1, 2 John

Disclaimer that is on almost every page; please read if you haven't already! Thank you :) : This website is research-based. All information is research completed to point someone to the truth. The author is more than confident in his ability to figure out what is true and not true, and with every document he did his best to be right.  Still, he did not complete all documents with 100% certainty.  So, while at least the vast majority of the information referenced in this website is accurate and helpful for coming to the right conclusion, it is not guaranteed that anything on or referenced by this website is true. This is intentionally allowed so that people are invited to think for themselves. 

So, please use your own judgment when coming to any conclusions.

Based on emails, this website will be edited to be more beneficial for anyone interested, when it's appropriate. 

Disclaimer and how to approach all the Bible commentary: Correct interpretations of the Bible are not guaranteed.  Commentary that is compatible with eternal security is an attempt to show God has not revealed conditional security through His word. God gave His word to the large public -- not just those who are super smart and in colleges -- and with it comes the ability to intentionally study what specifically and only the Bible has to say. That is God-given to all, and I used it to write all the commentary.  (Apologetics for conditional security often rely on an individual's ability to understand Scripture for themself.)

Logic and the word of God are given by God to test things, while what we think we feel from God is a subjective experience. People of both sides think they know God has approved what they believe. The only way to find the truth is to interpret the word of God using logic. (That is why a person must test their feelings by the word of God, and not the word of God by their feelings.)

Logically, verses used to support conditional security do show believers can be negatively spiritually affected.  The hypothesis that is tested by this theological commentary is that all verses used to support conditional security can be interpreted without going so far as to say loss of salvation is mentioned.  

Logic says that the only interpretation which covers everything and goes no farther is the most reasonable interpretation. For example, James 1:21 says "the word.. can save you." Just being saved from giving into temptation, and therefore not experiencing the spiritual hurt that sinning will cause, applies. James 1:21 doesn't have to include that and the possibility of losing eternal salvation.

By using that rule, the commentary suggests that the interpretations offered make more sense than conditional security. They intend to show that some conditional security ideas are incorrect (for example, Christians can't have sinful lives [see this page]), and even if some are correct an interpretation of lower intensity explains the verses without needing to say someone could lose their salvation (for example, Jesus's parables are about believers being judged harshly because they are such sinful believers).  These documents propose the idea that they make sense a different way. 

(In that case, even if the interpretations aren't best, they would be better.)

If this hypothesis is correct, if any verse meant someone could lose their salvation, we couldn't know it. God would have left us without any way of knowing we could lose our salvation, and also would leave us with many promises used to support eternal security.