Hi Steve- If you examine the context of the lucifer passage in Isaiah you will see lucifer actually refers to Nebuchadnezzar and kings of babylon. The Ezekiel passage refers to king of tyre. The references to satan throughout the Bible are personifications Like in Proverbs where wisdom is called a woman. This is God accomodating to peoples understanding at the time. Ancient Near Eastern cultures believed in many gods and demons, water was a plavce where demons were to inhabit in much understanding back then.When Jesus cast out the evil spirits he was restoring the people to a right frame of mind, freeing them of mental illness. Jesus cast out fever and other sicknesses as well. If satan is truly a supernatural fallen angel and demons other fallen angels who rebelled against God with him, then why is there not a constant possession considering how powerful such supernatural beings would be?? There is a book called The Real Devil by Duncan Heaster i think you would find especially interesting. He also has a website just google his name or realdevil.com I think Jesus is called the second Adam because Adam sinned and Jesus overcomes his sin by perfectly obeying God destroying the devil which is the sinful part of humans. Because Jesus overcame He gives us the same capacity through the Holy Spirit. Of course we still have our old nature in us like Paul says in Romans so we need to put on Christ constantly.
It’s mostly correct EXCEPT with regards to ‘conversion’. You have to remember this ‘theopedia’ blurb (apart from the direct quote from my site which is missing above) is someone else’s take i.e., their understanding of pantelism and as such they’ve simply imposed some of their own rationale onto it and as such it’s not fully correct.
That is indeed my site… it is somewhat static these days, so more up there for information. Over the years I’ve probably written and responded more about pantelism on forum sites like this.
<εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων> “into the ages the ages” — such repetition is for pure emphasis, nothing more and nothing less. John likewise captures this of Jesus in his gospel… <Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν> “amen amen” = truly, i.e., “with all truth I say to you…” — these are emphatic statements. Again… “into the ages the ages” is a literary device expressing the TOTALITY or COMPLETENESS of such an end… such is qualitative NOT quantitative.
The pantelist position is that “the devil” was emblematic of all that the OC mode of existence stood for, i.e., it was those of the OC (Hagar and Ishmael) who were persecuting those of the NC (Sarah and Isaac) — law was always opposed to grace — the two covenants as per Gal 4:22, 24, 29. And it was that which became law-righteousness that “deceived the nations” i.e., the tribes of Israel.
Thus… “when did the devil go into the lake of fire” — in AD70 with the destruction of all that the OC stood for was torn down, i.e., the Temple.
“Conversion” was all relative to following in the service of God… THAT can and does still happen. Just because God’s prophetic and redemptive program has been fulfilled doesn’t negate the workings of God in people’s lives. Some are simply more aware of this and gratefully proactive with His grace.
I don’t have Seraiah’s book but he is technically speaking a partial prêterist, and most partials view full prêterists as going a bridge too far. However, when you take certain obvious tenets of prêterism to their most logical or consistent conclusion then the full hog is hard to miss.
In prêt circles the “pantelist” moniker never really took off as an identifier. Back in the day when I embraced full prêterism and sought to develop a prêt website I ran with the name as I personally thought it sounded better. As I and some others explored the various conclusions of the ‘fulfilled’ paradigm it became evident that redemption went hand in hand with eschatology and that redemption was likewise fulfilled — hence pantelism in full prêt circles became viewed as ‘prêterist universalism’… and usually not looked upon with too much favour.
More correctly, pantelism is really ‘inclusive prêterism’ as many basic assumptions of universalism are poles apart from pantelist’ conclusions. Most prêterists do not hold to the pantelist view that John’s ‘lake of fire’ is Jesus’ ‘gehenna’. Most full prêterists either see the lake of fire as Hell MkII, or they are annihilationists.
From my standpoint (please watch all 3 1/2 hours) this is an eye opener, as much as pantelism was… There are differences, but what I learned is that I personally need to search… and realize that most of us here on this forum are trying to wake up.
Davo, If we are not following the ways of the One True God, we are not reconciled to God. Since the beginning of creation, there have been false beliefs and doctrines which still continue to be preached today. Throughout the Old Testament there were times when these false beliefs were more prevalent( times of darkness and bondage) and times of refreshing, when the people turned their hearts back to God and became prosperous. This seems to be a reoccurring process.
I think davo was saying that God did his part without us having to follow anything, and that it was Christ that did the atoning work of redeeming Israel, and thus the whole of humanity. Our following, is a by product of our ‘understanding’ of what God has done though Jesus.
LLC, I agree that there is a distinction between Israel the man, and the nation of Israel. Further, Romans 2:28 states, *“For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.”
But we need to be wary of Replacement Theology. I believe the following verse (referenced in Luke 24:21) is referring to national Israel:
He himself will redeem Israel from all their sins. Psalm 130:8.
**So I disagree with you that, ***“When the New Testament speaks of redeeming Israel, I think that they are talking about any man who follows the true God.” *
Consider Romans 11:25-29 (NKJV):
For me, as a futurist, the above passage points to a future national repentance, at the time of the future, physical, second coming of Christ. (Yes, the first Christians were all Jews; and there are many Jewish converts today. But the majority of Jews are still unsaved.)
Again, as a futurist, I recognize this related prophecy to be as yet unfulfilled:
Let me add that I believe God was, is, and will only ever be, nonviolent. Hence, I no longer buy into any bloodbaths supposedly perpetrated by God. As I have said elsewhere,
We are not to be passive or fatalistic about the devil. As my friend Richard Murray has said,
The pantelist position understands that God unilaterally reconciled the world to Himself through Christ, where He God unilaterally forgave humanity’s sins… this is the most obvious and plain reading of 2Cor 5:19, i.e., it’s there in black and white. IOW… divine reconciliation is NOT predicated on human response.
‘Human response’ comes from the resultant “realisation” where one gets an inkling of the grace of God that established such wondrous reconciliation and accordingly expresses one’s heart-felt gratitude to God for this.
Belief does NOT establish truth — truth however can establish belief! << read that again!Again, a pantelist understanding views “the reconciliation” as the established work of God, period. However… coming into the revelation OF reconciliation expressed by a faith response brings one into the realm of “eternal life” in accord with Jesus’ specific definition where eternal life is a coming into the knowledge of God and Christ, as per Jn 17:3. You will note such ‘eternal life’ has EVERYTHING to do with THIS LIFE here and now. This is the life Jesus saves us to. What lies beyond is not an issue.
Paul gives a good distinction between God’s established reconciliation AND THEN the salvation (eternal life) faith releases one into…
Christ’s death (crucifixion) wrought reconciliation for all, period; Christ’s life (resurrection) wrought salvation, i.e., eternal life to those grasping it. Salvation is about purpose not position it is about service to God in this life and NOT about getting to heaven in the next.
Even as a futurist, I agree with this idea of unilateral reconciliation as an accomplished fact. However, here is a definition of pantelism offered by Theopedia.com:
Based on my earlier comment today (above) I obviously disagree that the Second Coming of Christ occurred [invisibly? spiritually?] at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For me, that idea is somewhat akin to,
Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Watch Tower Society publications teach that Jesus Christ returned invisibly and began to rule in heaven as king in October 1914. They state that the beginning of Christ’s heavenly rule would seem worse initially for mankind because it starts with the casting out of Satan from heaven to the earth, which according to Revelation 12, would bring a brief period of ‘woe’ to mankind.” From Wikipedia.
Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God/Joel’s Army teachings that Jesus comes “spiritually and invisibly” to His Church to “incarnate” the Corporate Body and reveal Himself to the world through miraculous signs and wonders performed by the “Manifest Sons of God.” (See here, here, and here.)
That doesn’t sound quite right to me. Service to God now? Yes. Divine healing available now? Yes. Nevertheless, these mortal bodies are to be transformed:
And as evangelical universalist Charles H. Pridgeon said in his esteemed treatise differentiating time and eternity (***Is Hell Eternal or Will God’s Plan Fail? ***available here or here):
You’ll find the true, proper, unadulterated and full whole enchilada right HERE.
This is more than a bit of a misnomer… I’m afraid aiming for ‘guilt by association’ when you don’t properly know a position’s stance only shows one to be ill-informed; these two positions are in fact both FUTURISTS positions, and as such have far more in common with your own futurism.
HOW does the potential for transformation (regardless of the argument as to what that is said to be) negate the bible’s call to godly service in this life; like what’s your point of… “that doesn’t sound quite right to me”?
In my most recent comment (a little above) I referenced the JW’s and the Latter Rain/Joel’s Army/Manifest Sons of God, because, like the supporters of pantelism, they share a belief that the Second Coming of Christ has already occurred, invisibly or spiritually (in the case of pantelism, circa AD70).
So, we are debating this issue of the Second Coming: you say it has already occurred; I contend it most certainly has not. I believe the Scriptures plainly indicate there should be no ambiguity or debate about the Second Coming of Christ:
Again, very conspicuous when it happens; no ambiguity:
That contrition over the rejection of the “pierced” Messiah at his Second Coming was previously mentioned by Zechariah:
The idea that the Second Coming of Christ occurred at the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., does not comport with Zechariah stating that, at his coming, the Lord would [successfully] defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; that every eye would see him; or that the inhabitants of Jerusalem would mourn for him as one mourns for his only son.
At the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, “Josephus claims that 1.1 million people were killed during the siege, of which a majority were Jewish, and that 97,000 were captured and enslaved.…” Wikipedia.
Again, I maintain that God is nonviolent, and that the prophets, through ignorance, sometimes conflated God with Satan in the events they were seeing prophetically. So, to say it was God who killed all those Jews in 70 A.D., because He was angry with them for rejecting His Son, is now reprehensible to me.
That reiterated, I am still a convinced futurist, and take the warning of the apostle John about the spirit of Antichrist seriously:
I agree with this viewpoint about John’s warning,
According to the late Professor Arthur E. Bloomfield, it is indispensable to understand that prophecy is addressed to those living when the prophecy is fulfilled. His assertion is certainly of relevance to the preterist/futurist debate. In *All Things New: A Study of Revelation *(1959), he clarifies,
Well it’s not a very good rationale… that’s like saying pantelists believe the resurrection is past… so did Hymenaeus and Philetus; QED pantelism is the Hymenian heresy, and yet such simplistic reasoning has no real understanding as the the nature of the resurrection Hymenaeus and Philetus had in mind.
Jesus’… “Do not go running off after them” needs to be understood in its historical context. In THEIR day there were ALREADY false messiahs-type-figures doing their thing deceiving many (Acts 5:36-37, also Dositheos, Judas of Galilee, Theudas) — so Jesus’ prophetic warning ACTUALLY meant something to them, i.e., he wasn’t speaking blithely and pointlessly over their heads; they were his people and he cared about them.
The very text itself (Rev 1:7) militates against your futurism… “tribes of the land” i.e., none other than “Israel”. And as to Zechariah… yet another demonstration of futurist convenience. There is little value in appealing to Zechariah given your stated position of… “I maintain that God is nonviolent” WHEN right in the middle of that very passage GOD SAYS… “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.” You cannot with any consistency have it both ways.
It only doesn’t “comport” for you because you don’t understand it. Jesus was to… “come in the glory of the Father”. Yahweh’s glory was awesome and fearful and whenever He came in judgement the literality of the event was understood by the means (usually another nation) whereby this occurred…
It’s the same apocalyptic language of Jesus’ mini-apocalypse of the gospels… cosmic heavenly language describing temporal earthly events that held great spiritual significance. This was the way Yahweh “came” in OT judgement; the events of AD70 reflect the same, and those who trusted in the Lord were duly “saved” (Mt 24:13).
LLC… I’m not sure where or how you’ve read that God “left”? That there was a break or hindrance in man’s “relationship” with God is a given, at least in biblical story of beginnings, and how that was remedied IS the biblical story of redemption and ultimately reconciliation. What was fractured by the first Adam was restored by the last Adam.
Again… human response doesn’t make reconciliation real, rather, human response taps into that pre-existing and established reality.
Noah’s taking God’s warning seriously saved him, his family, and the whole human race.
I believe the worldwide Genesis Flood literally occurred, and produced a geological record showing catastrophe. Massive, worldwide coal, oil, and natural gas deposits are carbon-based byproducts of compressed and decaying organic matter.
It is a known fact that the poles were once warm, even tropical, and that they suddenly became cold, and flooded with water at the same time.
As to the argument that the Flood was a local event, there are sedimentary (water-laid) layers all over the earth, and those sediments contain the buried remains of billions of creatures. The fossilization of living things is evidence that they were buried rapidly, not slowly, since they did not simply decompose.
Layers of sedimentation from the floodwaters have been erroneously labeled as geological ages separated by vast quantities of time. There is a spiritual aspect to this scientific misinterpretation.
Peter acknowledges that the Flood was a literal event:
(However, as you know, I believe Peter was incorrect in not assigning responsibility for this violence to Satan. However I don’t throw out everything Peter says because of this disagreement, any more than I throw out futurism because I now recognize God is nonviolent.)
Peter later associates unbelief about the literal, physical worldwide Flood with unbelief about the literal, physical Second Coming of Christ:
And we observe that in the Olivet Discourse, Jesus links the conditions before the Flood of Noah with the conditions characterizing the earth at the time of the coming [first] Rapture:
There is nothing wrong with eating and drinking, or in marrying and giving in marriage. The point is the people were so carried away with the pleasures of the world that they were indifferent to Noah’s prophetic warnings. God always tries to warn people of Satan’s schemes, and to provide a way of escape.
In distinction to other futurists, I do NOT believe the Rapture is imminent.
Perhaps a fourth of the Bible is prophecy, and I would argue that the bulk of that must yet be fulfilled during a short period of time in the relatively near future, just a “generation” in length (Mt. 24:34).
Regarding the sign of the fig tree, I believe the tree will begin to leaf when the Antichrist comes on the world stage. Prior to the Pre-Trib Rapture, some global crisis will come, and be resolved militarily by the Antichrist; his uprooting three horns signifies defeating three countries:
Again, please allow me to quote Professor Bloomfield, from *Signs Of His Coming: A Study Of The Olivet Discourse *(1962):
In addition to evangelism, and acts of charity, the church needs to be prayerfully reconsidering the prophetic Scriptures.
I would further argue that today we need to be earnestly pursuing the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:31), for example, the gift of the discerning of spirits (1 Cor. 12:10).
That Noah’s flood was literal is uncontested… but nothing you said prior to this necessitates a single global flood. All such things were possible by multiple regional deluges. Not only that but the planet is predominately covered with water and ancient geological activities can well explain and so produced the same.
This is where your position forces you to become creative and imaginative in introducing to the text what simply IS NOT THERE, period. That you choose not to believe the Apostle Peter, and Moses’ account (Gen 6:6-7) is fine, but changing the text by saying other than what Peter said is disingenuous at best and dishonest (IMO) at worst.
Jesus had some very stern words about assigning or attributing the work of God to being the work of Satan… Mk 3:22, 28-30et al; which is pretty much an insult to the Spirit of grace, as per Heb 10:29 and maybe in the ballpark of the likes of Rev 22:18-19.
Well this is interesting Hermano… WHERE does Peter actually speak of this supposed… “unbelief about the literal, physical worldwide Flood”
Yep some were indeed mocking the apparent lack of Christ’s parousia AND YET THAT’S the very same thing you’re doing — you likewise scoff, saying it hasn’t happened — hello pot this is kettle!
Davo, I’m clueless God is unable to establish a relationship with man? Obviously God can and did establish relationships with men. The Old Testament gives plenty of examples of people who walked with God and obeyed his voice.
There were also men in the Old Testament who walked in faith and had the knowledge and wisdom of God.
Again, there were many servants of God in the days of old.