Michael S. Heiser

Holds the biblical text as the authority and treats creeds as genuinely useful but secondhand and historically conditioned — his standing objection is to reading Scripture through a confession rather than to confessions as such. The ancient Near Eastern and Second Temple context functions as the interpretive control for reading the text, not as a second authority beside it.

WORTH CORRECTINGHe declines to define inerrancy rather than rejecting it: 'Whether you like the word inerrancy or not isn't the issue here. In my view, you don't have to use it' (NB 104), and elsewhere 'I more or less know what I think, but I'm having a hard time putting it into words.' Read the stance as Scripture's final authority over creeds and confessions, not as a position on the inerrancy debates.

"I'm not anti-creedal or opposed to denominations, I am opposed to using creeds and denominational preferences to filter the Bible." — drmsh.com/about/. And on the Westminster Confession: "The Confession doesn't do anything to really help you or move you toward the notion that we ought to be reading the Bible in light of its own ancient original context."Naked Bible 300

Rejects the canonicity of 1 Enoch flatly while insisting the book matters enormously for reading the New Testament, and draws the distinction sharply: usefulness and inspiration are separate questions, and quotation by a biblical author settles nothing. On the deuterocanonical books themselves he narrates the history without issuing a verdict.

WORTH CORRECTINGDowngraded from canon-66 during the verification pass, 2026-08-20. The locus asks about the Apocrypha; 1 Enoch is not deuterocanonical, so the evidence does not address the question the locus poses. He works within a Protestant canon in practice, but practice is not a stated position and no first-person 66-book confession was found.

"I don't consider the book of 1 Enoch canonical." and "A thing does not have to be considered inspired for a thing to be considered useful and important."Naked Bible 93

Denies that general revelation is sufficient for salvation — creation yields knowledge about God but not the plan of salvation — yet also holds that some who never heard the gospel will be saved, on the criterion of believing loyalty to the true God, with the mechanism explicitly left to God. He declines to systematize the two, and says so.

WORTH CORRECTINGLeft unassigned deliberately. He is not inclusivist in the sense the stance describes, since he denies general revelation is the sufficient means, but neither does he affirm the suppression account as a complete answer. His own hedge is 'We don't really know the entire circumstance.' Separately, he treats the Deuteronomy 32 disinheritance of the nations as parallel to Romans 1 — 'a punitive decision reminiscent of Romans 1' — not as a replacement for it.

"Paul never says that what he describes in Romans 1 is sufficient for salvation. He never makes that claim. It's not sufficient." and "There are people who are considered believers who will be in heaven who have never heard the Gospel. This is up to God to decide."Naked Bible 160

The Hebrew Bible assumes a real, hierarchical divine council of created spiritual beings under Yahweh, who were allotted the nations at Babel. His central lexical claim is that elohim is not a term of nature or attributes at all but of domain — it says where a being properly belongs, not what it is. That lets him affirm many elohim and one Yahweh without contradiction, since Yahweh is 'species unique' among the beings who share that address.

WORTH CORRECTINGHis term is 'place of residence,' not 'plane of existence.' The latter is widely quoted online and does not appear in the paper. Also commonly misread as polytheism: he argues the denial texts assert incomparability rather than non-existence, and that denying other elohim are real costs you the reality of demons (Deut 32:17).

"אלהים is what I call a 'place of residence' term. It identifies the proper domain of the entity described by it." and "Yahweh is an אלהים, but no other אלהים is Yahweh."What Is/Are an Elohim? (ETS 2010)

States his Trinitarianism directly and without hedging, and is explicit that what is unfamiliar about him is the route, not the destination. He also holds that there was a Godhead in the Old Testament — a visible and an invisible Yahweh, the 'two powers' framework — and that the divine council is, in his own careful phrase, 'in part related to that Godhead idea.' He does not identify the council with the Godhead, and given that he has the council members sentenced to death in Psalm 82, he could not.

WORTH CORRECTINGTwo statements of his are routinely clipped into apparent denials of the Trinity. Both say only that Psalm 82 is not a Trinity text — 'the Trinity is ruled out immediately because the gods over whom Yahweh presides are here being sentenced to die.' That is an argument about one psalm, not about the doctrine.

"For those who might inquire, I'm a very traditional Trinitarian (and so, I consequently affirm the deity of Christ), but I at times defend the idea in ways unfamiliar to many."drmsh.com/divine-council/

Affirms the deity of Christ explicitly and repeatedly, and reads the Old Testament 'second Yahweh' — visible, often in human form — as the one who becomes incarnate. Argues that the human-judges reading of Psalm 82 destroys the argument for Christ's deity in John 10:34-35, so the divine council reading functions for him as a defense of orthodox Christology. He does not work in the two-natures categories the locus uses.

WORTH CORRECTINGDowngraded from two-natures during the verification pass, 2026-08-20. Deity and incarnation are verbatim and well sourced. The Chalcedonian formula is not attested anywhere in the sources read, and the earlier assignment came from his self-description as a 'very traditional Trinitarian' plus incarnational language — which is inference from tradition, the one move this process forbids. Reassign if a direct statement turns up.

"Jesus was the incarnate second Yahweh." — drmsh.com, Two Powers in Heaven. And: "I think the divine plurality of the psalm is part of John's portrayal of Jesus as God, and it is impossible to make that argument if the elohim are mere men."drmsh.com/divine-council/

Holds that before regeneration a person cannot choose the gospel and that the quickening which enables that choice is irresistible — which is the substance of the bondage position. But he arrives there while denying inherited Adamic guilt outright, and while insisting that genuine freedom in every other respect survives the fall. Spiritual death is estrangement from the source of life, not a blanket incapacity.

WORTH CORRECTINGA genuine hybrid, and he knows it — he writes that his account of pre-regenerate freedom 'runs contrary to Augustinian thought,' and criticizes the Calvinist use of the dead-man metaphor by name: 'Calvinists, of course, make spiritual deadness about an inability to believe, based on the idea that dead people can't do anything' (NB 208). The stance captures the gospel-choice claim only; the inherited-guilt denial has no home in this locus. The long quotation is drawn from a post structured as 17 numbered points and may join more than one of them — check before republication.

"I don't believe that Adam's fall affected all humanity by transmitting Adam's guilt to all humans." — drmsh.com. And: "Regeneration enables a choice; it doesn't remove freedom. And when someone is regenerated, they want to make that choice. The quickening is irresistible and in line with the will."drmsh.com, Predestination and Free Will

Affirms individual election unto salvation and predestination as real, while denying that foreknowledge entails predestination — God foreknows all actual and all possible futures, and 1 Samuel 23 shows him foreknowing things that never happen. The consequence he draws is unusual: the elect and the saved are not the same set. Election guarantees a remnant; it does not exhaust who may believe.

WORTH CORRECTINGDowngraded from compatibilist-open during the verification pass, 2026-08-20. That stance is wrong twice over: its label says the question is 'treated as non-dividing,' which he contradicts by attacking Calvinism by name, and 'compatibilist' misdescribes a position that asserts libertarian freedom plus knowledge of counterfactuals — nearer Molinism than compatibilism. He fits neither camp and never accepts either label. Note also an unresolved tension in the source: 'salvation may be open for people to believe whose belief was not predestinated' and 'everyone saved was in fact elect' reconcile only if elect and predestinated differ in his usage, which he never says. He is also not an open theist: he affirms exhaustive foreknowledge of actual future events, which open theism denies.

"Everyone saved was in fact elect but not all the elect are saved." — drmsh.com, Election, Salvation, Unbelief and Eternal Security. And: "THIS is my definition of sovereignty — God's peerless control over all free decisions."drmsh.com, Predestination and Free Will

Frames saving faith as believing loyalty — trust in the true God that shows itself as allegiance rather than as moral performance. Works are the validation of genuine faith and never its meritorious cause, and the object of faith is what does the saving work.

WORTH CORRECTINGHe does not cite the wider popular literature on pistis as allegiance in anything read; whether the framing is independent of it was not established.

"This state of belief was demonstrated not by moral (behavioral) perfection, but by the heart's loyalty to the true God / the true God incarnate." — drmsh.com. And: "scripture is absolutely clear that our works do not merit — and that's a key word — or earn God's grace and love... works are the result. Faith and works validate genuine faith."Naked Bible 213

Affirms that grace is unmerited and that works validate rather than cause salvation, but never states a position on the technical question — no statement on imputation, on the active obedience of Christ, or on forensic versus transformative justification as a choice between them.

WORTH CORRECTINGRecorded as unknown rather than inferred from his soteriology. Note that Naked Bible 394 and 395 are interviews with Kent Yinger on the New Perspective, and 419 is an interview with Matt Halsted on Romans 1-3 — the substantive justification content in those episodes belongs to the guests. Heiser's own contribution in 394 is that Paul swaps Jesus into the mercy slot Second Temple Judaism already had, which is a reading of Paul rather than a doctrine of justification.

No statement located on the scope of the atonement. He addresses its nature rather than its extent, and even there is working out terminology in public: he writes that he believes in the concept of penal substitution while adding that he is going to question the terminology a bit, and settles for now on the traditional nomenclature.

WORTH CORRECTINGA deliberate blank. Targeted searching across the transcripts and his site for limited atonement, definite atonement, and 1 John 2:2 returned nothing. Roughly 46 of the 57 Q&A episodes were not read, and the strongest hits for several other loci came from Q&A episodes, so absence of evidence is weaker here than for the topics with dedicated series. He does state separately that he is not a universalist, which bears on salvation rather than on extent.

Apostasy is possible, but only by a deliberate turning to unbelief — never by moral failure, since what cannot be gained by moral perfection cannot be lost by moral imperfection. Security is tied strictly to the state of belief: believing, you are secure; not believing, you are not. He treats Hebrews 6:4 as describing something unlikely rather than impossible.

WORTH CORRECTINGNeither classic Reformed perseverance nor classic Arminian conditional security. He rules out loss through sin as firmly as any Calvinist and rules in loss through deliberate unbelief as firmly as any Arminian. He acknowledges the position is contested: 'Some would question what I'm arguing for here.'

"If you believe the gospel, you are eternally secure. If you don't, you're not." — Naked Bible 184. And: "That which cannot be gained by moral perfection can't be lost by moral imperfection."Naked Bible 70

The Spirit indwells at the moment of belief, and that indwelling is identical with the baptism of the Spirit that places a person into the body of Christ. Sealing means marking and sanctifying, not conferring an irreversible status — the Spirit can be grieved and quenched, and his presence does not make apostasy impossible.

WORTH CORRECTINGAssigned from what he says about indwelling specifically, which is explicit and repeated. Flagged during the verification pass, 2026-08-20: it sits in unresolved tension with his claim that regeneration precedes the choice of the gospel, which is close to the indwell-regen stance label. No statement was found in which he separates the quickening from the indwelling, so the tension is recorded rather than resolved. The sealing-as-marking reading is what makes this cohere with his position on perseverance.

"When someone believes in Christ, the Holy Spirit comes and indwells them." — Naked Bible 160. And: "the Holy Spirit indwells us to mark us and marking us is how I take the sealing language... I don't take it in terms of having some irreversible status on you."Naked Bible 214

Declines to require either view and says so plainly — believer's baptism is what the New Testament actually describes, infant baptism is coherent as a covenant sign so long as it does not carry regenerative freight, and the mode does not matter at all. What he rejects is not paedobaptism but sacramental efficacy.

WORTH CORRECTINGLeft unassigned because his actual position is that the locus should not divide anyone, which no single stance expresses. Tier is researched rather than contested: this is a well-sourced position, not a gap. He was himself baptized as a believing adult, but presents that as autobiography rather than as a norm. On baptismal regeneration he is sharp: 'some felt need or mystical superstition that something spiritual and unseen is happening when the sacrament is given' (NB 4).

"I really don't care which view turns out to be right once we get to heaven. I think infant baptism is defensible... I also think believer's baptism is defensible. Enjoy either or both!" — drmsh.com, The Biblical Teaching on Baptism, Part 6. And on the mode: "I really don't think it matters at all."Naked Bible 7

A memorial and a proclamation, and nothing more — no presence in the elements and no conveyance of grace. He treats the accumulation of sacramental theology around a simple command as the thing needing explanation.

WORTH CORRECTINGHe never engages the Zwingli, Calvin and Luther taxonomy by name; the stance is assigned from the substance of what he says, which is unambiguous.

"the purpose of the Lord's Supper is really simple: to remember the Lord's death until he comes and proclaim that death (the gospel) to any onlookers. You don't need any mystical presence for that, so I marvel at how so many other ideas have accrued to this simple command."Naked Bible 15

Rejects both labels as unhelpful while landing squarely in the cautious middle — God may do what he wants, the gifts are not withdrawn, and the machinery built around them by charismatic movements is what he objects to. He was a persistent critic of the New Apostolic Reformation without becoming a cessationist.

WORTH CORRECTINGNaked Bible 179 and 452 are interviews with Holly Pivec and 399 with Craig Keener, who pull in opposite directions on this question. Only the first-person statements above are his.

"I'm not in the Charismatic tradition... I'm in the 'cautiously open' category. I'm not a cessationist either." — Naked Bible 399. And: "I'm not your classic cessationist. I actually don't think the terms mean a whole lot anymore. They just don't allow nuancing."Naked Bible 180

Holds eternal conscious punishment and annihilation both open, with a stated lean toward annihilation on the ground that it is hard to see how death itself could be destroyed and yet continue. What he affirms without qualification is the constant underneath both: a Christ-less eternity outside the presence and family of God.

WORTH CORRECTINGDeliberately left unassigned. Tier is researched rather than contested: he framed the question in exactly the locus's terms and is quoted doing so. This is a spoken Q&A answer with an explicit conditional — 'if push came to shove' — and should not be upgraded into a settled doctrinal commitment. He is separately explicit that he is not a universalist.

"I think for me both of those things are actually still on the table... If push came to shove, I think annihilation makes the best sense but it's certainly not the only view that you could come out of that passage."Naked Bible 108

Declines a millennial position outright, and not as a hedge — his argument is that none of the available positions is self-evident from the text and that certainty about them is misplaced. He treats the whole area as an inexact science and says the confusion is the point.

WORTH CORRECTINGThis is a stated refusal rather than an unknown, which is why it carries a stance and the researched tier. It carries a stance only because this locus happens to offer a no-position option; baptism and final-state are the same move and get null because their loci do not. His eschatological interest ran to cosmic geography and the reversal of the Babel disinheritance rather than to the timing of the return.

"for many things in eschatology, I don't have a 'position'; I really don't care." and "we need to get off our high prophecy horses and admit that any of these positions are NOT self evident."drmsh.com, Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time, Part 2