The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Aionios in 2Tim 1:9, Titus 1:2 and Rom 16:25


Actually, unless I have missed something, The Holy Fool has changed his post from preterism to pantelism… Am I wrong?


You are right, Chad. It’s to reflect this quote by Dave, so I could share the right term and definition.


Thanks Randy.

I appreciate your post.


Like most apparent “problems” they only appear as such because said objectors are unable to conceive that there might just be another approach to understanding the biblical message.

  1. “Everlasting” was only ever “everlasting” while God was dealing with a specific people in a specific way and by the nature of the case, for a specific time… example: “circumcision” was instituted under the OC as a perpetual or “everlasting” condition of covenant, AND YET we understand “in Christ” and the NC this took on a whole new reality… in fact it’s originally intended reality (Deut 10:16; Jer 4:4) of which this fleshly work was but a foreshadow. Thus not a prêteristic problem.

  2. To be sure, Israel’s “future restoration” was to be literal as in it would happen, BUT IT WAS NOT fleshly… it was COVENANTAL i.e., the New Covenant/Creation wherein “righteousness dwells” equates to Israel’s “resurrection” – their promised (Ezek 37:1-14) resurrection (covenant restoration) which would be the catalyst for humanity’s reconciliation. Thus not a prêteristic problem.

Again the futility of futurism’s logic… IF the likes of Hymenaeus and Philetus were advocating the popular casket resurrection HOW on earth could anyone’s faith have been overthrown? All anyone would have to had done to disprove this would be to point out the window to all the graves, open, and those who had occupied them walking around. THAT didn’t happen because Hymenaeus and Philetus were not advocating a casket resurrection. Hymenaeus and Philetus understood the NATURE of the resurrection, i.e., it spoke to covenant renewal; what they had wrong was the TIMING. While the Temple stood (and it still did at that time) the old covenant though in remission, remained, and yet Hymenaeus and Philetus’ claims fed into the Judaisers (Acts 15:1, 5, 10, 24) mantra of Law-abidance for righteousness… something Paul said such advocates should go the whole way, as per Gal 5:12. :astonished:

Jesus said… “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” – there must be some very, very old people still walking this world. :mrgreen:

These again are charges based off their own propositions. Said physicality relates to the destruction that played out on the old covenant system in AD70, i.e., it literally (actually) happened. As for “and downplays the dreadful nature of the tribulation by restricting that event to the fall of Jerusalem” – read Josephus’ account of these times and there is NO downplaying of this at all, so this claim is shear bunkum.

Well not everyone is “waiting and suffering” but there are way too many believers who are, due to this postponed and forlorn ‘hope’ of futurism. But what says Prov 13:12Hope deferred makes the heart sick…”. Futurism in delaying and postponing to its own timetable “the hope of Israel” i.e., covenant resurrection/renewal, has robbed the church of its “tree of life” and in consequence left many a believer “waiting and suffering”.

There are a number of option considered within prêterism but as a pantelist I’d nominate the functioning High Priest of the day.

Jerusalem… where the Lord was crucified Rev 11:8.


The “historical evidence” you are not seeing IS the ‘AD70 Destruction of Jerusalem’… THAT IS (from a covenant eschatological view) WHAT the ‘Coming of Christ’ was. Jesus came in the power and authority i.e., in the likeness of the Father, meting out Judgment & Reward as per faithfulness OR unfaithfulness. Thus the DoJ is understood as this event and as such understood in the same manner of Yahweh’s other demonstrated interventions (comings) in history (at least as identified in the bible)… secular historians of course wouldn’t attach that meaning, but then why would they?

IOW… there is NO future expected event where Jesus “physically” does a lap around the globe on literal clouds that comes to a screaming halt over Jerusalem to suck all and sundry up into the self-same literal clouds, etc. NO… Jesus’ presence is to be understood in terms of the Divine Judgment ON and deliverance FROM the old covenant mode of existence.

I know it’s hard to grasp because this is looking at ‘biblical prophecy’ through a completely different window, a totally other grid, i.e., it is a comprehensive paradigm shift… been there done that. So I fully get your scepticism and reticence. When it dawned on me and I finally grasped the realisation that Jesus’ “end of the world” predictions spoke NOT to the end of OUR time-space universe BUT rather to the end of THEIR old covenant world (age) things changed, everything changed.

This is not that convincing IMO because the likes of Justin Martyr or Irenæus or Clement would be like comparing our respective views, that is to say, like you and me they carried certain beliefs/perspectives but that doesn’t mandate correctness. There were/are many views… it then comes down to comparing prophetic prose with historic evidence, i.e., *what was. *

Prêterism/pantelism doesn’t have to invent a future, it simply looks at the past for fulfillment in the HISTORY of the day as it played out, AS prophesied by Israel’s prophet par excellence Jesus. I remember as a kid, according to Futurism the bad eggs of Revelation were the Russians, now magically it’s Islam… good ole’ fashioned ‘newspaper theology’. :laughing:


You’re welcome Chad. :slight_smile:


This one fascinates me (like the things Mr. Stock - of Star Trek - are fascinated by). Let’s see if I understand this correctly. Everything happened within Christianity around 70 AD. But we still live in a world full of sickness, destruction, apparent evil and death (whether real or illusion). But if everyone were to see clearly - like you do - then this world of sickness, destruction and death (whether real or illusion) would end? Is this the correct understanding? If not, then what must humanity do, to end this cycle of sickness, destruction, apparent evil and death (whether real or illusion)?

It appears similar to the answer that might be applied, by New Thought and Christian Science adherents.

This is where I am getting confused :exclamation: :smiley:


Only (although I shouldn’t say only) in terms of the final summing up and consummation of Israel’s redemption and consequent reconciliation of man… that’s a big deal, THE big deal IMO.

Yes… and those things have always been present. They are all summed up in “pain” – pain and death/destruction have always been part of the created order. The account of Eve has her pain being “greatly increased” – you can only increase what is ALREADY present. The food that sustained Adam and Eve that gave them life was of itself dying in destruction as they consumed it and it breaking down… that’s biological “death”; it was ALREADY present.

This fact is likewise seen in that IF they would put forth their hands and partake of the ‘Tree of Life’ they would summarily “LIVE FOREVER” – what does logic and common sense dictate was their present condition one of dying just like everyone else. Physical death was part of the natural realm. Where the problem came was “Adam’s sin”… had he eaten of the Tree in his now fallen state the spiritual nature of “sin” would have been immortalised and humanity forever locked from passing through death’s veil into the presence of God.

I don’t make any claims to “see clearly” – I might just see differently. The “world of sickness, destruction and death” ENDS when we all like those before us step through death’s doorway into God’s greater beyond. Even Paul, taking him at his most base meaning, said…

No this is not a correct understanding IMO. Much confusion stems from the legacy of Christendom that has painted the picture of “eternal life” being equated to a heavenly UTOPIA of golden streets and fluffy clouds.

When, or to the degree humanity grasps the grace of God and evolves in terms of “love thy neighbour” to that degree the likes of hatred will decrease. The “no more tears” of Revelation was in relation to the tears of separation caused by SIN that now “in Christ” have been wiped away.

SIN being strengthened by the LAW wrought the sting of DEATH… not physical death but covenantal aka spiritual death. From the pantelist perspective this is what 1Cor 15:56 is all about; consider this logic… If death still has its sting (sin), then we MUST conclude that sin still has its strength (the law), which means that Christ is still yet to be “the end of the law” if indeed the last enemy to be destroyed, being death, has still not yet happened; if that isn’t a devastating blow to the Gospel and a demoralizing undermining of Christ’s victory I don’t know what is!


Let’s continue this dialogue of understanding - or my misunderstanding. People are still being born. People are still subject to death and suffering. Does humanity need - as a whole - to evolve to (and practice) “love thy neighbor” and believe in the grace of God?

So I - as a person - am sick of this suffering and pain. And children being born in a world - of suffering and pain. Should I just get everyone to “love thy neighbor” and believe in the grace of God - to get it to end? How can we get everyone to the heavenly state, folks to stop being born and dying, and everyone to be happy in heaven?

Pretend I am Curly of the Three Stooges. Or you are teaching Sunday school, to six year old children. Explain it so that Curly and the six year old children - would understand it. :exclamation: :smiley:


Randy. I don’t understand your questioning. We should follow the morals Jesus taught and lived by, just like any futurist would tell you. I don’t see how believing that the end times already happened would change one’s love for God and neighbor.


Qaz. If the end times already happened and Jesus fulfilled everything around 70 AD, then I’m confused why God continues to allow a world being populated, people suffering, etc. I really don’t need a lesson in how to apply Christianity. This has been taught over the years, by folks from the Lutheran, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and other Christian denominations, I have hung around with.

I’m trying to understand why I’m still here and suffering, given Dave’s postion - Pantelism - here (assuming they are correctly representing it).

In a futurists or even partial Pertelism position, Christ finally arrives. And some sort of ending occurs. Maybe it’s like the Left Behind series. Or some folks are left behind as humans and others as P-Zombies (the Walking Dead view - which I favor :unamused: ). Or the view the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church presents. We have a judgement. Some sort of temporary punishment. Etc. But once this is done, we have a new heaven and a new earth. When do we get the New Heaven and New Earth with Pantelism?

Let’s view an article at On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell. Let me quote from it:

OK. I can possibly see that.

I can see their position and it sounds reasonable

This is where I get confused. Where is the new heaven and new earth? Or isn’t there one?

Now this is interesting


Yes. Now we are talking - I think. I believe this is what I am seeking. :exclamation: :smiley:

And the article did begin with a great quote from Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk and Zen Master. The Seventh Story Mountain is one of the best spiritual autobiographies around.

I’ll welcome any article commentary, rebuttal or enhancement - as the preterists see things - from David or anyone here. Just talk to me like I am Curly (from the Three Stooges) or a six year old. Even the answer “I don’t know” is OK with me. Otherwise, I’ll stick with the given answers - in the article.

Now I’m not here to debate Dave, that a futurist or partial pertelism position is better. I’ll let Paidion do that. I’m just trying to understand a particular aspect, as Curly or a six year old would. But if the answer in the article is acceptable, how do we tie it in with universalism?


Randy posted:

Well, that is a take on it… But the idea that you go to a heaven or hell is some what rudimentary, that idea unfotunatly clings to old theological strongholds. And as David said earlier:

Now I have perceived that you have been once again updating your post… and that is good . You are looking. You are smart Randy… Way smarter than me. If you want to know what preterists or Pantelist’s or any other -ist’s think: you will find it out. You can, and I might say that I am impressed, com up with a cartoon or video that deal with the subject matter in what seems like no time at all. A gift.

There is a volume of info on this subject on this very forum (to start with) if someone just does a word search. The quality of the minds on this forum are far ranging, but there are some very, very sharp folks here. You included :exclamation: :smiley:


This is what amazes me about your position, Davo. What appears to be literal truth, you take as figurative. But in the quote you made above, death is MEANT to be figurative, as is evident from the context, you seem to be taking it as literal.

Romans 6 (ESV):
4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
9 We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions.


This why I used those definitive qualifying words… “most base meaning” i.e., there’s probably some scope for this. But having said that, there is plenty of futurism that does exactly what you yourself raise.


Have you read Talbott’s TILOG? Not that Talbott is a preterist, but I think his theodicy is something that can be applied to a preterist theodicy: perhaps it’s not possible for God to bring about a better state of affairs than the one we currently have; perhaps there would ultimately be less love (and thus more suffering) if God did not let history play out the way it has.

I’ve still had difficulty reconciling my preterism with hope for UR. Every knee has not bowed, every tongue has not confessed. Perhaps that is on ongoing process? I don’t know.


First of all, QAZ, yes every knee will bow and every tongue *will *confess and praise the Christ. God has reconciled Israel and Himself. Hard to be a preterist if you do not believe that.

Now the ongoing issue with most is about the apparent inconsistency of God’s will and what they perceive as evil or un Christian works, in that many have a view that has been perpetuated upon them that somehow this marvelous creation is less than perfect according to God’s plan. I think He “GOD”, knows and knew exactly what He was and IS doing.

Glory be to the Father!


MM, we know what are Christian and unChristian acts. It’s not a big mystery. Are we to think that feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick now (i.e. since AD 70) have moral parity with hating a brother, lusting after a neighbor’s wife, and committing fraud? When someone is murdered or raped, is it not evil? God didn’t become a moral nihilist. It’s that kind of approach taken by some universalist preterists, that doesn’t take sin seriously, that concerns me.


Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick are all what we as Christians are ‘CALLED’ to do.

Somehow you and others confuse the Cross / reconciliation/covenant fulfillment, with a sense of utopia on earth. God created and allowed!!! creation to go for a long time before he sent the Christ. In the interim he did many things.

But the biggest thing he did was to close the gap between humanity and Himself. There are many posts about free will on this forum. The fact that God gives us room to move and love and make mistakes is the ultimate evidence that His love is both never ending and unmerited from our standpoint. His creation is sublime and precious to Him.

My Children’s sins are not pleasing to me. Yet I continue to love them unconditionally.

You are preoccupied with others sins. Or your sins. Forgive and realize He has forgiven sin through Christ. That is the gospel message.

I can’t be more plain than that.

If you have a hard time with that, I pray that the light of Christ will shine on you, so you can forgive others and me and yourself.

It is truly a great message.

In love,



Randy, thanks for the update on the debate. :laughing: I love the little concession stand! So I read the Pantelist view, and I can agree with some of it, but I’m just not getting the whole thing. I agree that Jesus did away with the Mosaic laws because many of these laws were not His, and that the destruction of Jerusalem was a judgment upon Israel. However, I don’t understand how all of humanity is saved because of this. What happened to Israel simply repeats itself when we do not follow the Lord.


Let’s play a game today. I call it What If. Today we play what if full Preterism is true?

Suppose death is the gateway, to our eternal destiny. And we don’t destroy the earth. Then life as we know it, could go on - “for the longest time”. We could have life and death on this earth, for a thousand years. A million years. A billion years. We could make science the new religion. We could lose interest in time based regions, like Judism, Christianity and Islam. We could replace them by cyclic religions - like Buddhism and Hinduism. Or eternal progression ones - like Mormonism. Unless a scientist invents time travel…goes back in time with a full Preterist…and brings back historical proof.

Am I playing this game of What If correctly? For the longest time, reminds me of a song :exclamation: :laughing: