The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pantelism, universalism & postmortem punishment

Theology Eschatology
#236

I caught this act while watching, the Washington PBS - Fourth of July special. The song fits folks promoting non-Orthodox theologies, like Pantelism or Christian Science.

Or even Orthodox (for the most part) theology - like me. Where I incorporate the EO/ RC elements, into the Anglican church framework. Which are Anglo-Orthodoxy, Holy Foolery, Theosis and the Wisdom tradition. Especially with the Christian orientatied, Contemplation methods of Mindfulness, Yoga; Zen, With the Zombie Apocalypse thrown in – for good measure.

We are on the road less traveled.

#237

:grin: Though from my humble opinion, the reconciliation has happened. The acceptance on humans part (repentance) is an on going affair. But it really does not matter how you want to slice it or say it. :+1:

1 Like
#238

#239

Yes, it’s all cool Chad. That GIF must be from Grease.

#240

No, I think it is actually from the movie ‘Broken Arrow’ :slightly_smiling_face:

#241

I’m not davo, but he has implied all are saved & said salvation is “From a Godless eternity”:

Which Paidon & davo muse upon in several exchanges (search “Godless”) here:

Regarding 1 Tim.4:10 Davo has written:

"Now some object that Paul’s “all men” above is a misreading and that it means and so should be read as “all KINDS of men…” – this however is nothing but an unbiblical attempt to circumvent what the text clearly states; this is done for nothing more than the desire to adhere to positional bias in stead of sticking with the text. That said – IF one uses their same logic consistently it simply reads as God being the Saviour of all kinds of men, especially the kind who believe. Thus consistency makes this unfounded and errant claim a non issue."https://pantelism.wordpress.com/

Further to davo’s Pantelistic views re what salvation is, his own website has these pages:

http://pantelism.com/SALVATIONWhatItMeans.htm

“From what were those who believed being saved? From the age and the world of the Old Covenant i.e., adherence to the Law of works and or beliefs for righteousness.”

http://pantelism.com/SavedFromWhat.htm

#242

What you had shared up to this point I’d be in agreement with. What you have incorrect however in terms of pantelism is this…

Pantelism does NOT view as you put it… “and also saves all people” — ONLY those who have come to repentant faith are “saved” AND this in terms of believers means… having come into vital relationship of priestly service to God where we are avenue of God’s blessing to all else as per by whatever means we have been gifted by God. As such, a favoured text you often quoted Tit 2:11-14 applies fully TO believers, not unbelievers, as per… “…that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.” Those “good works” are to the benefit others etc, cf. 1Pet 2:9.

Sorry Paidion I seemed to have missed where you asked of me… “From what are we saved?” — I even did a word search of this entire thread and nothing comes up (that I could see) as to you asking me that. Any clues?? I will share an old quote however…

#243

Sorry for your confusion Pilgrim; my answer… *the instant the father had determined such in his own heart, which was clearly demonstrated in his actions… it took a while for his son to catch up with this reality. It’s identical to Paul’s… WHEN we WERE ENEMIES we WERE RECONCILED.

Question for you Bob… according to Rom 5:10 WHEN were God’s enemies RECONCILED to Him?

#244

WOW Bob! Even after chastising you, even maybe too harshly initially for deliberately spreading this misinformation, even providing quotes and links debunking your false testimony — yet here you are STILL being less than honourable by repeating what you know to be false, again WOW!

#245

I’m gonna bump a link that I shared above to an exegesis of the section of 2 Cor that deals with this subject in some detail. I"ve read it twice now and learned something each time.

#246

Davo’s definitions of various terms:

http://planetpreterist.com/content/ethics-and-eschatology-ethics-and-universalism

http://planetpreterist.com/content/ethics-and-eschatology-ethics-and-universalism

1 Like
#247

Davo, I’m sorry you feel unfairly treated,. but I’m finding that no one here respects your many accusations that I am an intentional liar who repeats false testimony. I have never claimed that I can provide any reliable testimony about pantelism. How could I? I’ve repeatedly emphasized to you that I don’t comprehend your theories, and find its’ semantics confusing.

Following my emphasis that the cross didn’t change God’s disposition toward sinners, my statement is only telling Qaz about MY own view that the apostle’s message in Acts is the same one we should present today, and that I had I shared that same understanding with you (which followed MM’s repeated notes that this message of repentance was only for that Israeli setting, with the appropriate place for preaching repentance today being different ).

I intended no pretense that I was reliable for anything other than stating my own understanding of the balance here that I saw with Barth’s view that God’s reconciliation is already established. I have no desire to be asserting anything that I know to be false.

If you hold that the apostles’ preaching emphasizing the “necessity” of repentance for lost unbelievers is just as crucial today as it was before AD70, you are welcome to make that case clear. But please stop calling me immoral, or fearing that I will replace you as any expert on your understanding. You are bright and quite capable of authoritatively clarifying your own views.

1 Like
#248

Sorry Bob BUT NO… I have had a gutful of you making this claim that pantelism has no relevant place for repentance AND THEN when I call you on it YET AGAIN with either links or quotes rebutting your contentious claim you simply do as above and slink away diverting to make out like I’ve got you all wrong; well no I haven’t. So for the LAST time I will furnish YOU with quotes well stating MY position that I’ve ALREADY given you and others here…

It all started HERE where I CLEARLY state the following…

Then there is this from HERE…

And then there was also this HERE…

There was no need to follow with the rest of that quote as the context of is clear… I’m countering YET AGAIN your nonsense claim.

With regards to you in this matter Bob… I’m done! :roll_eyes:

#249

Is that what Bob said above?

Where does what you quoted from that, or anything else in your post, mention 70 AD?

So, a simple question, davo, yes or no:

Is it true that “repentance for lost unbelievers is just as crucial today as it was before AD70?”

And a couple bonus questions:

Do unbelievers today have a 70 AD type of torments (that unbelievers suffered in Jerusalem in 70 AD) awaiting them if they don’t repent & believe the gospel?

Do unbelievers today need to repent for the forgiveness of sins, or are they already forgiven without repentance or faith? Davo’s answer: unbelievers are already forgiven.

#250

For anyone either side of the Parousia to become a servant of Christ repentance and faith was / is the key.

No… that was an historical-covenantal judgement relative to the ending of the Mosaic age, of which Jesus and Paul gave warning to help save their people the distress of those coming days… some had ears to hear and survived but many didn’t.

1 Like
#251

Davo, As I said, I make no such claim, and I do not agree with your exegesis of my words.

Each time you criticized my view and language about repentance, I have repeatedly told you that I know and affirm that repentance has a vital place in your system. How could I possibly deny that, when you have been so vocal about it? Then as above (in detailing what I got from MM’s account of pantelism), I clarified the view I do challenge (in the context that the apostle’s focus on faith & repentance to unreconciled pagans AD 30-70 should remain our main thrust today), and re-ask if you agree with my clarification of what I truly meant.

But you don’t respond to what I clarify, or to my requests for you to clarify your view. To me you appear intent on angrily insisting that I deny you have any place for repentance, re-defending where you see it applies, and attacking my character, but totally dodging what I see as the substance of the issues. So in short, while I sadly see that you feel deeply aggrieved, I regard your understanding of what I have claimed as incorrect, and again apologize that surely part of the problem is my own lack of communication skills.

All the best to you,
Bob

#252

Here is Poole’s commentary on Romans 5:10 as to WHEN we are actually reconciled to God.

Ver. 10. We were reconciled to God; put into a capacity of reconciliation, God being by Christ’s death made reconcilable, and also actually reconciled, when we believe, through the merits of the death of Christ.

1 Like
#253

Perhaps we need churches, that align with and teach - these “non-transitional” viewpoints?

#254

Origen: “Davo, are unbelievers already forgiven without repentance or faith?”

Bob: Origen, thanks for pursuing the actual issues that I sought to raise, which I’m finding from pm’s that most on the forum easily recognize. Though it has nothing to do with my own challenge, Davo seems to hear me as denying that he thinks (faith and) repentance is vital for being a “servant of Christ,” even though I’ve repeatedly assured him and applauded that he has made that vital affirmation wonderfully clear.

Of course, I actually have tried to repeatedly anchor my own challenge in the context of the apostle’s preaching repentance to pagans as a condition for entering into Christ’s reconciling forgiveness and avoiding exclusion from His presence. And I continue to sense that Davo has some differences with this traditional understanding of our message for today (based on changes that he perceives Rome’s later attack as bringing) .

My only regret is his painful perception that I would intentionally lie about what I know is his view on this is. For I would see no excitement at all in sparring with a straw man! Rather, I’d genuinely hoped that our two vantage points would be clarified. Thanks again for pursuing that.

#255

Thanks, I think this kind of balance is what most commentators do with the tension between the already, and the not yet, of reconciliation and salvation. And it’s the kind of balance that my responses repeatedly affirmed.

1 Like