My Niche Interest in Soteriology.

Ever since I read the words "In Him you're also" from Ephesians 1, I knew I was onto something. I've developed a soteriology of sorts. It is not completely unique. It shares similarities with other soteriological systems. However, it tends to blend a lot of different systems together without trying to, as I am just trying to follow the Bible where it leads.

I "fed" 5 articles I have written on soteriology to Grok, the AI from X, and it said this when I asked how similar (or unique) my soteriology is to other systems throughout Church history:

Summary of Your SoteriologyBased on the articles you provided, your view of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation) can be distilled into a hybrid framework that integrates elements of divine election and human response. Key premises include:

• Dual Paths to Salvation: There are two categories of "elect" individuals. The first receives direct revelation from God (e.g., visions, dreams, or encounters like Paul's on the road to Damascus), often predestined "before the foundation of the world" for specific roles such as apostles or prophets. The second comes to faith through hearing the gospel preached by human messengers, emphasizing a response to the message.
• Universal Atonement with Particular Election: Christ died for the sins of the whole world (universal provision), but God specially chooses some for His purposes based on foreknowledge of their character and likely positive response.
• Character-Based Qualification: Those selected for direct revelation typically embody virtues akin to the Beatitudes (e.g., poor in spirit, merciful, pure in heart), which align with how they will handle and respond to divine disclosure. Rejection of revelation (e.g., Balaam) leads to condemnation, highlighting the role of moral disposition.
• Church Hierarchy and Continuing Revelation: The church operates on a hierarchical structure rooted in degrees of revelation (apostles and prophets at the foundation, followed by evangelists, pastors, etc.), which continues today rather than ceasing after the apostolic era. Authority is divinely bestowed, not humanly appointed.
• Integration of Predestination and Free Will: This is described as "Arminianism superimposed onto Calvinism," where predestination applies to special roles, but salvation is available to all through faith, with God's calling informed by foreknowledge.

This view emphasizes God's sovereignty in selection while preserving human responsibility, the Great Commission as the primary means for most salvations, and ongoing miraculous interventions (e.g., dreams among Muslims).Comparison to Historical SoteriologiesYour soteriology shares notable similarities with several established views in Church history, particularly those attempting to reconcile divine sovereignty and human freedom. However, the specific "dual paths" (direct revelation vs. preaching), the tie to Beatitudes-like virtues as a basis for election, and the emphasis on a continuing revelatory hierarchy introduce unique nuances. It draws from Protestant traditions but diverges from strict Calvinism or Arminianism by blending them explicitly.To illustrate, here's a table comparing your view to key historical soteriologies. I've focused on core elements like election, atonement, revelation, and hierarchy, drawing from Church history (e.g., patristic, Reformation, and modern evangelical developments).





(Note: I apologize if the tables have too small writing. I have split the table into two sections to try and make it more readable.)

Key Historical Parallels:

• Molinism: This Jesuit view (developed to counter strict predestination) is the closest match overall. It posits God's "middle knowledge" (scientia media), where He knows counterfactuals—what people would do in any scenario—and elects accordingly. Your emphasis on God choosing based on foreknown character traits (e.g., how one would respond to revelation) mirrors this, as does the balance of sovereignty and freedom. However, Molinism doesn't specify dual salvation paths or a revelatory hierarchy.
  
  Amyraldism (Hypothetical Universalism): A moderate Calvinist view from French Reformed theology, it holds that Christ died for all (universal intent) but God elects some to receive the benefits. This aligns with your "Arminianism on Calvinism" blend and dual election layers. Unlike your view, it doesn't base election on foreknown virtues or allow for ongoing direct revelation.
  
  New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and Montanism: NAR (a contemporary Pentecostal movement) believes in modern apostles and prophets with ongoing revelation, much like your hierarchy. Montanism (2nd-century movement led by Montanus) emphasized continuing prophecy and direct revelation for authority, facing criticism for novelty. Your view shares the continuationism but adds soteriological ties to character and election.
  
  Other Echoes: Early Church fathers like Origen discussed election via foreknowledge, and some patristic views (e.g., corporate election in Eastern Orthodoxy) see salvation as tied to the church body rather than individuals. Your pronoun analysis in Paul (e.g., "we" vs. "you") resembles some dispensational or covenant theology interpretations distinguishing groups.
  Is Your View Unique? Your soteriology is not completely unique—it synthesizes elements from Molinism (foreknowledge-based election), Amyraldism (universal atonement with particular decree), and NAR (continuing revelatory hierarchy), which have precedents in Church history from the Reformation onward.
  
  However, the explicit "superimposition" of Arminian universalism onto Calvinist predestination for dual paths, the Beatitudes as election qualifiers, and the focus on pronoun shifts for hierarchical proof appear novel. No single historical system matches all these precisely, making your formulation a distinctive personal synthesis rather than a direct replication. If this resonates with emerging views in online evangelical discussions (e.g., on X or blogs), it could reflect a broader trend toward hybrid soteriologies in modern Protestantism.
  
  Arminianism and Provisionism: These emphasize free will and universal provision, similar to your general path via preaching. Provisionism (a modern Baptist alternative to Calvinism) rejects limited atonement and stresses God's provision for all to believe, echoing your universal scope. But they lack your special predestined category.

• Want to tag some people who may be interested in this... @John K, @Jexocuha, @Umai, @just me, @Hyacinth, @Wyote.

John K said:

Ephesians 1:13 I believe.

As far as I understand it, most of chapter 1 is a great prayer of praise by Paul, almost in poetry form. It’s thanking god for those like him who have been chosen for salvation. He then goes on to thank god for the Ephesians who have also been saved by hearing the word of god preached to them and accepting it.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is correct. Also, to point out that the same exact phrase is used in Ephesians 2:22 after Paul says the foundation is built on the apostles and prophets from 2:20.

In my mind, I don't take the traditionally understood understanding of Paul that Ephesians 1:3-12 applies to all Christians, but to a chosen few. Paul further says,

Ephesians 3:5
"This was not made known to people in other generations as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit"

just me said:

I hear words coming from a man's heart, mind, and soul who has been walking in the Light; truly, with the Light. He speaks of God's glory through Jesus Christ. He shares God's will for not just the apostles and prophets, but for those who have believed in the hearing of the words of Jesus. For faith to the Ephesians came by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. I hear of the receiving of the Holy Spirit of God to those who believe in Him. I hear how Jesus is far above all principalities and powers, now and to come.
All things have been placed under his feet. He is the head of all things to the church, which church we are.

Concerning AI, that is for each to choose to follow or not; for there is nothing artificial about God. We must learn through His Holy Spirit and His Word. If we place our destiny in what a computer says, we risk the close association with God He has prepared for each of us who choose to follow Him and His Word.

There would be no foundation without Jesus Christ, Himself being the head cornerstone before the very foundations of the earth.

I seek to clarify, not to argue. The Word of God is complete, and other beliefs need not be added to it. A-men.

Click to expand...

You may not understand what I am doing with AI. I am not using AI to interpret the Bible. I am using AI to summarize, compare, and contrast different views from church history based on what conclusions I have come to about the topic of soteriology; I could have very well just posted my articles that I have written.

Would you like me to share one of my articles that I have written on the subject?

just me said:

I am founded and stand on the way to salvation through the blood of Jesus.

I have read Quran many years ago: about 2011 and 2012. I felt at home when I returned to the Holy Bible. If you wish to study them, that is for you. I do not wish to study the others any further myself. This is where I stand on solid ground, all other ground is sinking sand.

Now that you know where I stand, I will try to stay out of this thread so you can share what you wish to share. I will be watching, of course.
I walk with the Spirit of God as close as a man can, if I am doing what I am to do. Sorry for the interruptions.

Click to expand...

I believe salvation is only through Jesus Christ, who lived the life we should have and died the death we should have. There is no other name by which a person can be saved except through Jesus Christ.

Here is an overview of my soteriology.

JFIY, my soteriology all comes from the Bible explicitly. I didn't mention this earlier, but I should have. I've now written about 5 articles to back up my view from the Bible. Chruch Fathers are great to listen to, but they are by no means infallible, unlike the Word of God.

John K said:

A couple of thoughts that occurred to me as I was listening. You talked about the natures of people and the devil as being at the core of how they respond to God - but isn’t it God who created those natures in the first place. Are you saying that He created the devil as evil? And with people, are you saying that he created some folks with a nature that is doomed to reject Him? Or perhaps you are saying that our nature doesn’t come from God? I’m a little confused about this.

Click to expand...

I do not believe God micromanages the universe as a Calvinist would. I think most things run, more or less, on autopilot, meaning whatever happens is just how God originally set up the universe to function. However, I believe God the Father has an overarching providential role for the world. But this is just the Father. The Son, who upholds the universe by the power of His word, is not sitting there going, "I will make Johnny with blond hair and blue eyes, and I will make Tommy dark skinned with brown eyes." So, I more or less believe that God takes more or less a hands-off approach to the universe except when he doesn't for some miracle or something (such as the incarnation).

John K said:

I’ve also got a question about those you describe as being chosen by God for a special role - the Apostles for example. But don’t they still have a choice? Judas for example was chosen in this way but in the end rejected it. Or are you saying that God predestined Judas to the awful role of traitor to Christ? Maybe many people were chosen by God before the beginning of time for special roles but rejected them - we would never hear about those because they’d be lost in the mists of time, unlike those who accepted and were foundational in what they gave us.

Click to expand...

The key to my soteriology with those who are especially chosen is that they are chosen before the foundation of the world based on God's foreknowledge of their character, so that God can give them revelation on a certain thing they are chosen for. In the same way (on the other side), God does choose SOME people specifically for damnation based on his foreknowledge of their character. Examples of this include Balaam and Pharaoh. Oftentimes, God gives these people specific revelation from God, and God knows that they will reject it. So in a way, they are more damned than most people, who have the option to respond positively or negatively to the Gospel. So, God chooses some people in a good way, some people in a bad way, but most people can go either way and are in the middle.

John K said:

I do have a problem with this myself, but that may be because I haven’t thought deeply about it. The problem I have is that it implies God has created people who are intrinsically evil. But if that is the case, when they manifest that evil, they are in fact doing God’s will. They can do no other because that is their created nature. To damn them then for doing what He intended of them does not sound like the act of a God who is infinitely good.

Click to expand...

I know it is difficult to come around on this particular theology. The thing is, the Bible makes it pretty clear that God does this. The Bible says God raised up Pharaoh for the purpose of judgment. IDK how you get around that. Romans 9 also makes this clear, unless you want to say that the Bible does not mean what it says, which I think is a mistake the vast majority of the time.

One thing I don't want to do is interpret the Bible based on what I personally don't like the implications of, because I am not God and His ways are higher than my ways.

John K said:

That may well be true, but the Bible is also a story of the long and often painfully inadequate saga of the discovery of God. Of course, Jesus replaced in his person the old dispensation too, it looks very different to what came before. Even so we still make a mess of understanding what he did - we can see that in all the many interpretations of who and what He was over the millennia.

We can see this more easily maybe in practical things. We don’t stone women caught in adultery these days, we don’t execute witches, we don’t think lending at interest is sinful any more, we are ok eating pork, we don’t insist on males being circumcised. All these were mandated by the old Law.

If we believe that God is love, as St John says, then he will not condemn anyone for fulfilling the destiny he laid down for them, even if they had no choice in their nature but to be evil.

My own position is that He created nothing that is intrinsically evil. Lucifer was not so in his beginning and nor is any human. We choose that path rather than are forced along it. But I have a different view of time to many - for God, time does not flow as it does for us. For Him, the universe exists all at once, from beginning to end in a single thing - every moment of every place is in a single now for him. That’s how he knows what will happen - yet, beyond my ability to conceptualise it, he still gives us all a free choice - to go with the grain of his will or to go another way.

Click to expand...

I don't think the God of the OT is different from the God of the NT. There are many examples I could go to for this, but I'll just leave it at the verse that says, "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever," and compare that to when Abraham had a Christophany in which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. Same Jesus, just a different aspect of Jesus. Also, Revelation, in which Jesus kills a LOT of people.


I agree with you fully on your view of God and time. You may find this article I wrote on the subject interesting, but no obligation to read it, of course.

John K said:

I'll read this in detail later today

Click to expand...

I look forward to your feedback!

Just a comment, but truth is eternal. Truth does not change with the times. I do not believe that we, today, have a better revelation of God than, say, Moses. There are different degrees of revelation people have. This is not necessarily progressive, but instead is just different aspects of God. One person sees God's mercy. Another person sees God's justice. Both are true. But no one gets the whole. We get pieces. Newton got a big piece of reality with his theory of gravity. It was revolutionary, but it was imperfect. In the same way, another person comes along later who discovers the Mandelbrot or the surprising applicability of mathematics. Still, it does not mean that Newton was wrong in what he saw.

Luke 1:69-70
"He has raised up a horn of salvation for us
in the house of his servant David,
just as he spoke by the mouth
of his holy prophets in ancient times;"

The truth is ancient. We need to tap into the ancient rather than the new to truly understand God. But this is a difference we are going to have because Catholics believe revelation continues on throughout the Church. But they are not getting new revelations, so the point is ultimately moot.