The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pantelism, universalism & postmortem punishment

Davo’s Pantelism does not necessarily reflect what all other Pantelists believe on this matter, and he may be aware of the various views that some other Pantelists have in this regard. Davo himself (see below) has made quite a few comments on the topic, that clearly indicate his position.

If evil, suffering, sin & death continue forever in Pantelism, then could a universalism in which everyone is simultaneously saved in the sense that includes immortality, abundant life and full freedom from such negative things ever be achieved? Apparently not. Yet davo says God is now, in some sense, already “all in all” (1 Cor.15:28).

The impression i get from some of his comments is that he does not care to be labelled a “universalist”. Additionally, of course, he has often expressed opposition to purgatorial forms of universalism. Such as in this thread refuting Ultra Universalism with Scripture:Ultra universalism

Some people, however, do percieve universalism in Pantelism, (even if that is not a universalism in the sense of sin, suffering, evil & death being removed from all intelligent beings & the universe):

"Because of the inclusive nature of pantelism and that it accepts the authority of the Bible some view it as a form of Christian universalism, with some referring to it as a “universalist version of full preterism.”[2]"

“Pantelism is the universalist version of full preterism. Those who hold this view see all the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments fulfilled in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D…They insist we’ve been living in the New Heaven and Earth since around 110 A.D… John spoke of it as a time when God would dwell with men, wipe away all their tears, and put an end to mourning and death (Rev. 21:3-4.) By what stretch of the imagination can such words apply to the last 1,905 years?.. A Biblical view of universal salvation is based on the understanding that the Greek adjective (and its cognates) that our English Bibles translate as eternal, or everlasting (and their cognates), literally means age-enduring, or pertaining to an age…Pantelists (or Full Preterists) therefore have no basis for saying that all ages are past, or that the present age is endless… There was a reason Shakespear[e] called this world a vale of tears, does it really honor God to say that this is the best He can do? Is this the new heaven and earth that John foresaw? Pantelists and preterists never address this.”

" I did not know that Max King/Tim King and Presence Ministries promoted universalism in the form of pantelism."

“Does King’s Covenant Eschatology Lead to Universalism?”:’s-covenant-eschatology-lead-universalism-debate-concluded

“But I do agree with you that biblical universalism is a natural conclusion of full preterism.”

Davo himself said "…my view of pantelism is in the fully prêteristic camp…"On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Well, what other “camp” could it be in? Is Pantelism not always a form of Full Preterism?

Davo reveals something of his own viewpoint here:

" I’m an ‘inclusionist’ as opposed to a ‘universalist’ as in I reject the typical universalist rationales around “hell” and “the lake of fire” which for the most part are no different in essence than that held by infernalists…"On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Here we get a bit more insight into his opinions re universalism:

" I’m not making a case for “universalism” per se but rather “inclusion” – similar but with significant differences that foster different conclusions and assumptions that to my mind negate and quash a lot of unnecessary and manufactured doctrinal contradictions."On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Here he states:

“Pantelism most definitely believes that all humanity has been reconciled to God – but reconciliation and its outworking, quite apart from what may transpire post mortem, is completely pertinent to this life.”

With the following comment on 1 Tim.4:9-11 he seems to imply that all are already saved & that Lk.19:10 has been accomplished, which begs the question, what has all humanity been saved from. Doesn’t His mission of salvation to the lost include things such as evil, suffering, sin and death? Yet all these things continue.

"Paul’s words to Timothy he says are worthy of acceptance by all, and that as such are words worthy of being repeated and proclaimed, that: God is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. The apostle Luke further tells us that God accomplished His most gracious saving work on man’s behalf through Jesus Christ where Luke records the words of the Saviour: “for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost“. One can rightly ask – who is it that fits into this category of “that which was lost” and did Jesus fulfil his mission given by the Father in so seeking and saving these lost? Pantelism agrees with the answer that Jesus indeed did accomplish fully ALL of his saving mission."

Similarly he states at post #80:

"This is the problem with “universalism”… you have an INCOMPLETE salvation, always waiting, waiting, waiting for salvation to be “realized” as though Jesus never really quite got it finished. :unamused: NO!! It is finished!!"On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Yet it is Pantelism that has suffering & death continuing forever and the abolition (1 Cor.15:26; cf. Rev.21:1-4) of it never “realized”.

In the following article he misrepresents universalism with this statement:

“Unlike the general thrust of universalism, pantelism readily agrees that NOT “every” ALL of Scripture is universal in scope nor is “every” reference to WORLD global.”

He also argues that the reconciliation of Col.1:20 is an already past fulfilled event & that God now has no more enemies: "IF then as Pantelism contends, through the AD70 Parousia of Christ the LAST enemy to be destroyed was “the death” [1Cor 15:26Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]; and IF along with the death its paralysing venom of the sin duly empowered by the law likewise suffered demise [1Cor 15:56]; and further… IF God by virtue of this, having reconciled all things in heaven and on earth to Himself through the blood of Christ’s cross [Col 1:20], THEN regardless of what you or I or anybody else thinks or reasons – LOGICALLY… with the LAST enemy gone – God therefore has no more enemies."
On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

This site allegedly quotes davo as follows:

“David Embury
“If Animals = Gentiles = Israelites, and “all Israel shall be saved”, then that must mean that all Gentiles are duly saved. Even science would agree with this… evolution says we are all animals therefore we must all ultimately be Israelites… thus all saved. So, as it turns out universalism must really be true!!” Animals and Gentiles”

Regarding davo’s views of postmortem events & destinies, in 2015 qaz asked davo “Do you believe in post-mortem punishment?” & davo replied:

“In terms of ECT or some misapplying of the LOF, no! I’m somewhat agnostic on what I would see as ‘justice postmortem’ only because I don’t see it dealt with that clearly in scripture. Now someone might appeal to the likes of…”

“Rev 14:10b-11a He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night,…”

“Again understanding “audience relevance” and “apocalyptic genre” this torturous torment lasting “forever and ever” speaks to the TOTALITY, completeness or fullness of judgment, NOT its length. Not only that… the context itself shows the timeframe of Jerusalem’s ‘last days’ (AD70) where the great Harlot Babylon, i.e., JERUSALEM is fallen.”

"But even if one wants, for example, to ignore the historic parlance and still claim the likes of postmortem ECT for this passage above then they can be greatly comforted knowing that even as they are likewise “in the presence of the Lamb” they too will be able to speak, as per Lk 16:26, with their lost loved ones as they writhe in flames; though there be a “great gulf fixed” between them at least they will be close enough to communicate… Jesus thought of everything, oh joy!!"On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

So, in davo’s Pantelism, torments “for ever and ever” (literally “into the ages of the ages”) only last for the period "of Jerusalem’s ‘last days’ " of AD 70. Forever and ever has nothing to do with duration of time, only quality.

Later in the same thread davo expresses his “suspicion”:

"I have a sneaking suspicion there hasn’t been a person born who has then come to stand in His Presence that hasn’t then duly “repented”.

There again, in post #78, he says:

““The cross did not remove the existence of sin… yet.” Correct… “death” however takes care of that on all levels! (Rom 6:7). IF there is yet MORE price to be paid for sin postmortem, which in due course said payment rectifies, THEN what need of Christ’s Cross was there in the first place IF some alleged future rectifying by man settles said problem – you’ve just denuded the point and power of Christ’s Cross! Can you not see that?”

Seemingly implying that physical death is our saviour from sin. Does it, then, follow that a suicidal person may commit hare-kari & experience immediate & endless postmortem bliss in God’s presence?

He adds at post #80:

“Rom 6:7 For he who has died has been freed from sin” and “…“death” is the end of sin and thus by logical extension any associated punishment.”

There goes postmortem punishment. Davo rejects it. At least back in 2015 he did. And his recent comments re postmortem punishment from 2017-2018 that i’ve seen are generally much the same as those in this post.

At post #82 he insists:

“I mention nothing about the just or unjust-ness of “post-mortem punishment” – I merely challenge the validity of claiming “postmortem punishment” according to Scriptural evidence… so far you haven’t made your case. Certainly IF I were God there would be a settling of the books in terms of punishment, much punishment (good thing I’m not God)… but that’s my limited human understanding colouring my expectations; I suspect all our expectations will be blown out of the water, so to speak.”

And from the same post he appears to argue that postmortem punishment would be “denuding the Cross of its power”:

“So, according to your theology “All are already justified in Christ” – what Scriptural evidence does your position provide showing that once “justified” postmortem punishment STILL prevails? What does THAT say about the so-called ‘justifying power of Christ’ as per your position? (again denuding the Cross of its power)”

In post #85 of that thread Davo said:

“Like the ancient’s of the flood Ananias Sapphira paid the temporal price for their really bad choice i.e., the loss of their lives, period. That does not IMO equate to being “damned” temporarily or endlessly beyond THIS LIFE… their untimely deaths WAS the “judgement” they suffered.”

I fail to see how dropping dead instantly is a “price” paid “for their really bad choice” if in the next moment they are in endless bliss. It sounds more like a favor & great blessing for their “bad choice” made. They would get the “hell” out of this world of suffering & into “glory”. They didn’t even experience a slow agonizing death as many people do. A total win-win for them in every way, if there are no after death torments awaiting them.

At post #90 he seems to agree with this remark defining “hell” as 70 AD:

“You can’t point to AD 70 as your definition of hell without AD 70 also being your definition of the Second Coming.”

Postmortem punishment per Lk.16:19-31 is denied here (post #91):

"Lk 16 is a parable and NOT a theological breakdown of postmortem existence pre-cross.

At post #106 in that thread Davo agreed with this remark:

“Scripture proves that the wicked dead are still detained in Hades after the cross, Revelation 20:5, 13.”

In post #111 it reads:

“As a pantelist “the lake of fire” doesn’t exist. John’s ‘the lake of fire’ equates to Jesus’ ‘Gehenna’ i.e., the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem. This was Israel’s (Jerusalem’s) “second death” aka “lake of fire” – the first death being Nebuchadnezzar’s 587BC rout and ruination of the same.”

So it seems, according to Davo’s version of Pantelism, that the torments into the ages of the ages (Rev.20:10) began and ended in 70 AD, or thereabouts. So “ages of the ages” were next to nothing in duration.

Post #116 reads:

“As I understand it… texts that are “interpreted” along ECT lines in fact refer to Gehenna aka Jesus’ prophetic judgments relative to the AD70 DoJ. I agree 100% with “annihilation” IF and I repeat IF annihilation refers and relates purely to the physicality of man’s existence, no more no less, and as such has NO bearing beyond the physical realm…”

Davo adds a reply in post #122 to the question “Would heaven not be chaos if unrepentant sinners were allowed in?” He says:

“What makes you think your “unrepentant sinners” wouldn’t immediately drop in a heartbeat to the knee in awe-inspired reverence at the brightness of His majesty and presence? Any latent doubt or chaos on behalf of so-called ‘unbelievers’ would evaporate in a flash, IMO.”

In post #131 (see also post #152) he opines Phil.2:9-11 as the Scriptural evidence for that statement:

“Like I said… EVERY knee will drop. And IF “those under the earth” isn’t a direct reference to the physically departed, i.e., “the dead” then I’d like to know to whom you ascribe such? IOW… there’s the scriptural evidence for it!”

Again in post #131 re “everlasting punishment” that occurred in and, it seems in his view, ended in 70 AD, it was everlasting merely in quality, whatever that is supposed to mean. To apply that interpretation elsewhere - such as to the everlasting sin of Mark 3:29 & everlasting shame/contempt of Dan.12:2 & the everlasting destruction of 2 Thess.1:9 & the torments forever and ever of Rev. 14:11 & 20:10 - are they also only everlasting & forever in quality?Would God living (& His glory etc) “forever and ever” in many verses in Revelation & Paul’s epistles also speak merely of a quality & not a duration by the words “for ever and ever” (literally, “into the ages of the ages”)?

“And Davo remember to write with the KISS purpose in mind”:’s-critique-beyond-creation-science

So there you have it. Davos’s views in plain English that even me & a child could understand.

Given that you’ve tapped into some quite old posts from other sites I might give a comment or two on these. As for my quotes off this site and your unfortunate comments following, such would likely be cleared up for anyone interested by simply going to the threads themselves and read the whole thing through.

You should maybe have kept reading my following response and see if it fits…

Well, your lack of understanding aside… the issue here then is the deficiency of universalism NOT pantelism. Do you claim that… “in some sense, already” God is in your life? If you claim YES then how is it you continue to experience “evil, suffering, sin & death” in your life? You see… your logic is incredibly narrow. Given you seemingly reject 1Cor 15:28 as a present reality I guess consistency would likewise dictate the same here Eph 1:23??

I’m not quite sure why you posted this as it is part of a larger AND not my comment.

What has all humanity been saved from? From the condition of the sin, i.e., the guilt, that hung over and against humanity — THAT was comprehensive in scope and thus the essence of Jesus’ mission to rectify (Lk 19:10) which as a universalist I’m surprised you don’t believe He accomplished… but having said that, you’re not the first universalist to deny it AND it just demonstrates again the lack in that position.

Man has NOT been delivered carte blanche from the ability to sin — THAT is something in life the grace of God enables OR in finality biological death brings about (Rom 6:7). The ability to action sin (verb) is DIFFERENT from the condition (noun)… the very thing Christ bore and removed.

Again I have to cut you some slack due to your lack of understanding the pantelist position. As long as this temporal and biological creation remains, so too will temporal and biological suffering & death continue. The death / pain of those texts you reference is NOT biological, BUT covenantal / relational / aka spiritual.

Here, again you deliberately play loose with the truth… this quote above was made by Sam Frost. And I’m not sure how you meld both “a Calvinistic or Arminian type of interpretation” given they are by nature opposing views… but as aptly demonstrated you can be inventive with the truth. I’ve simply in that article turned his own anti-universalist rationale back on himself — Frost is a rolled-gold, card-carrying Calvinist.

Yet again… you really need to proof-read better as this above was me quoting (minus quotation marks) the OP all prior to MY ‘…Hi Nate…’ six lines down. If you actually read the article you’d see this quote by Nathan Dubois under his heading: FULL PRETERISMS ACHILLES HEEL (Part 2)

Your claim is so lame… this hardlymisrepresents universalism” — I’ve mixed with many who in general thrust claim just that.

The point of posting the quote was in relation to what a handful of regular posters here have recently said re the difficulty of understanding some of your posts. The person i quoted reinforced that notion.

I don’t see how your remarks here relate to my comment which was simply to describe the type of “Universalism” we’re talking about when referring to the Pantelist version of Universalism. In the future when Universalism (i.e. all saved) is fulfilled there will be no more suffering or physical death. However such is not the case in Pantelistic Universalism if such things continue forever. So what do your comments re the - present - existence of death, etc, have to do with the - future - time when Universalism will be a reality? That is, in futuristic Universalism. Which, BTW, raises the question of whether Pantelistic Universalism is yet future or perceived as something already accomplished by AD 71. How do Pantelistic Universalists answer to that?

When God becomes “all in all” (1 Cor.15:28) then universalism will be realized. However, as i pointed out, in your particular flavor of Pantelism, God is already “all in all”. Do Pantelists, then, not consider 1 Cor.15:28 a universalist text? Or do they believe that universalism is a present reality, i.e. all are already saved? And, if the answer is “all are already saved”, in what sense are all human beings “saved” through God being “in” (1 Cor.15:28) each of them? At what point did God come “in” to them? At the cross, before they were even born or existed? I think these questions suggest some difficulties with the Pantelist take on 1 Cor.15:28.

As per the title of this thread, my OP addresses the topic of Pantelism & Universalism in general. So that & several other quotes i supplied were to show some examples of those who consider Pantelism & Universalism to be inseparable. You don’t appear to like the Universalism label & prefer Inclusivism. While evidently some other Pantelists don’t have a problem with the Universalist label or wear it proudly.

Here again, as with 1 Cor.15:28, you have a different take on what i’d term a Universalist text. Is this because in all Pantelism viewpoints of the Sacred Scriptures, all prophecy has already been fulfilled since 70 AD & you take Lk.19:10 as one of such? In Pantelism “the plan of God has been completed both prophetically and redemptively.”

Unlike the Pantelist perspective, my take on Lk.19:10 is that it is still holds a future fulfillment. Jesus has not yet saved all the lost. If He had, the whole world would be Christians. Moreover, in the full sense of salvation, this would include deliverance from sin, its effects & presence, plus deliverance from disease, suffering, demonic influence and every type of death. Obviously such is yet future, unfulfilled.

My OP didn’t comment one way or the other re what you “believe He accomplished” as per Lk.19:10. What you “believe He accomplished” as per your post’s details was not even a part of what the OP quoted & was responding to. And, as noted above, i don’t believe that He has yet fully accomplished what Lk.19:10 speaks of. But you do.

As noted in the OP i don’t consider physical death to be an automatic saviour from sin. If it were a co-saviour (like some think of “Mother Mary”) then IMO Scripture would not refer to death as an “enemy” (1 Cor.15:26), but a friend.

Nor IMO is Rom.6:7 speaking of physical death. The verse is spoken of in the context of a spiritual death in Christ:

6 We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. 7 For anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him

While you don’t deny it is it a possibility or the position of the Pantelism ala Davo, the endless existence of sin and death seems to be a common complaint against Full Preterism, including most Pantelistic brands of it. For example:

“In addition, most have gone on to deny there is a future eternal state. In other words, this is eternity now; we go on like this forever.”

"Thus, sin and death will continue forever on this earth."

“no end to sin and evil on this earth”

“Sin will always exist”

“So is this present world the New Heavens and New Earth spoken of in the book of Revelation? Answer: Yes, that seems to be the case.”

I apologize if i was mistaken re your perspective of 1 Cor.15:22 & will edit (delete &/or revise) that section of the OP. What brought me to my conclusion was your remark immediately following the quote “This is exactly what pantelism is advocating…” and your comments before it stating “Unlike the general thrust of universalism, pantelism readily agrees that NOT “every” ALL of Scripture is universal in scope nor is “every” reference to WORLD global.”

This has me wondering what Pantelist opinions of 1 Cor.15:22 are. If this verse has already been fulfilled, then are all humans now made alive “in Christ”? OTOH, Universalists generally see the passage as being not yet fulfilled, but that it will be fulfilled when God becomes “all in all” (v.28).

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor.15:22, KJV)

Ah, yes, i see that now & will edit the OP accordingly. BTW later in the same post you, i guess, appear to state:

“There was a man who stuffed things up for mankind “globally” – and did so “covenantally” – humanity was covenantally DEAD in the first Adam. There was a man who stitched things up for mankind “globally” – and did so “covenantally” – humanity was covenantally MADE ALIVE in the LAST Adam. This WAS global YET nonetheless covenantal; not either/or but BOTH [Tim :)].”

So, in your evaluation, 1 Cor.15:22 has already been fulfilled? All mankind have already been made alive in Christ? To provide a bit more context, in the next paragraph of the post you (i presume) state:

“IF the original death be “the death” that came to ALL men [Rom 3:23] through the first Adam [1Cor 15:22a] – and that death was “the death” that was destroyed through Israel’s AD70 lake of fire; along with its powerful appendages of the sin and the law and the devil [1Cor 5:56; Rev 20:10]; THEN “the death” that Adam’s sin passed onto ALL men IS GONE, i.e., redemption has been realised and reconciliation established through the sacrifice of the last Adam [Heb 9:26; 1Cor 15:22b] – like how do prêterist folk NOT see this consistency?”

Dudes you’ve met on a sports bar stool don’t count, davo. I’d suggest researching the likes of respected Universalist authors such as Tom Talbott.

Origen, I sincerely thank you for your effort to elucidate what Davo has been advocating. As one has sought to grasp it, but been unable to digest all the past posts that Davo seems to think need to have been processed, this helps me understand a bit better why I have found his theory puzzlingly obscure.

1 Like

Well, we are at a loggerhead, because you two can not look at scripture outside of orthodoxy… Which seems quite weird, because you are both posting on a forum about universalism. Origen I can understand. Bob, gotta ask, Why the hell are you so confrontational to a idea that is simply an opinion? And a opinion that has traction?

There is a part of me that thinks you are scared of what David proposes. :wink:

1 Like

Thanks Chad :grinning:

I’m amazed you yourself just didn’t do your own simple work and search the site to gain some “elucidation” — seeing as that is what you seem to want. One word of advice… you can take with a grain of salt Origen’s spurious commentary on some of my quotes and his simplistic Uncle Tom questions that merely spring from his own paradigms and totally miss the boat as far as pantelism is concerned.

I think folks might have explored, scripture outside of Orthodoxy. I had to, when trying to understand a Theosophist’s Esoteric Christianity (via the Liberal Catholic Church).

Or what Christian Science is saying

And one can find summaries - explaining Davo’s Pantelism

And this article

The problem is that there’s not enough written on Pantelism, in order to get a sound overview.

Now let’s say that ONE of these is true: Pantelism, Esoteric Christianity, and Christian Science. And ALL their representatives, give SOLID and SOUND scripttual presentations. How is an OUTSIDER to KNOW, which is TRUE?

Chad, I don’t know why you feel the need to charge Origen and Bob with such an inability.
Could you explain what it is that leads you to this conclusion? Is it simply because they hold to a different interpretation of the texts than yourself and Davo? Is that what leads to the charge of incapability? I hope not.


I appreciate everyone’s interest in this topic that I seem to be pretty lame about. But the name calling and the “what the hell’s?” have reached the point of accusation where I personally see little value in pursuing it.

1 Like

The what the ‘hell’ is my doing… I don’t believe in a literal hell so see no need not to use a term I feel is benign, but has a bit of wallop! Please don’t tell me you are offended by this? :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

You need to look backwards…

But the point is that you view many different religious groups as not only viable, but if I have read your posts correctly, as necessary. Eastern, American, Orthodox, RC, are all within your sites.

You can bludgeon me if I am wrong…:grin:

If you click on my ICON, you find links to articles - on what I stand for. Which is first and foremost - Christian Inclusivism. And secondly, hopeful universalism. See Conditionalism With Hope; and Conditionalism With Hope 2. Within the context of Anglo-Orthodoxy.

However, since I have been in academia - most of my life. And I’m a lifetime member, of the Theosophical Society (i.e. I subscribe to their 3 objects and use their extensive library facility and resources)…I’m OPEN to hearing other views…even if I don’t agree with them.

And I utilize the contemplative, Christian orientated disciplines of Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen; Red Road,

No I don’t. I have followed this thread thoroughly with interest. What I need is an explanation to the accusation you have made.
Bob has been patient and has not resorted to presuming any inabilities regarding yourself nor anyone else. Whether a person’s interpretation of scripture happens to be closer to, or further from, orthodoxy has nothing to do with ability to consider and evaluate another’s different interpretation and whether it is consistent with scripture.
For example, when you say there is no need for repentance because Christ has repented for me, and yet you are presented with scriptures from the apostles (post death and resurrection of Christ) which clearly call for everyone to repent, then it is entirely reasonable to ask for further explanation from yourself. This is not a case of being close-minded nor of being constricted by orthodoxy. It is giving you opportunity to enlighten us on how you square those texts with your theology.


Hey pilgrim, it is simply how I feel about the matter. Sorry you don’t see it my way friend.

You and everyone else here are looking… You want someone to tell you that this or that is the way Christians need to see things… that is cool and okay by me. But don’t drag me into it. You believe what you believe, and let me do the same. I have found a view that works for me.

I do not believe there is a need for repentance to be reconciled with God. If you think differently, so be it.

Would you say that repentance is needful in ANY sense of the word? It does not have to be tied to the concept of reconciliation, you know.

YES! when I started on my journey, my number one question was WHY DID THE SON OF GOD DIE IF NOT EVERY PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH HAD THEIR SINS ATONED FOR…

So I had to go backwards. Why would God love sinners? Because HE created them. I love my children though they many times do things different than what I would want. I say repentance is necessary for a life of service. And sometimes the service is quite hard. But there are benefits. And I tend to think God is smart enough to know who should be in service.

But this is different to the evangelical idea of SALVATION. This is what the ‘pantelism’ idea stresses, and I hope you can some how take the time to view the possibility.

Thank you for your thoughts, Chad!

Thanks for your Thanks. :grin:

Love you Brother.

That’s fine.

You and everyone else here are looking… You want someone to tell you that this or that is the way Christians need to see things… that is cool and okay by me.

That’s just not true. I’m not looking for someone to tell me ‘this or that is the way Christians need to see things’. I believe that to be a Christian is to follow the teachings of Christ by the power of His Spirit within us. One component of this is to study the writings of the apostles in the NT, and inthe NT they say that everyone should repent. I’m interested to know if my interpretation of those texts can be viewed differently. I wonder if you have a different perspective on those texts, if you do then I’m interested.

But don’t drag me into it. You believe what you believe, and let me do the same.

I’m not ‘dragging you into it’. I’m amazed that you should say that. You are engaging in a discussion forum and say that Jesus has repented for us, I am trying to inquire how, in the light of your view, you interpret texts which, on the face of it, suggest otherwise.
And why on earth do you suggest that I am trying to prevent you from believing what you believe? I am simply trying to see how that belief squares with certain NT texts, and if you say that you don’t use the NT texts to influence your beliefs, again that’s your prerogative.

I have found a view that works for me.
I do not believe there is a need for repentance to be reconciled with God. If you think differently, so be it.