This is the problem from my point of view with so many of your posts… I have to spend way too much time undoing or correcting what you say I’m saying, when I’m NOT saying what you say I’m saying.
Davo, do you think the terms salvation/saved ever refer to anything other than escaping the Roman Jewish war? If so, what?
Maybe we could ask, what, if any, verses talk about salvation not connected to the first century destruction of the temple by the Romans
Then we should talk about the word reconciliation as opposed to salvation in the general evangelical notion of this idea of after life.???
Yes of course… context is important. In this light have a look… HERE.
This is how pantelism views these things… HERE.
The way I see it, parousias were happening all the time. The Garden of Eden fell, Noah and the flood, the Tower of Babel collapsed, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, the Israelites were brought out of Egypt, Samson ripped down Temple, etc. etc. etc. In fact, the Temple was destroyed and rebuilt many times. As I mentioned before, these are reoccurring events.
Thanks Davo. Am I correct to infer that “redemptive salvation” verses are about going to heaven?
Not as such, but if that is your understanding I’m not going to argue with it.
Why can’t I? I am arguing that this is precisely what the Scriptures themselves are indicating!
In the Old Testament redemption was the process of buying something back. The Hebrew word for Redeemer is Ga’al, and means to ransom, to play the role of a kinsman. The kinsman, someone of the same family would redeem or pay what his relative could not. In the book of Ruth, Boaz was the kinsman-redeemer for Ruth whose husband died (Ruth 2:1). Ruth was destitute, she along with her mother-in-law were forced to beg for their survival, by gleaning the fields of Boaz. Ruth had no idea of what her redemption meant.
Mankind was sold into slavery in the Garden of Eden. Adam, God’s representative for mankind, had been given full authority and possession of the earth (Genesis 1:28-30). Everything belonged to him. He transferred this birthright to Satan when he ate from the tree that God instructed him not to (Genesis 2:16-17). According to the Law of the Kinsman Redeemer, only a relative could redeem or purchase back that which was lost or sold. In other words, mankind was the only one who could provide this redemption. This is why Jesus came in the flesh, fully God and fully man (Isaiah 59:16, John 1:14). Jesus became our brother so Adam and all mankind could be redeemed ( Hebrews 2:11).
The redemption price has been paid by Jesus, but the process is not complete: our bodies, the earth, and the rest of creation have yet to fully manifest the benefits of the redemption, even to be immortalized.
Because! What if I am right about the truth of futurism? Although I am an evangelical universalist, hell and the lake of fire are long and painful; let alone the suffering in this life that results from ignorance and deception.
Take “Antichrist,” for example:
“But be alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are going to take place and to stand before the Son of Man.” Luke 21:36.
Open Theism: is it true, possible or biblical?
Preterism & Pantelism remain a concern to me re future punishment, as they seem to often lead people to either minimalize or eliminate it completely. Is that your issue with Pantelism? I’m not clear on your point re the antichrist quote. Generally speaking my focus is on Jesus Christ.
Just a footnote here - from Wiki at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantelism
Again, this sentence is important:
I think Hermano was referring to a variation of Pascal’s wager - regarding futurism (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager).
Geoffrey’s theory that there is no postmortem punishment has been growing on me. His belief was that seeing the enthroned Christ would purify a person in an instant.
And yet, Geoffrey was a traditional Eastern Orthodox church member. Yet I’m not aware of anything in Eastern Orthodoxy…or the historical church fathers…that supports his “ultra-universalism”. Correct me if I’m wrong. And if his theory is right, then I could be a Hell’s Angel or Outlaw gang member - all my life. And it wouldn’t make any difference.
My point about the Antichrist is this: he is the next prophetic sign.
I believe he will soon arise in a time of world crisis, as an underestimated leader (a “little horn”) who will militarily “knock heads together” and then lead the world into an unprecedented age of peace and prosperity.
“Peace” cannot be taken from the earth (Rev. 6:4) unless the earth first becomes peaceful. I believe the pre-Trib rapture (possibly the first of several raptures) is a rescue from what will come on the world after the party balloon is finally popped, when Jesus breaks the first seal on that title deed scroll (Rev. 6:1), and begins the eviction process against Satan. And, *the devil will not go quietly. *
Origen, I am concerned about Jesus’ warning to us found in the parable of the virgins:
You seem to be following many before you who have prophesied the same thing about the antichrist and end of the world… (and it will not happen!) You are not looking at who the bible is about and written to and also when it was written, and wanting to shove your own ideas into the mix. Good luck with that. When the time passes that you all think IT will happen you all say OH WELL We have got to get back to biblical sanity.
What is your understanding of the virgins parable, Hermano?
As long as shit disturber Trump is around i don’t see there being peace. If he is a big horn, then who in Asia might be “a little horn”?
Re “hell and the lake of fire are long and painful; let alone the suffering in this life that results from ignorance and deception”, how does a view that God wouldn’t swat a fly in this life, (let alone terminate Sodom, Pharoah or Noah’s world) harmonize or reconcile with the view of Him assigning His created beings to a “hell and the lake of fire” that are “long and painful”? What Scripture says such is “long and painful”?
Well yeah that’s ok… I can play that game. Your original ill-informed argument that… ”“According to Davo’s recommended web site on pantelism, the Cross alone was NOT enough for mankind’s complete redemption was and is completely false AND nonsensical GIVEN you then admitted your own position’s contradiction when you said… ”The complete manifestation of our redemption is something still future,… — IF that in itself isn’t an incomplete redemption then I don’t know what is. Can you not you see your bogus charge falls flat via your own contradiction?
The ONLY difference then between pertinent pantelism and fabulous futurism is THE LENGTH of post-cross and pre-parousia TIME. Your position has pushed that period of time out into the indefinite never-never of ever-evolving speculation; whereas my position views that same post-cross / pre-parousia period of time, where redemption was in its “process” (see we agree ), as being the New Testament’s 40yr period AD30-70 period of Jesus’ prophesied “this generation” where some in Israel (to whom Jesus was ACTUALLY speaking) would… “not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.” Mt 16:28. IF that period of time STILL remains THEN logic dictates there MUST STILL BE some very, very old people ALIVE to whom Jesus spoke STILL waiting to… “see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom.” — good going!
There is a great distinction between hell and the subsequent lake of fire; but I would argue both of them are terrible and lengthy, and to be avoided at all costs:
- Hell is still currently a P.O.W. camp *directed by Satan. *
- The lake of fire, as described in Rev. 20:10-15, is the place into which the devil and hell will eventually be thrown–a place of remediation directed by a loving God.
Regarding 1) hell, I believe Jesus was referring to Satan, NOT his loving Father, when he said this:
And although Satan was later defeated at the cross, he has obviously been quite successful at keeping humanity blind to that fact. As Richard Murray has said,
As to 2) the Lake of Fire, which God lovingly oversees, this is what I said elsewhere:
Maintenanceman, I am not so much prophesying as interpreting the prophetic Scriptures. And I go by this fundamental rule:
If a prophecy has not been totally fulfilled in the past, then there will be a future complete fulfillment.
When Satan’s man saves the world from what seems like certain destruction, and sets up a time of peace and prosperity that looks like it will last forever; when he, with his mouth speaking great things, deceives the world, then the just will live by faith—because everything in the natural will seem to point to the rightness of Antichrist.
And yet can provide NO scripture that says this… more unsubstantiated opinion.
And yet can provide NO scripture that says this… more unsubstantiated opinion.