for BOTH; as also there is ONE JUDGE sending both into a FIT PLACE, as the Lord sets forth in the parable of the tares and the wheat, where He says, “As therefore the tares are gathered together, and burned in the fire, so shall it be at the END of the world [AGE]…” (Irenaeous of Lyons, ‘Against Heresies’, Book 4, Chapter XL.-One and the Same God the Father Inflicts Punishment on the Reprobate, and Bestows Rewards on the Elect, Point 1, Point 2)


In Page 523 (in Book ‘Lost Orthodoxy’) we find Irenaeous FIGHTING AGAINST this ‘ancient Gnostic Pagan error of ascribing to God the act of evil’, as follows:


That God is not the Author of Evil, for Florinus seemed to be defending this opinion. —-> some among the ‘Calvinists or Universalists’ also ERR LIKEWISE in ‘falsely’ attributing God to Doing Evil instead of realizing the TRUTH that ‘God does NOT Influence or DO EVIL AT ALL’ (James 1:13) and He only JUDGES EVIL by RETURNING the SAME EVIL back to the Perpetrators in this life or next (Galatians 6:7, Isaiah 3:11) as ancient Christianity CORRECTLY taught say regarding the meaning of Isaiah 45:7.


Please see Page 367 in that same Book ‘Lost Orthodoxy’ for an accurate Scriptural Exegesis with NO contradictions (and agrees to Irenaeous’) instead of the one you proposed (which is contradicted by the Verses above).




6) Job’s Case


Job’s Case causes NO Problem at all in our exegesis.


“Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.” (Job 2:7, NASB)


Satan’s role is clear in Job though the ‘evil Job experienced’ by Satan’s own free will choice (Job 2:7 above) though is falsely ascribed to God first (Job 2:10). Job repented of some of ‘his wrong claim about God such as Job 2:10 later’ (Job 42:6).


God only ALLOWED Satan to exercise his free will in Job’s Case and did NOT WILL Job’s Destruction at ALL as Proven in God’s OWN WORDS (not Job’s, nor Satan’s):


“… And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause.” – God Speaks (in Job 2:3, NASB)


“However, put forth Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh; he will curse You to Your face.” – Satan Speaks (Job 2:5, NASB)


“So the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your power, only spare his life.” (Job 2:6, NASB)


The phrase “Behold, he is in your power” —-> only determines that God has given Job over to Satan’s authority and NOT that God is Intructing Job’s Ruin —> giving Satan a “CHOICE by his OWN WILL” to decide what to do next toward Job —> where we know by the next Verse (Job 2:7), Satan decides to do EVIL toward Job by his own will —-> Going against God’s Will (as God Mentioned First to Satan in Job 2:3) —> where this PERMISSION is BOUNDED by God in that He limits Satan’s will to NOT harm ‘Job’s life’ (in Job 2:6).


This agrees Perfectly to our Exegesis with NO Contradictions.


“But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the HAND of GOD, and shall we not RECEIVE EVIL? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” – Job Speaks (in Job 2:10, KJV)


“I TAKE BACK EVERYTHING I SAID, and I sit in dust and ashes to show my REPENTANCE.” – Job Speaks (in Job 42:6, NLT)


So the phrase ‘I TAKE BACK EVERYTHING I SAID,’ (Job 42:6) is said with REPENTANCE —> defining the Context of ‘whatever part which Job said wrongly is cancelled out by his own repentance’ —-> e.g. ‘HAND of GOD, and shall we not RECEIVE EVIL’ (Job 2:10) —> realizing later (as the Book of Job demonstrates) that the EVIL is DONE by SATAN and NOT God (Job 2:7) —-> and that’s why God accepts Job’s Innocence and states ‘In all this did not Job sin with his lips’ (Job 2:10) when the Book of Job is Understood in its Totality.


7) Amos 3:6


“Shall a TRUMPET be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be EVIL in a city, and the LORD hath NOT done it?” (Amos 3:6, KJV)


It’s clear that Amos 3:6 defines the EVIL referred to in the Context of JUDGMENT EVIL as per Isaiah 45:7 (as Irenaeous pointed out) —> as signified by the word “TRUMPET” (which is a symbolism for Judgment) in Amos 3:6.


The difference between Isaiah 45:7 and Amos 3:6 is that the former points to the Final Gehenna Judgment (Isaiah 45:7 as Irenaeous pointed out earlier) while the latter Points to an ‘earthly Judgment’ which God ALLOWS (in Amos 3:6).


8) Judging Evil vs Overcoming Evil


Joseph’s Case.


God did NOT approve of the Evil done by his brothers to him as per the Verse below:


“As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” – Joseph Speaks (in Genesis 50:20, NASB)


Please note these phrases ‘carefully’ for an ‘accurate exegesis’:


‘you meant evil against me’ = Joseph puts the blame of ‘evil’ on ‘his brother’s will’ and NOT God.


‘but God meant it for good ‘ = Joseph mentions that God ALLOWED it, so that by His Intervention later, His WILL to OVERCOME it will TURN out to be GOOD only.


Yes Joseph affirms here intrinsically that God’s WILL is GOOD ONLY (the ‘overcoming evil’ part – Romans 12:21 which is different from the ‘Judging evil’ part as described prior) agreeing to the Verse below in James explanation regarding this SAME TOPIC too (Context):


“EVERY GOOD thing given and EVERY PERFECT Gift is from above, coming down FROM the FATHER of LIGHTS, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” (James 1:17, NASB)


It is similar to David’s Adultery with Bathsheba which included Murder of ‘Uriah’ too (Two Ten Commandments Broken here). This is NOT God’s Will but king David’s OWN EVIL as God sent Prophet Nathan to Pronounce Judgment upon that act.


However, since king David repented, God has Mercy and DESPITE that EVIL done, eventually God did a GOOD too which is Solomon to be born to Bathsheba later.


But the Common Fallacy in the theologians you follow is that they ‘will FALSELY claim’ that —> Uriah’s Murder and Bathsheba’s adultery is part of God’s Sovereignty or Will —> which IS A HERESY and WRONG! (a BLASPHEMY indeed!).



Truth is, God HATED that EVIL done by king David himself and that’s why He sent Prophet Nathan to JUDGE David. But since David repented (and God knows all hearts to ‘determine TRUE REPENTANCE’), God had Mercy on David.



Later, God still did a GOOD by allowing Solomon to be born from Bathsheba. God’s Sovereignty is rightly understood in that ‘Solomon can be BORN WITH or WITHOUT David marrying Bathsheba’, say through another one of his wives.




Yes, God’s Sovereignty is NOT seen by ‘approving evil as part of His Plan’ —> but in that HE JUDGES EVIL first (the ‘Judgment with no Mercy first part’ in James 2:13) —> and OVERCOMES it LATER with GOOD ONLY (Romans 12:21, the ‘Mercy Triumphs over Judgment part’ in James 2:13 or ‘Mercy to All part’ in Romans 11:32).




God HARDENED the Pharaoh’s heart because God WANTED TO JUDGE the Pharaoh for all the evil that the Pharaoh did FIRST (Exodus 10:1, so that the Pharaoh does NOT repent and escape these Judgments – in such cases where their ‘evil level is extreme’, Isaiah 6:10, Matthew 13:15, Mark 4:12, Acts 28:27, Proverbs 10:24, Ezekiel 11:8, Jeremiah 42:16, Isaiah 66:4 – where God decides to SHOW MERCY without Judgment ONLY to cases where it is Fair, He knows all hearts, e.g. John 5:24).


A Verse for this ‘Judging Evil part’:


“So I will choose their punishments And will bring on them what they dread. Because I called, but no one answered; I spoke, but they did not listen. And they did evil in My sight And chose that in which I did not delight.” – God Speaks (in Isaiah 66:4, NASB)


Mercy is Promised to ALL in Disobedience eventually, yes (Romans 11:32) but some must endure the ‘Judgment with NO Mercy part first’ (James 2:13 – first part) followed by ‘Mercy which Triumphs over and ends that afterlife Judgment AFTER that only’ (James 2:13 – second part).


“For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.” (James 2:13, NASB)


Other Judgment Verses are in the SAME Principle of ‘eye for an eye’ or that Group of People having done that EVIL FIRST toward others —-> and ‘not toward any good people who didn’t practice it first toward others’ as explained in Pages 10 – 12.


Overcoming Evil with Good only comes LATER and AFTER the Judgment part first (as explained in say Pages 340 – 341, 367 – 368).


No Contradictions exist in this exegesis and agrees with Irenaeous’ in principle.


Our differences in Theology are subtle but significant.


Isn’t God Alone Good? Yes, (Mark 10:18).














God’s Will


The only thing silly is claiming everything is His Plan —-> example if your daughter/wife is raped or your son is killed? —-> is that “God’s Plan? ”


See the Problem?


Truth is, God allowed Free Choice but with ascribed limitedness and by His Foreknowledge He allowed men to fall because His Sovereignty is in the Fact that He Will eventually Heal All Creation “DESPITE our sins” and “NOT through our sins” —-> which is the PURE meaning of God’s Will as even St. Irenaeous demonstrates this Correct Teaching in his writings.




Someone remarked —-> ‘your opinion’.


I replied:


“The same way, “your opinion” too.


I will stick to Iraneous instead of “my opinion”, that’s the difference between you and I.


Ever wondered who is the ‘first person’ in Church History to believe the ‘same’ as you?


Pretty late uh?”


P/S: How about the Potter and Clay analogy?


Exactly, He destroys the clay that is not right.


That’s an analogy to His Sovereignty to “remake it anew”.


The clay analogy does not prove that “Free choice/will part” —-> not the Context there as The “Clay” is not Alive and doesn’t have a will.


So, we cannot take an analogy out of its context.


The Clay is an analogy of us but it’s not speaking of the “free will” aspect (as the clay is not alive) .


It speaks of God making Destroying to make the clay anew —-> ‘Body + Soul’ is most likely the clay part here which is destroyed to be made anew if it was in sin (Matthew 10:28).


To Prove that the above is ‘not’ my opinion, please consider this early Church History quote which harmonizes with the claim above perfectly with “no” Contradictions:


“Eusebius of Caesarea lived from 265 to 340 A.D. He was the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and a friend of Constantine, great Emperor of Rome. His commentary of Psalm II says:


“The Son ‘breaking in pieces” His enemies is for the sake of re-molding them, as a potter his own work; as Jeremiah 18:6 says: i.e., to restore them once again to their former state.”


Now, please prove ‘how’ the ‘clay’ refers to ‘creation’s will’ or ‘in that God endorsing rape/murder done first by evil creation as part of His Plan’ (as you claim) —–> ‘using Verses first’ & ‘next using authoritative early Church History’.


In short, ‘your turn, please’.


If you can’t, this is an example of ‘how opinions and heresies are created’.


Will of God breaks them in Pieces, yes. His Sovereignty is thus.


No free will aspect is discussed in the Verse or quote proving that these Verses is not speaking of that vanity aspect which exists (as other Verses testify to that aspect) but it’s not pointed out here focusing on God’s Will alone.


It just proves God’s Sovereignty over our “limited free will” and not that ‘free will doesn’t exist and that you’re a pre-programmed robot to sin’.


Other Verses speak of the ‘free will aspect with limitedness’ as my earlier post quoting Irenaeous himself testifying to this.


Just because the “Potter and Clay” verse doesn’t mention or refer to the ‘free will aspect’ does NOT mean that ‘free will doesn’t exist’ because ‘other Verses’ testify of its existence with the limits described in Scripture.


You’re demonstrating a common fallacy in your argument which is this:


‘You pick a verse which does not contain free will, and then you claim that free will doesn’t exist’. Isn’t it obvious?


These words you wrote:


“Stop it…you picked the verse not me. I was commenting on a verse that YOU selected. Sorry, I need to go. I don’t have time for this discussion which will end up going no where and has entered the world of ridiculousness.”


Please ask yourself ‘sanely’:


Did “those words” above which “you typed” are ‘God’s Will’ or by ‘your own allowed Free Will’?


Please be ‘careful’ of ‘your own words’ in reply to the above as Matthew 12:37 warns.





How did Irenaeous Understand “God’s Will Correctly” as per the Phrase “God Worketh all things after the Counsel of His Will” (in Ephesians 1:9 – 11)?

Please refer to the discussion in Pages 44, 79, – 80, 147, 263 – 275, 412, where St. Irenaeous clearly refers to these Verses (Ephesians 1:9 – 11) for a Proper ‘Contextual Understanding’. Other Related pages for edification could be Pages 204 – 206, 220, 251, 306, 313, 362, 446, 454, 492 — —> in this ‘Lost Orthodoxy Book’. Blessed be YHWH’s HOLY NAME!





Anonymous Christian

Jonathan Ramachandran is founder at which serves as a Christian Blog discussing the Greater Hope of Biblical Christian in Christ Alone. He is also an IMO (International Math Coach) and a featuring Guitarist for many bands.

Recent Posts

Jonathan Academic and Work CV

Jonathan Academic and Work CV - 2 Oct 2023 with Theology Reasons Highlight: Please view the theological explanations from… Read More

2 months ago

Book of Doctrine 20 July 2023

#BookofDoctrine or #DoctrineBook Latest Update (Free PDF Release): 20 July 2023 Please find the New Book titled "Book of Doctrine… Read More

2 months ago

Chiliasm Book 28 May 2023 Update with Martin Luther First Protestant in Last Chapter

Latest Update: 6 June 2023 I will just quote some major summary in images (more details in the free pdf… Read More

4 months ago

Chiliasm Book Latest Update (10 New Chapters Added on 25 April 2023)

Latest Update: 28 May 2023 I will just quote some major summary in images (more details in the free pdf… Read More

5 months ago

Did you know – First Christianity Chiliasm Possibility

  Latest Update: 25 April 2023 I will just quote some major summary in images (more details in the free… Read More

7 months ago

New Book titled Education for Daily Life

Latest Update: 22 February 2023 This post is mainly to announce the New Book titled "Education for Daily Life" which… Read More

8 months ago