steve7150 wrote:
I would also bet the ranch God doesn’t coerce people to make them confess Christ.
Obviously IMO… but why do you raise this in regards to my post when I haven’t countenanced any such thing?
Davo,
You referred to Paidion’s belief in PU where you said suffering ramps up. I was responding to that comment.
I was thinking about the up-and-coming tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse. Along with Peter Popoff’s, miracle spring water. 
And this idea came to me. Perhaps Pantelism is true. And the Zombie Apocalypse occurred around 70 A.D. But there was a CONSPIRACY, to cover this up. I got this insight, from watching the latest season - of the X-Files.
What do you know, about there being, a conspiracy theory, cover up?
And this idea came to me. Perhaps Pantelism is true. And the Zombie Apocalypse occurred around 70 A.D. But there was a CONSPIRACY, to cover this up. I got this insight, from watching the latest season - of the X-Files.
What do you know, about there being, a conspiracy theory, cover up?
Clearly true and that’s why they call the age after Jesus “the Gospel Age” because of the good news that the ZA occurred already in 70AD so we can rest easy! 
Ok… but that’s simply what Paidion has advocated in the past in terms of enduring God’s fire postmortem which he has indicated he believes is more active after death than before, i.e., it ramps up etc. It’s NOT what I believe.
Yep… that’s the sum total of Randy’s ZA. It’s all in his head 
Concerning the OP, I ran across this intriguing comment over at Perriman’s site:
Quote:
"Beyond that, for those of us who were not involved in the eschatological drama of the first three centuries, whose horizon is the third one of a final judgment, it appears that we must also expect to be judged according to our works:
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done…. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Rev. 20:12–15)
Better pull our socks up, then. Eh?"
-end quote-
Is this ‘orthodox pantelist’ thinking? (Yes, I used orthodox and pantelist in the same phrase. 
)
[tag]davo[/tag]
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books
These books that are opened may not be books of our works but they may be the gospels.
No. Technically speaking Andrew is a ‘partial prêterist’ as in like most here he anticipates a future coming of Christ with a remade universe… that is not the pantelist take at all. He also views the end of the Roman Empire (AD 300+) as a “third horizon” relative to Revelation’s prophetic timetable — what he transfers to “Rome” of the 3rd century pantelism understands speaks to “Jerusalem” of the 1st century. But that said… he is incredibly smart and I like the way he thinks outside the box.
Yes, and saying that, we can learn from Andrew. His view is different from Pantelism, and David’s take is a very ‘complete’ look at how the Bible is presented. Andrew is totally about history, David is completely about understanding covenant. The road moves on and both have their idea’s about how it has or is going to play out.
I really can not find many discrepancies between the former and the latter. With the exception of the second coming… Andrew has a bit of a problem, while David’s understanding has it worked out. And if we look at David’s idea, there are total scriptural basis for the idea he has.
Andrew, has a few holes, and I think he acknowledges them, but his premise is quite spectacular. 
Thanks davo, MM
So the ‘pure orthodox pantelist’ position is that there is no further ‘coming of Christ’ - is that right?
Do you think Earth will abide, then, until its fiery end when the Sun dies? I’m not being facetious - what is your understanding as to Earth’s future? You’ve probably said something about it already, though I may not have gotten to it. Is there any scriptural hint, in your view, to Christ ruling the earth, from ON the earth, ever?
Do you think Earth will abide, then, until its fiery end when the Sun dies? I’m not being facetious - what is your understanding as to Earth’s future? You’ve probably said something about it already, though I may not have gotten to it. Is there any scriptural hint, in your view, to Christ ruling the earth, from ON the earth, ever?
Yes they think “the earth abides forever”
The word for “forever” is OLAM. “olam: long duration, antiquity, futurity”: biblehub.com/hebrew/5769.htm
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away. (Mt.24:35)
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. (2 Pet.3:10)
Then I saw a great white throne and the One who sat on it. The earth and the heavens fled from His presence, and no place was found for them. (Rev.20:11)
25"Of old You founded the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. 26"Even they will perish, but You endure; And all of them will wear out like a garment; Like clothing You will change them and they will be changed.27"But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end. (Psa.102)
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. (Isa.65:17)
2 Peter 3:13
But in keeping with God’s promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
Revelation 21:1
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
Matthew 5:18
For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.
Luke 21:33
Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will never pass away.
Thanks Origen - I think that the pantelist hermeneutic explains all of those verses in such a way that the climax of the covenant and the AD 30-70 period is sufficient for their fulfillment.
I am more concerned with the question to davo and mm above.
Correct. It’s this understanding as to… “what constitutes the coming of Christ” that is massively different for the full prêterist or pantelist, i.e., (inclusive prêterist).
Without knowing or being so much aware of the ‘prêterist’ term I was in fact a partial prêterists for near 10yrs before discovering the “full version” of it which back when I came across it was called “covenant eschatology”. That’s when I became aware of the stark divide between the two camps. “FULL prêterism” was a pretty much a pejorative term and dirty word much the same as “universalism” is in evangelical circles.
I never cared much for the prêterist moniker myself and when having embraced covenant eschatology for about 3yrs decided to put my own website together. At this time I happened to read another full prêterists’ book that made reference to a Jonathin Seraiah’s book where he claiming to be a prêterist (in fact a partial prêterist) pillories what he considers to be the more extreme version, i.e., FULL prêterism, calling it “pantelism” — ‘all has ended’. Instead of being affronted at the pejorative tone I loved it and embraced it as the moniker of my website. That was back in 2002… within 12mths of that I started posting my more inclusive conclusions I realised full prêterism leads to… MUCH to the chagrin and angst of MANY full prêterists. 
‘Pantelism’ then joined the dirty universalist slur… like I was worried. 
“Their” main problem was they had difficulties refuting the logic… it was interesting times.
I remember when as a partial prêterist I finally had that “ah ha moment” when “the lights went on” when “the penny dropped” and I realised “the world” of Mt 24:3 was NOT the time-space universe of futurism BUT rather… the old covenant world of Mosaic Judaism. I remember thinking out loud “Wow, this changes everything!” — and the very first thing that crossed my mind was… “I wonder if universalism is true?” — that was a bridge too far and I quickly dismissed the thought. Within 12mths I was arguing for an inclusion prêterism, even before really being totally convinced of it; but I couldn’t see it not being the logical end of the prêterist view, so I went for it!
Yes. Quite simply… pantelism views this life as that which populates the life beyond, ad infinitum. If/when this world becomes uninhabitable perhaps by then we may have ventured far and wide beyond this ‘terra firma’ — who knows really.
As to textual evidence of earth’s longevity, consider these…
Now some of the above could be viewed in terms of poetic licence but not all.
No… not “literally” but in terms of through people, for sure. Jesus teaching to pray… “thy kingdom come on earth” I understand as to mean in its fullness as it is in Heaven… here that is a progressive thing. From the pantelist perspective… “entering the kingdom” equates to entering the service of God or as I like to put it… being saved to serve — it was NEVER about getting to postmortem heaven; Jesus ALREADY took care of that.
And PS on the BS: I usually crack a bit of a wry smile when some Eddy-the-expert purports to know what I believe, typically making some self-serving irrelevant claim… but ya get that.
Well tarnation, davo - that was a very satisfying answer, thanks. I did not know much of your background, either.
The thing is - it DOES change everything, if it is true. It’s a different climate of Christianity than most of us are used to, and those that we look to for admonishment, comfort, wisdom don’t hail from that different climate. So any sort of transition to the pantelist position would involve a giving up of some treasured resources. By that I mean - eschatology being the defining limit around soteriology and ecclesiology and even Christology; eschatology being primary in that sense.
Too much for an old guy like me. I need a nap.
Thanks again for explaining the position.
It is indeed a major paradigm shift… partly why I’m now post-evangelical. This is why I like guys like Andrew Perriman who although he doesn’t go for my approach he is a genuine party prêterist with a genuine open mind… although I’ve pushed him on one or two things that he frustratingly (for me ) can’t see, but I get that as I’ve been there done that myself. It is a journey more than a blanket destination.
So DaveB. Are you NOW on board with pantelism? If I were to take the plunge. I would still get stuck, in a partial preterist viewpoint. Like what Andrew Perriman or N.T. Wright would promote. Which would still be in line, with a future return of Christ. Like the historical creeds state. And I could also keep the Zombie Apocalypse…as the most probably, end-times tribulation model.
I think you side, Dave - with an AI, end-times model. I’ve shared this on Twitter today:
South Korean university boycotted over ‘killer robots’ http://ow.ly/CzT730jkuK4
Perhaps we might have an end-times model…Where both zombies and kill robots - run amok?
Perhaps you could come over to the dark side with your own weird zombie-holy-fool twist and call yourself a [size=150]“Fool Prêterist”[/size]
Randy - I’d rather have a dead skunk stapled to my forehead than be labeled with ANY -ism.
BUT - adopting a new paradigm, as opposed to changing one’s mind on one particular doctrine, means a re-evaluation of everything under the paradigm’s ‘umbrella’.
In the case of pantelism (and I speak only for myself), I face a situation wherein a particular hermeneutic (covenant theology?), if adopted and applied, would inexorably force me to a transvaluation (verb: to reestimate the value of, especially on a basis differing from accepted standards; reappraise; reevaluate) of doctrines of the Church, Eschatology, salvation history, even Christology (!) and more.
The -ism, if true, would in fact shake ALL the foundations of Western Christianity as I understand it.
So I cannot say that I am ‘on board’, because the hermeneutic is the thing, the lever, that moves everything else in the system, so it is that hermeneutic that I need to look at and that is a time-consuming thing.
As to Zombies (why did I capitalize ‘Z’ ?) - that subject is on the far far back burner of a stove that isn’t plugged in.
Randy - I’d rather have a dead skunk stapled to my forehead that be labeled with ANY -ism.
Good news, i have a dead skunk handy so when do we start!