The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pantelism, universalism & postmortem punishment

I will give a link to an online pdf that I have found helpful.
The title is : "Criswell Theological Review 4.1 (1989) 77-95.
Copyright © 1989 by The Criswell College. Cited with permission.
PAUL AND THE MINISTRY OF
RECONCILIATION IN 2 COR 5:11-6:2
DAVID L. TURNER
Grand Rapids Baptist Seminary
It’s a careful exegesis and well worth reading. Here is a short excerpt, followed by the link:

Excerpt: (and yes, the emphasis is mine :-))
5:19 further explains the thought of 5:18. Two other questions confront the exegete of this verse. First, should the prepositional phrase e]n Xrist&? be understood adverbially (“God was reconciling in Christ,” NIV) or adjectivally (“God-in-Christ was reconciling,” KJV, NASB)? The first option is preferable due to the usual usage of prepositional phrases as adverbs, not adjectives. Further, Paul’s emphasis is not upon incarnation but upon reconciliation, and it is his habit to mention Christ as the means of reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18; Rom 5:10; Col 1:20). The second question concerns the periphrastic verbal construction h#n . . . katalla<sswn (imperfect plus present participle). One wonders why the simple finite verb was not used, and also why the progressive aktionsart rather than the aorist (as in v 18) appears. Perhaps the best answer is that Paul wished to emphasize here the element of contingency in the ongoing process of reconciliation through the ministry of the gospel. It is noteworthy that the middle clause of v 19, “not counting their sins against them,” also uses a progressive tense (logizo<menoj, present participle) to describe God’s reconciling action. Although there is an historic, objective sense in which reconciliation was finished at the cross, there is also the subjective actualization of that objective truth as the gospel is preached and people believe.
End
Link: https://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/ntesources/ntarticles/ctr-nt/turner-2cor5-ctr.pdf

Now here is the section concerning the Cosmic effect of the reconciliation in process:

Paul’s statement in v 19 is that in Christ God was reconciling “the world” (cf. Rom 11:15) to himself, not “us” as in v 18. While some take the world as equivalent to “all” (people) in 5:14-15,35 it is more likely that a cosmic meaning is intended. Though people are primarily in mind (note the middle clause of the verse, “not counting their trespasses against them,”) Paul’s thought cannot be limited merely to human beings. Paul has been speaking of the new creation in Christ as superseding the old creation ruined by Adam’s fall (5:17). Thus it is likely that he does not mean merely all people (believers?), or even the Gentiles as opposed to merely Israel (as in Rom 11:15), but rather the universe as a whole. “All things” are in the process of being reconciled through the cross of Christ. The effects of the second Adam’s obedience can be no less than the effects of the first Adam’s disobedience. As Adam’s disobedience wreaked havoc throughout the entire created order, so Christ’s obedience will ultimately harmonize the universe in the new heavens and new earth. The entire ko<smoj will ultimately be at peace with God due to Christ’s redemptive mediacy (cf. Rom 8:18-21; Eph 1:10; Phil 2:9-11; Col l:20). This is not to be confused with soteric universalism, since many will only bow the knee grudgingly. However, recognition of a sort of cosmic universalism is necessary if we are to grasp the glorious comprehensiveness of Christ’s work of redemption.

Wow!

2 Likes

Verse 16 refers to some possibilities:

16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Which resembles:

Eph.6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world’s darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms

2 Likes

I didn’t ask "When was the son not counted to be a ‘son’ "
I asked:“When was the prodigal son reconciled with his father?”

Are you saying:

  1. The son was always reconciled with his father
  2. The son was reconciled with his father upon return to the father
  3. The son was never reconciled with his father
  4. The son was reconciled with the father at some other time (please specify)
2 Likes

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.

: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

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

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

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

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…

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?

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!

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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

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

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