Well, it seems whether one is “lucky” or not…depends on whether they were around - in 70 A.D. If the wicked at that time, get throw in the lake of fire - forever and ever…isn’t that a bit unfair…in regards to those, born after that “magic number”?
1 Like
GOOD POINT, HFPZ!
Please tell me Randy that this is not real? There has to be a zombie attached. Though anyone who would use Dirty Harry in an Evangelical Universalist forum has my vote.
God doesn’t kill people and wipe out entire nations!
It took Jesus to reveal the true character of God. Jesus Himself was the exact image of the Father’s essence (Heb 1:3), and He never killed anyone or commanded His disciples to kill anyone. And this is how He spoke of the Father:
But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. (Luke 6:35 ESV)
Jesus often quoted Moses and the other prophets, but He NEVER quoted a passage which indicated that God kills people. It is my belief that the Hebrews of old didn’t know God as He was later revealed by Jesus, and thought that God had commanded such killings—when it was, in fact, their own decisions.
"You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
(Matthew 5:43-45 NASB)
1 Like
These three remain (are eternal): Faith - Hope - Love
No, I did. Why are you dodging my question by asking another?
You know very well what I’m asking.
Don’t worry about it, I know the answer, I was just trying to wring it out of ya…
Anyway, an oldie but goody: We are saved from WHAT?
If you know the answer, then why ask?
Just for the record.
It’s ok, there is no question any longer in my mind that the connection between eschatology and soteriology is very mis-represented by Pantelism, though I do find some of the exegesis concerning the covenants, etc., worthwhile.
The subject has consumed too much of my time so I’m going to TRY and cut loose from the thread for a while, while others fight the good fight.
Love and peace bro.
You are cutting bait because you can’t roll with the idea. I appreciate that. Good luck. We will talk soon.
Love you bro.
Ahh, he knew that. Dave has seen that. It is a matter of why he does not acknowledge it?
1 Like
It really is the same for Bob.
Just to be sure of NO misunderstanding… what Randy responded to is NOT the pantelist’ view. 
Amen
Well, it seems whether one is “lucky” or not…depends on whether they were around - in 70 A.D. If the wicked at that time, get throw in the lake of fire - forever and ever…isn’t that a bit unfair…in regards to those, born after that “magic number”?
It’s not about luck. Only that people in Biblical times hardened their hearts towards God with the intent and motivations of sinning against the infinite God. Their hearts were hardened and evil and their motivations were to blaspheme and belittle and desecrate the infinite worth of God’s glory. The worst sin in Biblical times was a hardening of the heart against God so much that it was called the eternal sin. Nobody in modern times has reached such wickedness.People in the new heavens and earth haven’t reached such depravity. Granted this is because of God’s grace. But grace is never owed. Especially to evil God haters who hate and blaspheme God and don’t want to have anything to do with Him. If God gives it some and not others He does nothing wrong. Those judged in 70 A.D. hated God and Christ. They didn’t want Him. They rebelled of their own will. They are therefore accountable for their sins. Again, God is never obligated to give a rebel sinner who hates Him and doesn’t want to have anything to do with Him the gift of grace. If they don’t want to love God they don’t have to. It’s like the philanthropist who goes to a homeless shelter and chooses three people to buy a house for and leaves the rest. The philanthropist is under no obligation to buy the others a house just because she buys three a house. This is even more so with God and rebel sinners who hate Him and don’t want anything to do with Him. There’s nothing unfair about it. Those in the lake of fire have hardened their hearts against God and committed the eternal sin. This sin is unforgivable in this age. All sins will be forgiven in this age except the eternal sin. Which is an irreversible hardening of the heart. The only thing left for us in the new heavens and earth when we die is either purgatory or the entering into the gates of the city.
No Zombies attached there, Chad. I’m glad you’re a fan of Dirty Harry. But zombies do make a point, of arising from their graves - from time to time.
True. It’s Holly Tree’s (AKA Cole?) “understanding” of Pantelism. Which means the language and communication of Pantelism, is NOT made clear enough - for him or her.
1 Like
HT can certainly clarify further BUT I am pretty sure his preterist position is the one he has come to and NOT his “understanding” of Pantelism as you say… he’s made no reference as far as I’m aware to pantelism.
If that’s true, then my bad. So HT. Do you agree with Pantelism? And if not, what points do you disagree with?
Again the thinking reflected in asking these questions simply mirrors a given mindset, and I’ve been there so know why you’d see it as you do, BUT “the ages” in view are covenant ages (and no, NOT as per dispensational understanding) and are NOT ANYTHING to do with terra firma or the celestial, i.e., of this temporal creation. Let’s compare some texts…
Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Unlike your interpretation that claims futurity, the text itself CLEARLY does not. Then in agreement with the text is this…
1Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
You will note Paul’s… “have come” NOT your will come! This was their present reality outworking to fulfilment, none other than… “the ends of the ages” — it was theirs NOT ours. THEY lived in the true intertestamental period from OLD to NEW covenants, i.e., AD30-70 — a biblical generation of 40yrs, aka Jesus’… “this generation”. This NT period of trial and tribulations was but the antitype of their own historic 40yrs desert days backstory.
Again pantelism doesn’t subscribe to this temporal mindset. Pantelism understands John’s ‘new creation’ motif to be in lockstep with Paul’s ‘new creation’ in that it speaks to covenant realities. The old creation (OC) was being replaced by the new creation (NC), or as Paul would say…
2Cor 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. Cf. Heb 8:13; 1Cor 3:7—11
John and Paul are on the self-same page, i.e., it’s the same consistent language of covenant renewal. Thus the tears etc, reflects the frustrations and inadequacies of the old covenant mode of existence that could NOT lead to the righteousness of God and as such have been done away — the old Mosaic covenant world ended.
JUST NOT TRUE! It is evangelicalism that promotes and promulgates… “the guilt/condemnation related to sin” TOTALLY ignoring the truth of Jn 1:29 and Heb 9:26 — even folk here on your side of the argument readily deny these scriptures making all manner of excuses as why or how they cannot really mean what they blatantly say. Let me give you your rendition…
Jn 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who will one day take away the sin of the world at His 2nd Coming!
Heb 9:26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, for a 2nd time at the end of the ages, He will appear to put away sin by His appearing.
Totally nonsensical scripts reflecting EXACTLY what you guys are saying.
As i said earlier: An interpretation for seeing 'the end of the ages" in Heb.9:26 as yet future is detailed here:Hebrews 9:26 seems to say that the ages will end
All i see above is denial without addressing the post.
I’ll post a different interpretation re 1 Cor.10:11 in the same thread: Hebrews 9:26 seems to say that the ages will end
Origen had posted:
“OTOH in universalism sometime after the creation of the new heavens & new earth Love Omnipotent will be “making all new” & death, the last enemy, shall be abolished. There will be no more tears, pain, dying, curse or disease.”
In 2 Cor.5:17 we see a past tense past accomplished “old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” for only those who were then “in Christ”. Quite different from the future described here:
“As re an “incomplete & weak salvation” are you suggesting that the universe is now “completely” saved from the effects of sin (e.g. death, rebellion, sickness)? In Pantelism how many negative things such as that continue forever & are never erased from the earth? That’s what i would call a salvation that forever remains “incomplete & weak”. OTOH in universalism sometime after the creation of the new heavens & new earth Love Omnipotent will be “making all new” & death, the last enemy, shall be abolished. There will be no more tears, pain, dying, curse or disease.”
Even in Pantelism the unbelievers are not experiencing salvation from guilt and condemnation.
Origen had posted:
Even in Pantelism the unbelievers are not experiencing salvation from the guilt/condemnation related to sin which you seem to think was fulfilled already as per Jn.1:29.
I’ll re-state it this way: Do Pantelists believe that everyone in the world in the past 1900+ years [since 70 AD] experienced salvation from guilt while they were alive? If so it seems all the psychiatrists out there never got the Pantelist memo. If not, then how are you claiming that others view of salvation is an “incomplete & weak salvation”, as if the Pantelists’ view of salvation isn’t just like it in that regard?
It is widely believed that for believers - there is now no condemnation “in Christ” (Rom.8:1). Even some/many evangelicals would say that unbelievers sin and/or sins have been taken care of on the cross.
I’m not aware of ever reading any Universalists that think Jn.1:29 will be fulfilled at the 2nd coming. That sounds like it would be more of a 70 AD idea some/many Pantelists/Preterists might embrace:
“Atonement Incomplete at Cross ; Complete at AD70”
Since Pantelist interpretations closely imitate those of Full Preterism, is that your view, too?
As distinct from your make-belief rewriting of Heb.9:26 above, which misrepresents the viewpoint i’ve posted, here is what i’ve actually posted:Hebrews 9:26 seems to say that the ages will end