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
I don’t need to deal with someone else’s error, just yours…
Again you TOTALLY ignore the fact that Paul and John speak to these same covenant realities… What was inaugurated in Christ’s Ministry, and ratified through Christ’s Cross, was subsequently consummated at Christ’s Coming of AD70. What was old was being replaced by what was new and THAT was occurring in THEIR covenant age-changing era, which is reflected in the Greek grammar.
Do you agree then with the… “some/many”? If not why not?
So Origen… are you ready to acknowledge without any sneaky caveats that BOTH Jn 1:29 and Heb 9:26 agree that Jesus has TAKEN AND PUT AWAY THE SIN of the world… very simple, YES or NO?
And Origen… please don’t duck, weave and divert away to quoting OTHER PEOPLE’S pontifications… do some honest reflecting and give your OWN answers right here to my questions above.
Until anyone can face, answer & refute the points made therein for “the ages” being yet future, i see no reason to reject that position. You claim the ages there are “clearly” not futuristic, so the burden of proof is on you to dismantle any opposing perspectives.
I don’t consider your Pantelist take on “old things…(and) new” in 2 Cor.5:17 (= “covenant realities”) to be a “fact”, albeit a conceivable opinion. There are other conceivable & reasonable interpretations of the meaning of “old things…(and) new”:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/5-17.htm
As it regards the texts of Heb.9:6 & 1 Cor.10:11, see above.
I’m always ready to acknowledge anything, once it’s proven true. See above. But Jn.1:29 does not say the world’s sin was taken away c. 30 AD on a cross. Or is that 70 AD in the view of Pantelists/Full Preterists? You ducked the question in my previous post:
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 many of Full Preterism, is that your view, too?
So as suspected once we weave through your convoluted obfuscations… your answer is NO — that speaks volumes. No need for me to waste my time chasing your smokescreens.
Davo, your system treats Jn 1:29’s ongoing tense as if it were past tense to claim Jesus’ cross has already removed sin (and its’ guilt) from the world. Similarly Heb 9:26 as declaring “Jesus’ sacrifice” accomplished that.
We respond, the apostles did not proclaim to sinners that that there was no guilt for sin, or that they were already forgiven, but continue Jesus’ conditional message that they need to believe and repent for forgiveness.
You seem to then respond that Jesus’ sacrifice did not actually remove sin, which awaited a future consummation at Jesus’ coming, which took place after the apostles’ life and writings, so that of course, the Bible could not have addressed sinners in the way you deduce that they should be addressed today.
I suspect it is the basis of this (to me disingenuous) selectivity of arguing that NT statements on the cross reliably declare everything vital is already accomplished, but that the way the apostles then address sinners after it is argued as a not reliable approach today, which needs to be clarified in order to remove my confusion.
I remain skeptical that it would be a reasonable expectation that committed Bible readers should have deduced such a system from its’ narrative.
2 Likes
I would be interested in Davo’s background…before he came to (or “discovered”, whatever the case may be) - the system of Pantelism. Was he a Full Preterist - for example? Then took Full Preterism, to its logical conclusion - Pantelism?
Before Mary Baker Eddy formulated Christian Science, she had experienced some supernatural healings. Then she formulated a system of theology - Christian Science… to share the healing method with others.
Unfortunately, she dismisses the discoveries of modern medicine and science…As well as established healing methods, of the indigenous people (AKA Native Americans) and others.
The key question also remains…what do we do now? For Christian Science, there are practitioners and teachers - to guide folks. Not that I embrace, their non-orthodox theology - mind you. But there are professionals to guide folks. Even for outsiders like me, who embrace Anglo-Orthodoxy;.
Even those embracing the Zombie Apocalypse , as the method of Christian tribulation…use simple and melodramatic YouTube videos…to get their message across.
Perhaps if Pantelism ever grows an audience,… then they would have others, to teach this theological path. It kind of reminds me, when I was hanging out…at the Liberal Catholic Church, for a year or so. Someone mentions that they have the clergy. Now they just need to get a congregation.
What could we do? If we don’t have any theological, or philosophical ethical considerations - to deal with? I wonder?
Clearly Davo is right in saying that the ages to which the apostle refers here are past ages—ages prior to Christ’s coming. Virtually all commentators agree with this position.
However this does not imply that there are no more ages yet to come. Indeed, the same apostle affirms that there are:
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ — by grace you have been saved —and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4-7 ESV)
By the way, I wrote a little chorus based on this passage. Sorry I cannot relay to you the tune, but perhaps a tune will spring to mind.
God, who rich in mercy,
Out of great love with which He loved us,
E’en when we were dead in trespasses
Made us alive together with Christ and raised us up with Him,
Made us sit in heavenly places
That in the coming ages He might show us His grace.
Randy,
I haven’t studied Panelist that much but I believe the scriptures describe the new heavens and earth as starting in 70 A.D. and then evolving progressively since then until it reaches it’s full consummation as described in Revelation. The lake of fire judgment happened in 70 A.D. and therefore the only thing left for us in the new heavens and earth is either the open gates or purgatory. The Bible says that every knee will bow and every mouth confess in heaven and on earth and under the earth. Under the earth is a reference to purgatory. The holy saints and mystics visions of both hell and purgatory confirm this.
If she did go to “hell”, perhaps her visit there would have been momentary, until she confessed that sin.
8If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10If we say we have not sinned, we make Him out to be a liar, and His word is not in us
Only mortal sins separate one from God and land one in eternal punishment. A mortal sin requires that all of the following conditions are met:
Its subject matter must be grave.
It must be committed with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense.
It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.
Only the 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 because of God’s mercy and grace.
I guess people could have their hearts separated from God’s common mercy/grace before they die. (the sheep and the goats.) The eternal sin happens when ones heart is separated from God’s common mercy/grace. The heart hardens as one’s hatred towards God intensifies. The eternal sin is when one has no desire to love God. That is to say, they don’t want God. All the will ever want to do is hate God and blaspheme and sin because all desire for God is removed. Because of their hardened hearts they would eventually grow accustomed to the living conditions of hell. The will weep at times and gnash their teeth out in anger but their blasphemy continues forever because they have no desire for God. The preterists I’m currently reading hold that hell is eternal and that there are those who die and go there. Some to everlasting life others to eternal punishment.
Since this thread also covers universalism…And I mentioned Christian Science (which I disagree with, by the way)…I thought I will share, this article I’ve found…and quote a bit from it.
“It is during our darkest moments that we must focus to see the light.”-- Aristotle Onassis
"Christian Scientists are all Universalists in their denial of the eternity of evil, their belief in the unity and everlasting beneficence of the divine nature, and in the emphasis which they lay upon love as the saving force in the great work of human redemption. they repudiate the material or substitutional idea of the atonement, and teach that salvation consists in a life of truth and love. The trend of Mrs. Eddy’s teaching is all in favor of Unitarianism as opposed to the Trinitarian idea; and in support of the paternal rather than the magisterial conception of the providence of God. She lays the emphasis where Jesus laid it,—on the divine Fatherhood and the eternal beneficence. And in simple candor it must be confessed that her disciples are a zealous and earnest body of believers who accept the Scriptures as their sole guide in matters of faith and practice, and as a class they are not irreverent or indifferent.
“Life Truth, and Love constitute the triune Person called God.—that is, the triply divine Principle, Love. They represent a trinity in unity, three in one,—the same in essence, though multiform in office: God the Father; Christ the spiritual idea of Sonship; divine Science, or the Holy Comforter. These three express in divine Science the threefold, essential nature of the Infinite. They also indicate the Principle of scientific being, the relation of God to man and the universe” (Revised Edition, p.331).
This, of course, does not mean a personal trinity in the sense that there are three persons embraced in one person, as the term person is humanly applied. Yet it defines at once the Trinity and Unity of the Godhead, but the idea of an anthropomorphic or physical personality is eliminated.
If our Universalist friends accept this definition of the trinity and unity of God, Christian Science and the Universalist Church are in agreement upon the doctrine of the Trinity.
And here is a Christian forum discussion - on Christian Science
Let me quote the question in detail. You can look at the forum answers
Why is Christian Science considered unorthodox?
How is Mary Baker Eddy’s neo-platonism different from Augustine’s, Aquinas’, Calvin’s, Jonathan Edwards’, et. al.?
How is her understanding of the Incarnation different from Scheiermacher’s, Tillich’s, Marcus Borg, et al?
How is her view of the sacraments different from the Quakers?
From what I can see, Mrs. Eddy puts together perfectly orthodox views on evil as privation, matter as shadows, and Jesus as Wayshower–just like Meister Eckhardt–and then applies these doctrines to Christian healing.
If evil is a privation of good and has no real existence, isn’t the best way to approach healing to see disease as a privation and not real?
Maybe Jesus healed by removing the shadows which distort our vision of our true nature as God’s children. If God is Spirit, and we are in His Image and Likeness, then doesn’t it follow that we are spirit, and not matter? I’m not sure why Christian Science is a heretical cult since it is rooted in many purely orthodox strands of Christianity, albeit put together in an original, insightful way.
- Why, then, is Christian Science considered unorthodox if it has orthodox views?
I guess there’s no way for me to know whether or not someone in the infant new heavens and earth has committed a mortal or eternal sin. I can hope and pray that everyone in the new creation makes it. But given the lake of fire judgment in 70 A.D. and the Biblical fact that many in the Bible hardened their hearts in hatred towards the eternal God, I do believe that there are many in hell. The visions of the mystics and saints confirm this.
John’s “ongoing tense” logically demonstrates the FACT that John the baptiser’s words reflect the THEN CURRENT actions of Jesus’ burgeoning ministry, i.e., John describes what Jesus is setting in train and accomplishing… hence the ongoing tense. THEN the writer of Hebrews writing POST EVENT declares the reality of Christ’s mission as having accomplished that task, i.e., past tense — is that not common sense?
And so… what then was THE EVENT where the offence of THE SIN was dealt with ON BEHALF OF ALL with Jesus having TAKEN AND PUT AWAY THE SIN? answer — the CROSS — where ‘The Lamb of God’ (Jn 1:29) ‘by the sacrifice of Himself’ (Heb 9:26) had THE INIQUITY (singular NOT plural), i.e., THE SIN of us all, laid upon Him (Isa 53:6). 101
So the question remains for you to give a CLEAR answer Bob… do you agree that BOTH Jn 1:29 and Heb 9:26 reveal that Jesus HAS TAKEN AND PUT AWAY THE SIN of the world, i.e., at Calvary… very simple, YES or NO?
I believe that the cross puts away sin but the atonement is eternal. The Bible says Christ was slain from the foundation of the world yet it happened some 2000 years ago. The Biblical God is one who acts trans-temporally. When I say trans-temporally I mean across time. Just as the atonement saved people that existed before it happened it also saves millions after it happens. The effects of the atonement happen retro causally backwards and forwards. And the “whole world” is the new heavens and earth. The merism “heavens and earth” means all things. In revelation and Isaiah we see that the lake of fire isn’t included in all things made new. The lake of fire isn’t included in the “whole world” as it describes the new heavens and earth when it reaches it’s consummation.
Davo, Essentially in an important sense, Yes! For the whole point of the questions you keep ignoring is that I assume your perception that texts declare that sin was defeated in the past tense. While I don’t see that Jn 1 uses the past tense, I have repeatedly affirmed to you that Jesus came to put sin away and that several texts use past tense language for the crucified victory over sin that he established. But that such affirmations do NOT mean that the apostles, even after “the sacrifice of the cross,” don’t continue to preach to the lost world that sin and guilt remain, and that faith and repentance for forgiveness are necessary.
Thus my impression is that the early Christian movement was reasonable to read that if they trusted your cited apostolic texts on what the cross had already accomplished, they should also trust and apply the apostles’ understanding of how Jesus’ already past suffering at the cross should be applied to their evangelism.
That’s why I emphasized that it’s appeared to me that you are the one who sees sin being ‘taken away’ (in your definition of that) as remaining future beyond the era of the apostolic church, and who treats the apostles and their preaching as not affirming that the world’s sin was already taken away (past tense) “AT CALVARY.” And since I too find you convoluted, your view that early Bible readers should have deduced that Jesus’ gospel and the apostle’s preached ‘gospel’ to Gentiles was not the right message anymore appears unreasonable.
Thus to understate it, I’m not seeing how my position does less justice than yours to apostolic texts that speak in the past tense of sin as having been overcome, much less to the consistent narrative of all Scripture.
IMO, davo, neither verse says that sin has been taken away. OTOH 1 John 1:8-10 says sin still remains:
7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
Verse 7 above shows how sin is taken away. That only applies to those of faith, as also revealed in the book of Romans, etc.
1 Like