Hey. I just thought of something Dave. That just might keep the zombies away, during the Zombie Apocalypse. When they come, go and try it out…And report back to us. 
Hmmmmm… I was thinking more like an imaginary dead skunk, but you guys bring up some interesting, if malodorous, points. 
So, Davo, when it comes to universalism, your position is that “αιωνιος” in Greek and “owlam” in Hebrew means “lasting” or “of long duration.”
But when it comes to pantelism, when you wish to believe that the earth endures forever, these two words then mean “eternal” or “forever.”
So, Davo, when it comes to universalism, your position is that “αιωνιος” in Greek and “owlam” in Hebrew means “lasting” or “of long duration.”
But when it comes to pantelism, when you wish to believe that the earth endures forever, these two words then mean “eternal” or “forever.”
A taste of the wrath of Paidion!!
No wrath here, Steve. Just rationality.
No… more a case of, to use your preferred vernacular, the earth is simply ‘lasting’ and thereby as some of those verses indicate… abides and is “established and unmoved”. As is defined by the lexicon… to stand firm, constant and preserved. Thus the thought is by no means simply limited to or by αἰώνιος — there being a handful of other words saying and confirming this same truth. Remember, there is also this…
Hope that is “rational” enough. 
So you have the option of deciding the meaning to match your theology?
No… you just need to properly read again my last answer that explained quite clearly my position.
I wonder how Pantelism of the following sort arrives at “universalism”:
How does Pantelism solve the contradiction of Lam 3:31-32 above with:
King James Bible
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. (Rev.20:10)
That appears to be a problem, at least for this Pantelist, some guy calling himself David Embury (anyone ever heard of him) :
“According to Rev 20:10 there is no longer any demonic deception of the nations for the Deceiver has been cast eternally into the Lake of Fire, and this, the Second Death knows no resurrection.”
http://pantelism.com/devil.html
He says “according to Rev.20:10…the Deceiver has been cast ETERNALLY (my caps) into the Lake of Fire”.
And Rev.20:10, as quoted above, says this ETERNALLY (i.e. for ever and ever) will be with torments. Does that sound like redemption or salvation?
You have previously identified this “Deceiver” of Rev.20:10 as the Jewish high priest of the first century. Which means, according to Revelation 20, he was the ancient serpent & dragon called Satan & the devil. In your Pantelism theology he must have been bound from 30-70 A.D. (your 40 year interpretation of the 1000 year millennium) so he could not continue deceiving the nations until the 1000 years is finished, when he is loosed from being chained by an angel to deceive all the nations again. Then he is cast into the lake of fire to be tormented for ever and ever (Rev.20:10). In your view the " “the lake of fire” which historically speaking was the AD70 fall of Jerusalem."
So shouldn’t we be able to fly to Jerusalem today & see this Jewish high priest/“Satan” being tormented for ever and ever in the lake of fire?
How do you reconcile that & Rev. 20:10 with your translation of “Lam 3:31-32 For the Lord will not cast off forever” & universal salvation?
It seems passages like Mt.25:31-46 & Rev.20 are ones Full Preterists & Pantelists like to avoid discussing like the plaque. Serious issues for their theology there, eh?
I just want to make 2 points, in regards to Davo and Paidion’s discussions:
-
There are as many different viewpoints in Full Preterism, as there are in other theological topics. See 16 Different Views of Full Preterism. I think Pantelism is one of the views presented. And each view is asked, a question regarding universalism.
-
There is an annihilation view of Full Preterism and Rev.10:20 at Consistency in Preterism: Annihilation and Revelation 20:10
Does anyone know if GMacDonald had any dogmatic thoughts about the ‘second coming’ as it is usually understood by ‘futurists’?
What about C.S. Lewis?
Does anyone know if GMacDonald had any dogmatic thoughts about the ‘second coming’ as it is usually understood by ‘futurists’?
Here is what I found in “Unspoken Sermons” concerning the second coming of Christ:
The gulf of indifference lay between the poor woman and the unjust judge; God and those who seek his help, are closer than two hands clasped hard in love: he will avenge them speedily. It is a bold assertion in the face of what seems great delay–an appearance acknowledged in the very groundwork of the parable. Having made it, why does he seem to check himself with a sigh, adding, Howbeit when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?’ After all he had said, and had yet to say, after all he had done, and was going on to do, when he came again, after time given for the holy leaven to work, would he find men trusting the Father? Would he find them, even then, beyond the tyranny of appearances, believing in spite of them? Would they be children enough towards God to know he was hearing them and working for them, though they could not hear him or see him work?–to believe the ways of God so wide, that even on the breadth of his track was room for their understanding to lose its way–what they saw, so small a part of what he was doing, that it could give them but little clue to his end? that it was because the goal God had in view for themwas so high and afar, that they could detect no movement of approach thereto? The sigh, the exclamation, never meant that God might be doing something more than he was doing, but that the Father would have a dreary time to wait ere his children would know, that is, trust in him. The utterance recognizes the part of man, his slowly yielded part in faith, and his blame in troubling God by not trusting in him. If men
would but make haste, and stir themselves up to take hold on God! They were so slow of heart to believe! They could but would not help it and do better!
He seems here to refer to his second coming–concerning the time of which, he refused information; concerning the mode of which, he said it would be unexpected; but concerning the duty of which, he insisted it was to be ready: we must be faithful, and at our work. Do those who The gulf of indifference lay between the poor woman and the unjust judge; God and those who seek his help, are closer than two hands clasped hard in love: he will avenge them speedily. It is a bold assertion in the face of what seems great delay–an appearance acknowledged in the very groundwork of the parable. Having made it, why does he seem to check himself with a sigh, adding, Howbeit when the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?’ After all he had said, and had yet to say, after all he had done, and was going on to do, when he came again, after time given for the holy leaven to work, would he find men trusting the Father? Would he find them, even then, beyond the tyranny of appearances, believing in spite of them? Would they be children enough towards God to know he was hearing them and working for them, though they could not hear him or see him work?–to believe the ways of God so wide, that even on the breadth of his track was room for their understanding to lose its way–what they saw, so small a part of what he was doing, that it could give them but little clue to his end? that it was because the goal God had in view for them was so high and afar, that they could detect no movement of approach thereto? The sigh, the exclamation, never meant that God might be doing something more than he was doing, but that the Father would have a dreary time to wait ere his children would know, that is, trust in him. The utterance recognizes the part of man, his slowly yielded part in
faith, and his blame in troubling God by not trusting in him. If men would but make haste, and stir themselves up to take hold on God! They were so slow of heart to believe! They could but would not help it and do better!
He seems here to refer to his second coming–concerning the time of which, he refused information; concerning the mode of which, he said it would be unexpected; but concerning the duty of which, he insisted it was to be ready: we must be faithful, and at our work. Do those who find them neglecting their work, they stare this way and that, and watch lest he should succeed in coming like a thief! So throughout: if, instead of speculation, we gave ourselves to obedience, what adifference would say, lo here or lo there are the signs of his coming, think to be too keen for him, and spy his approach? When he tells them to watch lest he should soon be seen in the world! Oh, the multitude of so-called religious questions which the Lord would answer with, ‘strive to enter in at the strait gate’! Many eat and drink and talk and teach in his presence; few do the things he says to them! Obedience is the one key of life.
— Unspoken Sermons II, The Word of Jesus on Prayer
There is a heap of wisdom in that selection - thanks Don!
Dave check out J.S. Russell’s book ‘The Parousia’.
"James Stuart Russell, the son of a pious Scotsman, was born at Elgin, Morayshire, on 28 November 1816. He entered King’s College, University of Aberdeen, at the age of twelve and when eighteen he completed his M.A. degree. His religious decision dates from about his sixteenth year under the influence of his older brother. For a time he served in a law office. Then to prepare for a Christian ministry he studied in the Theological Halls of Edinburgh and Glasgow, ultimately finding his way to Cheshunt College.
In June 1843 Russell became an assistant minister at the Congregationalist Church in Great Yarmouth before taking over as minister. In 1857 Russell transferred to the Congregational Church in Tottenham and Edmonton. While holding this position, Russell visited Belfast to observe the working of the great Irish Revival and came under its influence. On his return a similar awakening occurred in his own church.
After a stay of five years in his second church, Russell was attracted to a new church in the rapidly growing Bayswater, whose chapel in Lancaster Road was built in 1866. Here he continued to serve until his years and failing health led to retirement near the end of 1888.
Russell was not only an able preacher, but also a man of kindly deportment. He was gifted with winning personal characteristics, which secured for him a devoted following. His pleasant manners and genial spirit, his native humor and genuine wit, his extensive reading and wide knowledge and most retentive memory, made conversations with him agreeable and profitable.
Russell’s fervor stretched beyond the limits of his own pastorate. He was present, in 1843, at the formation of the Evangelical Alliance, with whose aim and operations he remained in warm and active sympathy to the last. He had an ever-deepening sense of the importance of the temperance movement, and he was the first chairman of the Congregational Total Abstinence Association. Both the National Temperance League and the United Kingdom Alliance counted him among their members. His advocacy of the good cause was in frequent demand for meetings in London and the suburbs.
Publishing The Parousia
Russell had held the doctrine of the past second Advent (Preterism) for many years before writing or even speaking on the subject. He used to describe how the matter came to him as a sort of revelation. On discovering the key to the mystery, the whole theme gradually unfolded. It was to him a source of constant delight to see one point after another fall into harmony with what he believed to be the central truth. Accordingly, in 1878, he published anonymously his now celebrated, The Parousia, containing an elaborate exegesis on these lines of New Testament teaching concerning the second coming of Jesus Christ. Another edition followed with the author’s name attached.
This work drew much attention to the subject on both sides of the Atlantic. The University of Aberdeen soon signalled its appreciation of the book by conferring on the author a diploma in divinity, which he valued all the more highly because it came from his alma mater."
I think you can find the book for free 
Chad - thanks - I hadn’t heard about the man or his work, and free is a price I find difficult to turn down. If I pick it up and read it I’ll let you know, it sounds very interesting.
The reason I brought up GMac and Lewis is that they, like Wm Ellery Channing and a few others through the years, have been the source of much of my spiritual growth (such as it is), and their balance of love, wisdom, imagination and holiness has given me that view of ‘the far country’ that has nourished me.
What struck me earlier today was that none of them had an eschatology that I’m aware of, nor a disciplined hermeneutic that I’m aware of. I might be wrong about that, but I’ve read them quite a bit and saw no evidence of it.
This could mean that these godly men and women, who read the scriptures diligently, may have truly ministered the grace of God based on scriptures that preterism, for instance, would relegate to finished history, not written for ‘us’. The soon Coming of the Lord, and such themes are what I’m referring to. (No doubt I’m caricaturing preterism, but that’s my impression at this moment.)
Their concern was God, as revealed by nature, by the use of Reason, and by special revelation. They were not ‘creedal’. Not much on the ‘solas’. Not overly concerned about strict ‘exegesis’. Yet - they were servants of God Most High and ministered for Him.
I’m not drawing conclusions here - these are not deep thoughts, just things kicking around in my noggin - but one deep thought that I rely on now is also the title of Hans Balthasar’s book - Love Alone is Credible. St. Paul wrote a lovely chapter on the subject. Those things that teach us how to truly love and be loved, to be rooted and grounded in love, to be humbled and raised up, to grow in grace - overshadows everything else imo.
Yeah, I’m struggling a bit with the ramifications of Pantelism, if it be true.
Thanks again for the tip, bro!
Lewis once confessed on the Mt 24:34 prophecy… “It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” The likes of Schweitzer along with Lewis had concluded “then this has not happened” BECAUSE they looked with the fleshly (not carnal) eye of wooden literalism… saying… “Jesus was a failed prophet.”
As for Russell, check this out… The Parousia
Very nice - a free pdf, easy to download. Thanks!
I think this is a good thread for this question:
First, a few translations of the same verse:
-2 Corinthians 5:19 (NCV) God was in Christ, making peace between the world and himself. In Christ, God did not hold the world guilty of its sins. And he gave us this message of peace.
-2 Corinthians 5:19 (MSG) God put the world square with himself through the Messiah, giving the world a fresh start by offering forgiveness of sins. God has given us the task of telling everyone what he is doing.
-2 Corinthians 5:19 (YLT) how that God was in Christ – a world reconciling to Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses; and having put in us the word of the reconciliation,
I checked about 20 translations and there is not a great deal of difference between them; so I don’t think we are dealing with a lexical issue here. Thank Goodness. 
My multi-part question then is: what changed when this reconciliation happened? Is that work complete and if so, what are the ramification?. If the world was reconciled to God by God’s actions, and with no human effort, how is it a true reconciliation? (Rebels are still rebels; we could unilaterally ‘reconcile’ ISIS, and tell them we don’t hold their past heinous actions against them and now consider them friends, and do you think it would change anything at all?)
And: what is the ministry of reconciliation? Is it an announcement of an accomplished sovereign deed or is there more to it, as in Colossians 1:
-19 For it was the good pleasure [of the Father] that in him should all the fulness dwell; 20 and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, [I say], whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens. 21 And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, 22 yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him: 23 if so be that ye continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel which ye heard,
G’day Dave… I’m only answering your query from my pantelist perspective as plenty a prêterist, full or partial, would disagree with me.
I would take issue with this MSG rendition on this point… God’s reconciliatory work through Christ on behalf of all was NO “offering forgiveness” — there NO offer made nor given for anyone to consider or choose — at least not with regards to the reconciliation. The subsequent injunction or plea to be reconciled (vs. 20) is the invitation to come into the fullness of the associated blessedness… something the recognition and acknowledgement of (an act of faith) this great gift of grace brings.
What changed was the status of humanity before God… from rejected to accepted — the barrier of the sin condition being removed.
As I understand it… the work is unequivocally complete, as per quite a number of texts that I’m sure you’re already familiar with. The more pertinent question might be… what are the ramifications IF it is NOT complete? i.e., we would be STILL LOST in sin and our faith futile! The text doesn’t say… “God IS in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, but WAS in Christ… job done, perfectly!
It’s the truest and purest form of reconciliation… God giving NO chance or allowance of man screwing it up by putting his own religious caveats all over it… which the evidence of religianity shows we are all too keen to do. Remember… this is the reconciliation of God TO man, NOT man to man — THAT is something the reality of reconciliation is to be outlived and practiced by us all.
Thanks mate! Very clear answers.
The verse ‘translation’ from The Message does appear to import an entirely different mode of thought into the verse by the use of ‘offer’ in place of ‘He has reconciled.’ I think the name for that mode of thought is what you mean by ‘religianity’.
I’m still thinking about all this.