The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pantelism, universalism & postmortem punishment

Theology Eschatology
#212

For one Pantelist view re reconciliation & salvation there is:

“Pantelism, is a recent term in Christian eschatology that refers to what some see as an extension of Full Preterism. This view maintains that the Scriptures both prophetically and redemptively, were entirely fulfilled in the person and work of Christ and consummated at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Accordingly, this consummation included not only Christ’s Second Coming, but the final judgment, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the reconciliation of all things. The unorthodox aspect of this view is that the reconciliation accomplished in 70 A.D was such that there no longer remains a lost condition in humanity and therefore no present need for conversion – which reduces to a form of universalism where all are saved and one must simply realize what has been done for all humanity.”

https://www.theopedia.com/pantelism

And for another Pantelist opinion from davo’s website:

“Pantelism holds to the theological proposition that Israel’s eschatological redemption was fulfilled through the prophesied AD30-70 Cross-Parousia event. Pantelism understands the fullness of Israel’s redemption as being the catalyst for the world’s reconciliation; thus Pantelism is prêteristic in scope, seeing all eschatological prophecy as now complete; and inclusionistic in scope relative to the breath of its resultant reconciliation.”

“…BOTH Universalism [everybody goes to heaven] and Partialism [most go to hell] are geared around the SAME notion as in who does or does not get to heaven after death – Pantelism views this assumption as totally wrong-headed and NOT supported by Scripture, and thus comes to a different conclusion as to what being saved, salvation, eternal life and being born-again are all about. Pantelism most definitely believes that all humanity has been reconciled to God – but reconciliation and its outworking as per the scriptures, quite apart from what may transpire post mortem, is completely pertinent to this life.”

Of course universalism does not say, as davo’s site above misrepresents, that “everybody goes to heaven”, but rather that everybody shall be saved.

Here, from the same page the author distinguishes between reconciliation & salvation:

“In other words – election is to be understood NOT in terms of getting to heaven after death, and that to the exclusion of all else, no. The “elect” of the Bible are chosen to minister ON BEHALF OF all else. This redemption and reconciliation was the work of Christ THE elect first-fruit. The New Testament further records the “believers” of the early church “this generation” era as the elect first-fruit saints called in Christ to minister in His priestly call. Thus salvation was and is all about the call to priestly service, thus it is right to say that believers are saved to serve.”

Here, still on the same url, we have some further thoughts on reconciliation & salvation:

“Thus “believers” post Parousia continue as ambassadors of God’s all encompassing the Kingdom, a perpetual blessing to the world – being “saved to serve”. Any subsequent calling can thus be understood in the same vein as kingdom priests unto the world, ministering God’s goodness and grace to His wider world, ministering to and ON BEHALF OF others. What Jesus and his firstfruit saints did we continue to do through witness, worship and works. In faith we are enabled to do the “greater works” because we minister from a completed and fulfilled redemptive reconciliation, of which those pre-parousia saints were still waiting to come to maturation [2Pet 3:13; Gal 5:5].”

“THEY the firstfruit saints in following their Lord were the ones chosen by God to bring Israel’s redemption and man’s reconciliation to fruition. We their offspring live beyond that end, the end is not still happening, we live in the benefits of that end. We are not the “elect” church of the first-born ones [Heb 12:23]… we are their offspring.”

#213

Re question #1, I also asked about this in the 3rd post of this thread & AFAIK it was never answered:

Davo has stated that God is already “all in all” (1 Cor.15:28), so since v.22 of the same chapter speaks of all in Adam coming to be “in Christ” & Pantelism generally sees scripture as already fulfilled, I would guess that he sees v.22 as having had a past fulfillment. I’d guess again that he seems to interpret the verse in terms of only all Israel (not all humanity?) “long long ago” here: http://pantelism.com/BedfellowsorBedlam.htm

#214

Nah seriously Dave, I know you’ve seen my answers specifically on this to both Bob and Pilgrim up the page… I figured you were just touching base with Chad to see IF maybe he had a slightly differing angles on it, that’s all… all good :grinning:

#215

Yepper! When you repeat that “Repentance today is different than it was when the apostles” taught, we who perceive that mankind’s calling and needed response before God remains essentially the same as what the apostle’s urged that it was, even well after Jesus’ sacrificial cross and resurrection, agree that is significant.

It’s nice to agree on where we agree, and differ :slight_smile: Grace be with you!

#216

There’s an Old Biblical saying. Let me paraphrase it.

“if this be the truth, it will stand the test of time”

Or even if it’s not the truth, it will continue for a spell…,if it becomes popular… long after this forum no longer exists.

So I say wait and see. And perhaps more folks will come forth, down the road…And explain Pantelism in simpler terms. Or folks giving rebuttals, will first explain…the ins and outs of Pantelism.

Just like they do with YouTube, for the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse.

#217

“Biblical”… where’s that one hail from?

#218

Well, I know you are waiting but I was dining last night :wink:
My thoughts on reconciliation and salvation are fairly laid out above. I tend to agree with davo and he laid it out rather well. And I assume you have read my comments.

The term “in Christ” is a bit of a sticky one. and beings I can’t ask any questions I’ll go like this,
Rom_3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
So fulfilled grace (we’ve talked about that) is a gift that came through ‘redemtion’ which is ‘in Christ’ and you ask, is this the essential condition of salvation? I would say that our meaning of salvation differs possibly.

If you are asking about salvation, as in the afterlife or going to heaven, you’ve missed a big part of what davo has been saying pantelism is.

The question about the holy spirit is interesting. Above I said

To bring the conversation around to repentance, keeping in mind what I said above,:
**Act 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. **

But to add to that, just before our famous acts 2:38 passage Peter said:
**Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." **

And he said:
**Act 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself." **
**Act 2:40 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” **

It should be noted that here Peter is talking about being saved from a perverse generation which can mean idealistically or he could be talking of the coming 70AD calamity. either way, I do not think there is an inference to salvation being a ‘go to heaven thing’ :smiley:

I do think that the spirit of God is working everywhere and on everyone. We are all in different stages of evolution when it comes to that.

So to me it is important to seek context, historical relevance and meaning as we read these passages.

I hope that helps.

#219

I said I was paraphrasing it from memory.

Proverbs 12:19 Living Bible (TLB)
19 Truth stands the test of time; lies are soon exposed.

#220

You weren’t - by chance, dining with my past dinner guests?

#221

My interpretation of the texts is that the believers have been reconciled and the message to the unbelievers is ‘be ye also reconciled’. That seems, to me, to be the plain reading of the texts you have quoted BUT I think neither your nor my interpretation of those texts addresses my point.
Let me ask another question which might help: When was the prodigal son reconciled with his father?

1 Like
#222

I’d guess, to put it simply & clearly, davo’s view is that reconciliation was accomplished for the whole world (human race) on the cross. This dealt with sin (singular).

OTOH there is the receiving of this reconciliation via faith. Those who have received reconciliation are saved & called to serve. These are the elect.

These two types or aspects of reconciliation (accomplished v.10, received v.11) can be seen in Romans 5:10-11:

10 For if, when we were enemies of God, we were reconciled to Him through the death of His Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through His life! 11 Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation

2 Cor.5:18-20 also has the two aspects of reconciliation. Likewise Col.1:20-22.

#224

Look, I’ll take a stab :wink:

1Ti 4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.

The text says that GOD is the savior of all men. The God of Israel was the total focus and Christ was the deliverer to said God. Paul was a Jew bringing the gentile churches into what he knew was YHWY’s reign. These are peoples that may have seen Christ’s miracles and were not Israelites and yet were moved to become part of this incredible thing that was being told of across the land.

Thus they were never under law but moved by faith… This was a there and then position.

They bought in… They were convinced. They had seen the light. They were all in and thus was the start of the first century church.

Reconciliation had happened after the cross, the salvation part was keeping them away from the calamity that was about to be thrown down from God to the stubborn Israelites. Those that chose the narrow road of Christ and the teachings of the apostles may well survive… But if they gave in to the Jews, the Pharisees that demanded gentiles to be like them, they may well be consumed.

I hope that clears it up a bit.

#225

So just for clarity’s sake and to settle any confusion here Pilgrim… what is the actual point you say your interpretation fails to address, and of which you think mine doesn’t?

The instant love omnipotent had determined such in his own heart… being reflected in his own actions — waiting, longing, looking (Lk 15:20) running, embracing. It had subsequently taken some time and repentance for the son to come to his senses (vs. 17-18), but that he did, and so into the fullness of that reality he entered, which again was the father’s doing (vs. 22), even though right from the beginning he was no less and always had been… a son (vs. 11).

Interestingly it was the older sour-grapes son who remonstrates vociferously at his father’s grace… some things die hard (Mt 20:11-12, 15).

#226

I believe in the ultimate reconciliation to God of all people. During this life we are in the process of being saved from sins (acts which harm others or oneself). My belief qualifies as being that of a universalist. But I never call myself a universalist, since in the minds of most evangelicals and fundamentalists, a universalist believes that everyone will be automatically saved from hell and go to heaven at death, in virtue of Christ’s sacrificial death on our behalf. That’s the position of ultra-universalism, to which I do not subscribe—nor do the vast majority of the other universalists who post to this forum. But again, I don’t take the label “universalist.” If I must be labelled, let it be “reconciliationist.”

But the angel said to Joseph, " She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their SINS." (Mt 1:21) Not saved from hell, but from the sins that they would otherwise keep doing.

In addressing the Jews, and referring to Jesus whom “you” put to death, and attesting to His resurrection, Peter gave perhaps the first gospel message to them:

Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this they were cut to the eart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”

And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forsaking of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. (Acts 2: 36-41)

Peter urged them to repent. Repentance is necessary in order to become a true Christian. As we read throughout the book of Acts we find that a similar gospel message was always given.

However, the Pantelist, like the ultra-universalist believes that Christ’s sacrificial death in some way reconciles all people to God and also saves all people. But not from hell. I asked Davo, “From what are we saved?” and didn’t get a reply. However, later posts of Davo’s seem to indicate that the Pantelist belief is that we are saved from something in this life. Now I am not talking about those Jews who were saved from destruction in A.D. 70. Rather, I ask from what are all people who have lived since Jesus died saved? I have speculated that maybe the Pantelist believes that we are saved from God’s punishment in this life. Or maybe we have been saved from unhappiness. But I’m not at all sure that either of these is the case for the Pantelist. It has never been spelled out clearly enough for us ignorant people to understand.

1 Like
#227

Maybe we hear such language differently. If we are reconciled “with” a good Father as soon as His heart commits to that, it’d fit to proclaim that rebels have always been reconciled with Him.

But e.g., suppose an adulterous husband left and set himself in continued animosity toward his wife, who herself remained forgivingly determined to accept him and be reconciled. I’d think it’d sound odd to then say that this husband “was reconciled with” that wife. We might say that she was reconciled to him, but perhaps it would fit better to say that he needed to change direction before we’d describe that he was reconciled with her.

I.e. I’m inclined to hear the semantics that two parties are reconciled “with” the other as assuming that both sides have turned toward the other.

1 Like
#228

Apples and oranges Bob… you’re using and comparing person to person horizontal relationships to describe God’s vertical relationship with man… always inadequate — for what is impossible for man is fully doable with God.

Bob… before going further down this track I’d like you go back to my post 198 and show me where the logic there is either faulty, fatal or false.

#229

I’m using mankind’s relational language, which Is the only kind I know how to communicate with. I’m sorry my observation isn’t helpful to our apparent impasse. But I’m afraid that I don’t see how just responding that anything is possible for God answers or annuls my observation about typically understood semantics.

Davo, I have spent many exhausting hours repeatedly responding to your very arguments repeated in post 198, only to find them unengaged, and leaving you only feeling misunderstood to focus on attacking my intellect and character. Thus before trying to pursue that road again, I’d like and welcome you to go back and respond to the substance of my previous numerous responses regarding those favored texts and arguments.

#230

In what sense could that work in Pantelism, etc? That Christ was slain before/from the foundation of the world (Rev.13:8)?

#231

This grabbed my attention as well - God was not just reconciling us:
Colossians 1
19For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, 20and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through the blood of His cross.

I have seen it argued that the entire Cosmos was reconciled - I tend to believe that but haven’t really worked it out - but what things ‘in heaven’ would have to be reconciled?
Ideas?

#232

I assume you are not asking my expertise on Pantelism :slight_smile: (though I perceived it sees even God as **un**reconciled with us until the cross and maybe even until AD70). Whereas I kept telling Davo that I see atonement language that reconciliation is past tense, even though I don’t see the cross as a penal transaction changing God’s disposition toward sinners so much as demonstrating what it’s always been, which Rev 13:8 could be seen as also endorsing.

I actually like Barth’s approach of announcing that reconciliation is already established. My main point to Davo was that I’m unconvinced that seeing God’s already forgiving stance toward the world requires that the apostle’s emphasis to pagans well after the cross that repentance and faith are necessary on our end is outdated or any less applicable today.

2 Likes