We are missing a few questions. In what way is something considered Orthodox - in Christianity?
Rather than looking at the views Origen or Davo expresses, which are taking opposite sides. I see what WIKI has to say:
I mean, folks can look at me and say I’m NOT orthodox. Even though I follow the Nicene Creed, the ACNA beliefs, and Eastern Anglo-Catholic orientations.
Well, I practice Buddhist Mindfulness and Yoga. Or taking part in healing ceremonies, of Native Americans, Japanese Johrei / Sukyo Mahikari and German Burno Groening.
Or I am a member, of the Theosophical Society. Where I can abide, by their 3 general objects.
Or I talk about the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse - rather than something like Left Behind series viewpoint.
And If I’m right, on the last point…I am performing a great service - for humanity.
We do have parallels, in the Theosophical Society. Where historical folks like Annie Besant, promotes what I call Esoteric Christianity. Or folks like Mary Baker Eddy, promote an Idealistic brand (i.e. all is mental - no matter. And the Theosophical equivalent, of Mary Baker Eddy - is Joel Goldsmith) . Assuming you (or folks like Mary Baker Eddy or Annie Besant) - are right. I wonder what God must be thinking?
I gave them Holy Scripture, but only a FEW got it?
Or is God thinking?
I tried to make my message, as clear as possible - for ALL of humanity to understand. But look at the fights, between the different church branches and theologians. HOW can my brilliant theologians, like Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther - have totally different perspectives?
So you like Paul’s words (according to your own interpretation of them), but reject John’s in Revelation:
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (lit. ages of the ages, Rev.20:10, KJV)
BTW those who are being tormented aren’t destroyed as in annihilated or killed. Which, again, leaves you rejecting the Scripture quoted above. And if those torments began in 70 AD and continue “forever and ever” (or “into the ages of the ages”), can God have become “all in all” in 70 AD & could all prophecy have been fulfilled as per your Pantelistic theology?
DaveB asks a question below in another thread which is more pertinent to be dealt with here in this pantelist thread. But first just by way of clarification… like other eschatological views prêterism has its variants — Pantelism being one of them. The main difference between these two fulfilled views is… pantelism views Israel’s prophesied redemption in Christ to be the catalyst for humanity’s reconciliation to God and thus all the blessings to flow because of that.
Again, pantelism takes an inclusiveprêteristic position. I use ‘inclusive’ as opposed to ‘universal’ BECAUSE there are many aspects of universalism far removed from the pantelist rationale. Universalism is in fact much closer to its nemesis of Infernalism, or if one prefers… Particularism, as in both these positions believe in the EXACT same postmortem experience and nature of “hell” for any ascribed as destined there — the ONLY real difference being the degree of the suffering endured therein, i.e., limited or unlimited.
As a pantelist the 1st resurrection was germane to the firstfruit saints of the AD30-70 NT era, culminating in the 2nd or general resurrection of AD70, being inclusive of all Israel prior to that; and then in consequence the rest of departed humanity. The only “physical resurrection” per sé that counted was Jesus’ which assured the redemption and reconciliation of all — the restoration of man.
Pantelism doesn’t so much go for this so-called physical/spiritual divide when it comes to ‘resurrection’ (which biblically speaking was actually something promised to Israel), understanding such to be speaking of COVENANT realities and thus specifically and primarily referring to Israel’s ‘covenant renewal’.
Pantelism sees this 1st resurrection ALREADY in operation here…
This death to life that NOW IS was the beginnings of Israel’s covenant renewal, i.e., resurrection, starting in Jesus’ ministry then and there — the first resurrection.
Then what followed in the AD70 Parousia was the general or 2nd resurrection, as per…
The “resurrection of the dead” was two-fold and did not necessitate physical death. Firstly… the resurrection of Jn 5:25 was of the firstfruits harvest occurring in that generation — thus their “coming to life” was a coming up out from among the dead, that is… what constituted the body of old covenant Israel (Moses), of which Jesus “would be the first to rise from the dead” as per Acts 26:23. Pantelism understands resurrection here described as covenantal in focus and nature as Jesus was not in factthe first to rise from the dead — if by resurrection is meant the attaining of a new or revived fleshly-physical abode or mode of existence, for Scripture is replete with this phenomenon already… 1Kgs 17:17-23; 2Kgs 4:17-37; 2Kgs 13:21; Mt 27:52-53; Lk 7:11-17; Lk 8:40-42, 49-55; Jn 11:38-44, so for Paul, this cannot have been the essence of what “resurrection” was, in view here.
Thus the resurrection of John 5 was not a “spiritual” resurrection followed then by a “bodily” resurrection, no. Rather, it was the “firstfruits” resurrection (1st) being followed by a “whole harvest” resurrection (2nd). Resurrection was all about COVENANT change — or as Paul said… “we shall all be changed” — the AD70 DoJ was the final death knell of that old covenant world.
The “life” Jn 5:29 is the affirmative comparison to its negative opposite “condemnation” aka judgment. Those of “faith” would be spared the dire consequence of AD70 — calling on the name of the Lord they would be saved (Rom 10:13) and not be put to shame (Rom 10:11) such as condemnation would bring, hence…
Continuing to walk according to the passing old covenant would lead to “death” — quite literally as it turned out for some in the DoJ; yet also metaphorically speaking comparatively… walking according to the burgeoning new covenant was the pathway of “life” into the coming new age “wherein righteousness dwells” 2Pet 3:13.
davo said: “Continuing to walk according to the passing old covenant would lead to “death” — quite literally as it turned out for some in the DoJ; yet also metaphorically speaking comparatively… walking according to the burgeoning new covenant was the pathway of “life” into the coming new age “wherein righteousness dwells” 2Pet 3:13.”
Thanks for that extended post above, davo. It helped me to sharpen up a couple of thoughts and questions.
Do you (and by ‘you’ I am not pointing at you in particular; I’m referring to FP’s and Pantelists in general) have any grounds on which to base a hope for life after death?
Why is belief in physical resurrection ‘archaic’??
Does righteousness dwell now in this age, if in fact we are in the ‘coming new age?’
Is the Church now the ‘body of Christ’?
What does it mean, if anything, to ‘be a Christian’?
Thanks. What bothers me and maybe some others is a conceptual thing: what is the ‘bridge’ from AD70 into the new age?
Some ‘perspicacious’ research by you quasi-pret experts would do wonders as opposed to what is being trotted out as to “what prêterists believe”. — I am of course taking the pantelism angle in this particular thread addressed to me.
That is such an odd question and I wonder what you are thinking that raises that for you. Prêterists typically call me a “universalist” because I declare none shall be missing out. I’m sure I have the same belief, hope and expectation you do of life after death. Again I’m befuddled you even ask given the countless conversations we’ve had on this board; to use your phrase — what gives?
Did I use that term?
That’s the essence of 2Pet 3:13… God’s righteousness in Christ has superseded the limitations of law righteousness.
From the pantelist perspective “the body of Christ” was the firstfruit saints (Heb 12:23) — believers post parousia are technically the offspring of the great marriage of the Son to his Bride. Thus the consummation (the parousia) of the wedding was NOT the end, but the most glorious of beginnings.
Many things… one would be a servant of God.
AD30 AND AD70 was the bridge — these events were the bookends of God’s one-time restorative event in history in time for all history and time immemorial.
You’ll see, you!
I started on page 40 - where your first post was - and have followed up to page 35 or so. I’ve made many clips and am saving them in a folder, and hope to sort them by subject when I have them amassed.
You two guys - have had a tough ‘row to hoe’ over the years on this forum (as I’ve been learning) and are to be commended, in my opinion, for staying true to your convictions.
But I have to go a step further - you have gored many a sacred cow, a few of which were mine - for which I have to thank you ! Turns out, they needed goring.
I believe that a source of confusion for many - certainly for me - is that we have not had (or not taken) the time to follow your reasoning step-by-step from “in the beginning” (2012, on this forum ) and thus, when you do speak to a question, though you may in fact be answering from a position of insight and sound exegesis, the answer only makes sense against the background of the great amount of study and thought you’ve done; and does not make sense with those whose background is often the untried presuppositions of a given form of religion.
I’m coming to see that Pantelism, in the main, keeps the Scriptures totally intact, though at the cost of deconstructing some traditional methods of interpretation that now look a bit ad hoc . This is hard on me, fellers - I’ve made a few ‘sea changes’ in the past 20 years - going into and out of Calvinism; going from unthoughtful trinitarianism to a more thoughtful current position; from ECT to Universalism; from God’s timelessness to a more ‘open’ stance on that issue - and others, all good changes, but none of them easy. Each change has been a liberation, and I think justifiable and honoring to God (I fervently hope), but not easy.
Does this mean I’m totally ‘on board’? Too early to tell. My past few days’ efforts have been spent going through the forum since davo joined, and following his posts, his reasoning, the responses he has gotten, and putting them all in one place. I will say this: when I read through the assembled information, in one document - there is GREAT strength in the pantelist position. (UP to this point in my study):
the scriptures stay intact, and many interpretive problems just clear up.
In one sense, nothing of substance changes from what many of us believe is fundamental to Christianity. More of that later perhaps.
-The gospel stays just as glorious, the future bright, Christian fellowship as rich, - things just seem to be made ‘clearer’.
I will stay with GMAC, Wm.Ellery Channing and a few select others as it comes to Christian growth, understanding God’s ways with his children, and other essentials that may/may not fit perfectly into Pantelism; but also with #3 above.
I don’t do long posts, so that’s it for now. The take-away for me is that the pantelist position deserves study and thought. Let the truth come out - I’m sure the position has its flaws, and the way it is expressed may sound weird to the uninitiated - but it’s the truth that matters, eh?
To be honest, it is not very popular or becoming (to the understanding at least here in the mid west USA) to believe in the Pantelist view. I actually lost my position as a bible study leader because I believed that Gods Grace Fulfilled all, That Christ was the propitiation of Israel, and thus all of Man Kind.
There is actual repugnance to the idea Christ could actually die for all sin, and yet that His Very death would be worthless until someone did or thought or believed something… There is much work to be done in the name of Christ.
But the fun is in realizing what scripture says as opposed to what ‘others’ say it means.