The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pantelism, universalism & postmortem punishment

Theology Eschatology
#192

For the evangelical there is basically NO difference between the terms ‘reconciliation’ and ‘salvation’ — ultimately both are assumed to mean… getting to heaven postmortem, and or contemporaneously, as per your own example of Bill… whom you equate reconciliation as salvation — making my point as to the standard evangelical assumption.

And of course then the way one secures this reconciled and saved state is to “confess and believe” — commonly assumed to be an act of ‘repentance’, which in some cases it is but as DaveB noted… It does not have to be tied to the concept of reconciliation, you know.

Pantelism acknowledges specific differences between the terms ‘reconciliation’ and ‘salvation’ and therefore their application. Reconciliation is viewed as the all-encompassing unilateral work and movement of God towards man in Christ — this position or condition DID NOT require, need nor entail man’s response in terms of repentance to be real and active.

Man having been assigned into the rebellion of the first Adam (Rom 5:14) suffered relational death, i.e., separation from God. Christ came as the last Adam and reconciled that breach — hence the subsequent gospel appeal to come more fully into the benefits of said reconciliation as per the likes of 2Cor 5:20 — thus the reconciliation WAS established BY God as in… “the world to Himself” enabling then Paul to say, now therefore you yourselves… “be reconciled to God” — God’s preceding established move (vs. 19) enabled the other (vs. 20) to follow.

So that above is my take on reconciliation whereas what follows is the pantelist understanding of salvation.

Pantelism views ‘salvation’ as 3-fold in effect, and that according to context; sometimes there may be merging aspects of each other… let me explain.

In a nutshell “salvation’ mean DELIVERANCE and when it comes to its use in the NT we have the following…

Temporal Salvation = the escape (deliverance) out of harm’s way — in the NT predominately pertinent to the eschatological warnings relative to the end of the old covenant régime which came in the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem (Mt 24:13, 16; Lk 21:21-22).

Redemptive-Reconciliatory Salvation = the forgiveness (deliverance) of sins (Mt 1:21; Rom 11:26-27; 2Cor 5:19) whereby God is said to no longer… “impute their trespasses to them.”

Transformative Salvation = the sanctification (deliverance) of the inner life (Tit 2:11-14; Jas 1:21; Psa 19:7; Acts 20:32).

So that may seem a little drawn out, but I hope you can appreciate the nuances (not asking you to agree but this is how pantelism views it) in play. Maybe you can grasp the simpler version of the same thing in the second paragraph in that link of mine above where you quote me, i.e., common / saving grace etc.

#193

Well, like I have repeatedly said…You need to put Pantelism, into the KISS (Keep it simple and stupid) method. I can go to the Non-Denomination site Got Questions…read their explanation once…and understand all they say. The same goes for reading anything, on the Christian Science website…or watching their videos. …Their practitioners and teachers, make it very simple to understand.

It’s NOT that I can’t understand complex stuff, mind you. If I can learn Japanese and Mandarin, then I can understand complex stuff.

But it’s a matter of time and what I put into my brain. I’m NOT here to comprehend Pantelism… unless it’s explained like Got Questions or Christian Science, would explain it. Hence, I would get things wrong - from time to time. My bad.

At least I haven’t tried to tie, the Zombie Apocalypse to Pantelism - or have I???

And today is the US (and perhaps Canada) Fourth of July. So I will be cerebrating.

#194

Fantastic Randy… feel free then to abandon your random suggestions as to what you think my position is or advocates — your time is needed elsewhere :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

#195

Davo, Beyond all the nuances about evangelicalism and ‘salvation,’ is your response affirming Pilgrim’s perception that you are saying that “even the most unrepentant sinner is still completely reconciled to God”?

1 Like
#196

Thank you for reiterating the question Bob. Davo, of course, can answer for himself but he has certainly left me believing that this is his position.

Davo, you repeat that in your view, their is a distinction between reconciliation and salvation. But you do not address what I am interested in. Whilst I can understand your concept that the reconciliation is enabled unilaterally by God, it still remains true that if Bill and God are reconciled (thanks to God’s works) then Bill cannot, at the same time, be alienated from God. He cannot even BELEIVE himself to be alienated from God, for if he does believe such, then there is no real substantial reconciliation.

#197

Hi Chad. Do you alsobelieve that the most unrepentant sinner is still completely reconciled to God?
Here is the link: HERE

#198

Indeed that is EXACTLY what I’m affirming. The adjective ‘completely’ isn’t necessary… one cannot be completely pregnant or dead as opposed to some other degree of the same, etc — you simply either are or you aren’t.

Pilgrim… WHEN the weight of witness confirms an issue, i.e., the testimony of 3 texts (Rom 5:10; Col 1:21-22; 2Cor 5:19) THEN surely if there is any doubt in your mind as to a singular text (2Cor 5:20) you might consider asking yourself IF perchance your own over-all apriori deduction might be suspect.

Now I know that you know these texts so WHY do these texts NOT inform your knowledge and thinking concerning the reconciliation of man — do you deny, dismiss or dispute these texts? As one of our favourite posters likes to quote — a wise old Mennonite once said… “If the literal sense makes sense, then there’s no sense in taking it in any other sense.” So I ask you Pilgrim… what would a non-biased and honest reading of these texts read in isolation from each other simply suggest? THEN consider what their intended and combined weight of witness was to confirm…

Col 1:21-22 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight—

Bill’s alienated BELIEF in no way hindered, halted nor halved God’s reconciliation to where he Bill needed to repent and BELIEVE to take up and make up your imagined slack — NO, Bill’s reconciliation was FULLY God’s work on Bill’s behalf.

Rom 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

IF Paul and Co’ were reconciled when enemies WHERE do you suppose that places Bill — does Bill need to repent to be reconciled as Paul states… ooops, Paul DIDN’T state that did he? Paul simply affirms what he has stated elsewhere, i.e., reconciliation came FIRST — the rest follows.

2Cor 5:19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

I will state it again… the work of reconciliation was between God and Christ ALONE; even to the point where God chose to no longer impute trespasses! This IS the amazing grace of God — the call to Bill is to come more fully into the benefits of this established reconciliation to where he will IN THIS LIFE experience the goodness and peace of God in a way only grasped by repentance — which IS what one does WHEN one come into a life of faith-filled service to God aka “eternal life”.

You see… pantelists DO NOT DENY repentance we simply put it in its proper place, position and context.

Again Pilgrim… when an evangelical says to the uninformed… “Christ died for your sins” and the uninformed responds… “I’m aware of no such thing” — does the respondent’s lack of knowledge and belief NEGATE, NULLIFY or NADA out the reality AND TRUTH mentioned by the evangelical?

So… you don’t have to accept this at all… but I would like you to at least consider it, and show where this logic in your opinion is faulty, fatal or false.

#199

[quote=“davo, post:198, topic:13100, full:true”]

Davo, Thanks, I really appreciate your clear Yes! I of course detailed my responses before to the arguments and texts that you repeat here.

But I do think that your direct answer to Pilgrim’s obvious question confirms that we genuinely get most of what you assert that is different from our reading of it. I sense that it is our failure to always use traditional vocabulary (such as sin, saved, repentance, etc) with the definitions and context that you have given them that leaves you feeling misunderstood. And I’m sorry that our confusing ineptness and differing assumptions about what each others’ vocabulary implies, has often left you feeling misinterpreted and even lied about. Thanks for your clarity.

#200

Thanks Bob… I put my hand, I know I share in the ineptness :grinning:

1 Like
#201

I now go along with this:

Jesus called the destruction of Jerusalem the “the days of vengeance” (Luke 21:22). The destruction of Jerusalem was an act of God’s vengeance and judgment, not Rome’s; these would be the days when people were punished for their sins. The destruction of the holy city was not an accidental or arbitrary act, but the just recompense of reward for those who rejected God’s Son.

The days of retribution happened in 70 AD. Gehenna is not the same thing as the lake of fire. The lake of fire and brimstone is a purifying fire. The image is one of a lake and hence a baptism. The word brimstone means Divine incense because it was used in purification. Fire (pur) is where we get the word purify from. When you are baptized you die to self. This fits with the lasting correction. Correction, disciplinary, medicinal punishment describes the lake of fire not retribution. It’s also the punishment Christ went through as it tells us in Isaiah 53. It was medicinal for our well being and Christ learned obedience through what He suffered. What faces us in the infant heavens and earth when we die is either lasting life or lasting correction.

#202

HT, this is odd… what was the reason for reposting this here when you had already plastered in your own thread elsewhere??

Anyway, from the pantelist perspective… John’s ‘the lake of fire’ and Jesus’ ‘gehenna’ are indeed ONE and the same, i.e., the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem — such were Jesus’ warnings to Israel to avoid Gehenna… NOT some lasting correction pur post-mortem; that logic is counter-intuitive.

#203

Davo,

I posted it here because it was on topic. Sorry. The Bible calls the destruction of Jerusalem the Days of Vengeance. We know the Lake of fire isn’t retributive but corrective because of the words that are used for punishment, fire, and brimstone. The Bible tells us that Christ learned obedience through what He suffered. Moreover, we know it was disciplinary is because of Isaiah 53:5 -

The chastening for our well being fell upon Him.

The Hebrew word here is musar

musar:

discipline, chastening, correction

It’s for disciplinary or corrective purposes. It’s a masculine noun meaning instruction, discipline. There’s no retributive (penal) element in the words meaning. Given Christ’s substitutionary death in our place at the cross the corrective discipline is for the lake of fire as well. The lake of fire is a LAKE of discipline purification and correction. If it was Gehenna the Greek word Gehenna would be used.

#204

Ok HT… I absolutely couldn’t disagree more, but I don’t feel like unravelling all your assumptions atm lol, so I’ll pass for now.

#205

Oh yes without a doubt.:+1:

#206

I appreciate the confirmation. That is precisely your (clear to me) conviction that prompted my challenge that caused such offense (that I am dishonest). Namely, when I argued my perception that God’s “judgment” still faces sinners means to me that we should continue to proclaim to such unbelievers that “repentance is vital.”

For my surmise was that those who believed the cross meant that sinners are then entirely reconciled to God even while completely unrepentant would not also be inclined to headline in the way Jesus and the apostolic NT writers did how necessary repentance is in their message today to unbelievers.

I sense that we actually agree that this is a significance difference in our understandings!

#207

Bob said:

I’m not sure I understand that, but I assume you mean that Jesus and the apostles were preaching that repentance was necessary. The idea of reconciliation, in other words the bringing together of God and humanity once and for all, has happened in my slight opinion. Davo spells it out quite accurately.

But once again, repentance in this age was different than repentance when the apostles were roaming the earth. Repentance for the Israelites and followers of that time would definitely lead to their salvation. They would be spared the onslaught of the Jewish Roman War. Reconciliation was a COSMIC happening through Christ and Israel, and thus (through the prophetical word) to mankind as a whole.

Now I will say that repentance today does bring dividends. Following Christ’s and the wisdom scriptures will truly make us wiser and in my view have a more productive and serene life. That in and of itself is salvation from darkness.:smiley:

I don’t know why I am going through this, Davo has done and superb job. The big three is to know Christ did all there was to do, doing good is not about going to heaven, and doing bad does not place you in hell.

You said:
“I sense that we actually agree that this is a significance difference in our understandings!”

And as I answered pilgrim, YEPPER!

#208

:+1:

#209

No doubt.
Do you equate reconciliation with salvation?
Do you think the whole world is now ‘in Christ’ - which is the sine qua non of salvation?
Is everyone now filled with Holy Spirit which sheds the love of God abroad in our hearts?

Please please do not answer with more questions - I just want to know your thoughts on these things brother!

#210

I’m sure glad you didn’t ask me that question as I might have put a brick through my screen lol :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

2 Likes
#211

Ah - is this going to be the old 'how stupid can you be, I’ve answered that like 10,000 times, you’ve got that evangelical mindset, you need to see things in a new way, Christ has done it all etc thing?
No, go ahead and answer before you brick that poor monitor.
Whatever the answer you give, I’ll probably be like this anyway, dang it:

still-waiting