Consider the cultish heretical insane position that Scripture teaches that Love Omnipotent is a Zombie.
Do you consider that an objective, honest by the rules interpretation of the Scriptures?
If not, why not? What rules of interpretation, objectivity & honesty lead you to your conclusion?
To use another example, does Scripture teach that all sins - past, present & future - of all humans, devils & demons - are already forgiven?
That is what i call an Extreme Hyper Grace viewpoint. As i said to davo:
Which imagination in your mind leads us back to my quote above by the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament & all the Scripture passages i posted that refute your Extreme Hyper Grace UltraU Pantelistic position on forgiveness of all mankind as a past accomplishment based on nothing they do even before they were conceived or born. But i’m sure all the drug pushers out there selling heroin to children will be happy to hear your gospel of Pantelism that they are forgiven while they continue to ply their trade & how you lean to the view that at the moment of death they’ll instantly enter the blessedness of God’s heavenly kingdom forever.
Yes, Origen. I don’t agree with hyper-grace. I’m more along the Orthodox lines, expressed by Primary Scriptura (i.e. Anglican and Methodist perspectives). And along church traditional as a whole.being a lens to view scripture (i.e. the Eastern Orthodox perspective).
But you can get Sola Scriptura, to say anything. And this is in accordance, with how this forum operates. In an academic style. There were many things in academic philosophy, theology, and literature courses - I didn’t agree with.
And many presentations, by lecturers at the Theosophical Society - I didn’t agree with.
But now I do listen and try to see, where they are coming from. In accordance with the academic style, that this forum attempts to be.
“The issue here is that all doctrines (no matter how obscure) affect our relationship with God in some way. If a Christian believes the Bible says the world will be completely destroyed tomorrow, he will act in certain ways he would not act if he believed the world was not going to end until long after death.”
“Our salvation is not, of course, based on our understanding of the events related to the first or second coming of Christ. Our salvation is based on what Christ did at His first coming and our faith in Him. Pantelism, however, is a teaching - growing in evangelical circles today - that can be called nothing other than heresy, and the ramifications of this teaching are not only dangerous for individuals but destructive to the Church of Jesus Christ.”
The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future, C. Jonathin Seraiah, 1999, p.15
Basically, folks will be accepted, by the light they were given. Of course, I don’t believe that gives folks a free pass - to do as they please. So I don’t think someone promoting hyper-grace or Pantellism…should also be a member, of The Outlaws or The Hells Angels.
And I can meet folks halfway. If they acknowledge that it is “possible”…that the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse - occurred around 70 A.D. Then I would acknowledge, that Pantelism or Hyper-Grace, “possibly” has some truth to it.
If you remember from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura, I see scripture as primary. But that reason, tradition, and experience (as the Methodists see it)…and historical church tradition as a whole (as the Eastern Orthodox see it), is the lens we view scripture in.
Verse 17 indicates no such thing!Verse 19 wherein… “not imputing their trespasses to them” is contained, makes it abundantly clear as to the scope of this…
Unequivocal CLEAR by any HONEST reading of the text, i.e., context.
Well if you are familiar with the basic universalist position then ALL DO confess…
Now IF “those under the earth” isn’t a direct reference to the physically departed, i.e., “the dead” then I’d like to know to whom you might ascribe such? Consider this… who in all their prideful arrogance or blind ignorance would not respond in worshipful contrition postmortem, in-kind, before the presence of God, as is reflected in attitude by these texts below:
Surely then, IF…
…THEN given the evangelical penchant for claiming confession is needed for salvation, and THAT understood to be the gateway into heaven, well then there you have it — that’s fairly inclusive — “those under the earth” reference the departed having duly confessed. There are NO texts referencing any hellish, purgatorial holding-pen — that is a fabrication and the closest you’ll get is in embracing Catholicism — you’re welcome.
Not only that… according to Paul no-one can confess “Jesus is Lord” other than by the empowering grace of the Spirit working within; fairly conclusive!
Again, for clarity…
The pantelist position holds to the TEXT confirming God unilaterallyreconciled the world to Himself in Christ, unilaterally forgiving humanity’s sins. This is the most obvious, plain and HONEST reading of 2Cor 5:19, i.e., it’s there in black and white.
IOW… divine reconciliation is NOT predicated on human response — such was a unique salvific work between God and Christ ALONEWITHOUT anyone else’s permission, purview or participation.
‘Human response’ to it comes from the resultant “realisation” or “revelation” where via the Gospel one gets an inkling of the grace of God that established such wondrous reconciliation and then accordingly expresses one’s heartfelt gratitude to God for this.
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 who through FAITH grasp it. Salvation is about purpose NOT position — it is about service to Godin this life, NOT who gets into heaven in the next.
These texts make it evident the “contrition” you refer to is not a pleasant experience, but one of suffering. (Thus, once again, your own comments oppose UU.) How much worse should be the postmortem sufferings of those who were not already of humble spirit & or saints as those you refer to in those 3 passages of Scripture. Moreover what sinner, wicked God hater, or Satanist, etc, is going to be “in the presence of God” postmortem and not be afraid (hence experiencing postmortem sufferings), if indeed that is where the wicked go, though there are indications otherwise (Jude 1:13; 2 Pet.2:17; comp. Jude 1:6; 2 Pet.2:4, which speak of gloomy darkness, not God’s presence, for the wicked).
As for your remark: “who in all their prideful arrogance or blind ignorance would not respond in worshipful contrition postmortem, in-kind, before the presence of God, as is reflected in attitude by these texts below”, not everyone is a saint, prophet, humble or “perfect” man as those texts refer to, so perhaps you should try to find a better example. Did Satan become “contrite”, bend the knee & confess Jesus as his Lord when he was in the presence of God as recorded in the book of Job chapters 1-2? No. Did Israel who saw incredible miracle after miracle in Moses day always live in obedience to God? No. Did Israel c. 30 A.D. when Jesus performed multitudes of miracles repent and turn to God? No.
Evidently people who have been “enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come” can still “crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” (Heb.6:4-6). Furthermore:
Heb.10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
I’m NOT sure what you mean by CI. Eastern Orthodox looks at the historical church fathers and Sacred Tradition as a whole, in understanding Holy Scripture. They go one step further than I do. In regarding Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture - as one organic whole.
You can always formulate a question and add Eastern Orthodox to the keywords. It normally brings up either an Eastern Orthodox or a Wiki answer.
Inclusivism is deeper than just sola scriptura. It should be noted that Anglicans, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, have high regard for Sacred Tradition. Obviously, the EO and RC branches, regard it much higher.
Now you object to Full Preterism and Pantelism. But if you ignore Sacred Tradition as a guide, then you have these items - as products of Sola Scriptura. Just as you have Theosophist Anna Besant’s Esoteric Christianity and Mary Baker Eddy’s, idealistic Christian Science. And even Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn’s brand of theology.
The Eastern Orthodox would consider it, a valid private opinion. Just as universalism is considered, a valid private opinion. Since there are historical church fathers, that have views on annihilation and views on universalism. But the main direction is everyone is finally, in the presence of God. And experiences heaven and hell, based on how they experience God’s presence.
The first problem with that interpretation is harmonizing passages of the Scriptures that appear to oppose it, for a few examples these:
Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Col.1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
1 Jn.1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Eph.1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
1 Jn.1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.
Secondly to make more sense of 2 Cor.5:19 in harmony with the above passages, there are reasonable alternate interpretations of 2 Cor.5:19, such as:
Another thought is that reconciliation in 2 Cor.5:19-20 is considered by Paul as an “ongoing process” (p.256 of TDNT, Vol.1). The “phrase ήν καταλλασσων in 2 C. 5:19 does not denote a concluded work: “He was present to reconcile the world to Himself”; when and where this work will be concluded is not brought under consideration in 2 C. 5:19-20. For this reason we should not draw from the fact that Paul thinks of the world as the object of reconciliation the deduction that reconciliation for him consists exclusively in the removal of the relationship of guilt between man and God, since the world as a whole is not a new creation etc. This would amount to saying that what Paul explicitly calls the ministry of reconciliation and the self-reconciliation of man forms no part of reconciliation. Paul does not say that the world is reconciled (καταλλαγεις). The reconciliation of the world is as little finished as the απoβoγή of the Jews. Both have begun in the cross of Christ, and both are in the course of fulfillment (–> 258). We can call the world reconciled in the Pauline sense only as we anticipate the execution of that which is present in the purpose of God and in the foundation” (p.257, Friedrich Buchsel, ed. Gerhard Kittel).
“The compound of “was” and the participle “reconciling,” instead of the imperfect (Greek), may also imply the continuous purpose of God, from before the foundation of the world, to reconcile man to Himself, whose fall was foreseen.” [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary]
A third obstacle to the Pantelist view is that if God is not holding the world’s sins against them, this may not mean they are forgiven, but merely being allowed a probationary period of time in which to repent before His wrath that is on them (Jn.3:36) becomes their experience as per Rom.2:3-16:
Jn.3:36 he who is believing in the Son, hath life eonian; and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.’
So it may be that God is not imputing men’s sins - now - but is giving them time to repent (Rev.2:21) & commands them to do so/repent (Acts 17:30), but when that time expires then judgement & wrath will come (Rom.2):
Rev.2:21 Even though I have given her time to repent of her immorality, she is unwilling.
Romans 2:4 Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?
Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Rev.18:5 For her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Give back to her as she has done to others; pay her back double for what she has done; mix her a double portion in her own cup.
A fourth problem for the Pantelist theory is the above passage (Rev.18:5-6), which is post Calvary/the cross/c. 30 A.D. reveals God repaying for sins, in opposition to “not imputing their sins against them” (2 or.5:19).
A fifth problem with your interpretation is elsewhere Paul makes the non imputation of sin conditioned on faith:
2 Cor.5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Rom.4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Rom.4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man,
unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
The sixth difficulty with the above stated Pantelist perspective is the passage says to “Be reconciled to God” v.20, which would have already
taken place if Paul were saying the world is already reconciled to God as the Pantelist interprets v.19. IOW the Pantelist view makes the passage contradict itself.
Seventh, If the intended thought was God had already accomplished reconciliation, why not instead say “God was in Christ [and RECONCILED] the world to himself on the cross” rather than say “reconcilING”. If the world has already been fully reconciled to God, shouldn’t the message of the gospel be “you are reconciled to God” instead of Paul’s urgent appeal begging others to “be reconciled to God” (v.20)?
And why such an earnest appeal? Because the context warns that this is “a day of salvation” (2 Cor.6:1-2), wherein men are being given “time to repent” (Rev.2:21) which God commands all men to do (Acts 17:30) because there is coming a day of judgement and wrath (Acts 17:31, Romans 2).
Eightth, we also see in Romans 1:18-32 that “Paul speaks quite plainly of the wrath of God as a present and manifest reality” (TDNT, Vol.1, p.257),
which doesn’t sound like He has already forgiven everyone’s sins - past, present & future - no matter how much light they are rebelling against,
including blaspheming the Holy Spirit - without even as much as confessing, let alone repenting of them.
If that were the case, then why couldn’t men could just wallow in their sins, enjoying the many various pleasures of such for their entire mortal lives & then go to immediately to heavenly bliss at the moment of their death? After all, God has forgiven them & is not holding their sins against them, right? What is the worst case scenario, a slap on the hand as per your view that “who in all their prideful arrogance or blind ignorance would not respond in worshipful contrition postmortem, in-kind, before the presence of God”? Certainly nothing that sounds like torment into the eons of the eons (Rev.20:10; 14:9-11) or departing into eonian chastening & fire (Mt.25:41,46), etc.
There is no mention in Romans 5:10 of God “unilaterally forgiving humanity’s sins”. In fact there is no mention of forgiveness of sins, period,
whether through confession, repentance, & faith or not.
By the word “we” Paul is referring to the saints (those of faith) his letter is addressed to.
In the context of Romans 5, evidently salvation is about avoiding wrath (Rom.5:9) :
Rom.5:9 Therefore, since WE(of faith) have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall WE(of faith) be saved from wrath through Him!
Rom 5:10 For if when WE were enemies we were reconciled to God THROUGH the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, WE(of faith) shall be saved by His life.
Rom 5:11 And not only this, but WE also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom WE have now received the reconciliation.
Wrath & salvation from it is a repeated theme in Romans:
Rom.1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom. 2:4 Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?
Rom. 2:5 But because of your hard and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
Rom.2:8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
Rom. 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)
Rom.9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction?
Reconciliation isn’t unilateral forgiveness of sins.
Those who believe recieve forgiveness of sins.
Those believers who continue in the faith & walk in the light continue to have forgiveness of sins & salvation from wrath.
It’s a shame, though no surprise, you weren’t adept enough to read what I said… let me repeat it:
To BOW the knee and CONFESS Christ IS an act of repentant contrition… that you deliberately choose to ignore or change the biblical data only demonstrates dogmatic doctrine dominates your decision-making — or as I have pointed out before about your unbalanced approach Paidion…