The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pantelism, universalism & postmortem punishment

Theology Eschatology
#62

While I know the Dispensationalism of my youth differs a lot from Davo and MM’s view, theirs often reminds me of those claims more familiar to me, that often argued much of Scripture, including Jesus’ words and much of Acts does not apply today, because we have since entered a different dispensation, the age of grace. And thus they urged that the key is to “rightly divide the Word.”

More relevant, I am fuzzy on how such divisions are being made here. E.g. Davo cites James 5:16 to explain the present importance of dealing with sin. Paidion cites James 5:15 as evidence that James’ context held that forgiveness of sins was stilled needed after the cross had assured they are atoned for, and MM appears to respond that this was only addressing first century Christians and Jews who needed to follow Jesus. But I’m not seeing on what basis it would be clear that one verse still applies and the previous one doesn’t.

#64

The text will never show what you want until you look at it from a different view. That is the fun of Pantalism. Look at the opportunities, and the idea that you can look at scripture and be at peace with what it says. That is pretty cool.

Good luck friend.:wink:

#65

This varies among different varieties, but many of the classic dispensationalists would tell me that Jesus’ ethical teaching such as the Sermon on the Mount only applied to Jews in the coming Millenium since such practices would obviously be recklessly dangerous in the present evil age, when Satan is still loose. Some also argued that the sermons in Acts calling for repentance etc were not in accord with the Gospel since Paul said this was a mystery of grace embracing Gentiles that God only later divulged to him, and the rest of the apostles were ignorant of it.

#66

Some say the entire book of James, that begins:

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations: Greetings.

#67

The text will never show what you want until you look at it from a different view. That is the fun of Pantalism. .:wink:

Bob: For sure, but I have no interest in getting the text to show what I want. I’m fine with admitting that a text appears to say things I disagree with, but my interest in Bible study is to understand what the Bible writer wanted to show, even if that is not what I’d want it to say.

#69

I agree. And I would say the same for Pantelism.

#70

This is like pulling teeth… :tired_face:

I don’t know HOW MANY times I need to keep repeating it, but the difference and subsequent lack of perceptive understanding on your parts is leaving me scratching my head. I will say it again… there is a world of difference between the condition of the sin (a singular noun) AND actioned sins (plural verb).

‘THE SIN’ that Jesus took away (Jn 1:29 et al) speaks of the status (noun — a mode or state of being) of humanity as found in Adam, lost… it does NOT refer to the ability to commit (verb) sins. Jesus did NOT take away man’s ability to commit sins — he took away Israel’s / humanity’s fallen position, restoring all in Himself before and to God, i.e., the reconciliation.

Again, Bob & Paidion… pantelism does NOT say believers aren’t to seek forgiveness for errant actions (verb), i.e., transgressions. However… with regards to the sin condition (noun) of Adam which affected all (Rom 5:14) it was THAT condition, i.e., the condemnatory guilt of Adam’s rebellious offense, that Christ abolished, removed and summarily took away in his faithful sacrifice ON BEHALF OF Israel / humanity.

IF you guys say that such abolition, removal and taking away is STILL to occur, i.e., it hasn’t happened yet, THEN we can all completely forget your quibbling confusion over “what applies for post-biblical times forward” BECAUSE IF it wasn’t fulfilled THEN, as the texts state took place, THEN it didn’t in ANY meaningful way or matter apply to THEM then either, let alone us beyond — so you see, your questionable objection actually cuts both ways and falls flat.

#71

I have a question here. Who is the founder of the Pantelism viewpoint? Is it you Davo? Or is there an historical figure that proceeds you? Just curious.

When I went to the Amma program this Monday, a couple of volunteers were talking. One was into Christain Science. And I didn’t say anything against it. I told him I attended some of their Wednesday night testimonial meetings - in the past. And also have engaged Christian Science practitioners, for prayer work - in the past. But the founder is certainly clear. It’s Mary Baker Eddy.

#72

Although the root of the word <παντελὲς> panteles is found in the bible (Lk 13:11; Heb 7:25) a one C. Jonathin Seraiah in his book The End of All Things introduces the term pantelist as a pejorative in describing FULL prêterists, i.e., those ascribing consistent prêterism; he himself being a partial (inconsistent) prêterist.

Thus although originally used as a pejorative against full prêterists I borrowed and started using the term to describe and distinguish the inclusive realities I was finding inherent and latent within full prêterism — much to the chagrin of those in the camp. Most full prêterists in reaction simply labelled my position as “universalism” even though for logical reasons I argued against that. However, pantelism became a pejorative within FULL prêt circles BUT they found it hard to argue against the conclusions I was developing and drawing out of their own position… as a result quite a number gravitated in that direction and some full prêterists subsequently moved from ECT to annihilationist’ or left the view altogether.

So although “founder” isn’t the right word IMO, I am the one who was active in developing and arguing for said position from the early 2000’s forward in the full prêterist scene. If you search the internet archives of PlanetPreterist or the discussion board of the PreteristArchive you’ll see this to be the case. It has been a long time since I have participated on full prêt sites… I’m more a scourge here… :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

#73

Davo, This vocabulary that our “sin” is already forgiven, but not our “sins,” HAS taken awhile to sort out… Thus, while this was not MM’s cited language, I appreciate your clarification that people’s ongoing transgressions still need forgiveness.

I’m unconvinced that the promises of taking away “sin” meant only removing “the condemnatory guilt of Adam’s rebellious offense,” and am not invested in whether that perceived need is now solved. For I’ve perceived that God’s concern with us is not removing a condemning anger toward us because of an earlier mistake by Adam, but dealing with his wrath toward our own ongoing transgressions that destroy his loving purpose for our lives. So if we agree that the cross leaves us still in need of “seeking forgiveness” for our “transgressions” (our own active rebellion), that’s significant common ground to share…

#74

I think my deepest question re: pantelism would be: is this still a necessary requirement here in the 21st century? To wit:

Romans 10:9-10
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

#75

That is PRECISELY the reason for Jesus’ sacrifice on our behalf—not in order that God may overlook some mysterious entity called “the condition of sin” so that He doesn’t have to be mad at us anymore, but that He might deliver us from actual sin, so that we might cease from harming one another. It grieves God’s great heart of love to see people suffering from the self-serving attitudes of those who harm them in order to fulfill their selfish desires. I quote once again Peter, Paul, and the writer to the Hebrews. Each one of these indicates that Jesus’ coming and/or sacrifice on our behalf was to eliminate actual sinning (even though this may be a life-long process before it’s complete):

I Peter 2:24 He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Heb 9:26 …he has appeared once for all at the end of the age for the abolition of sin by the sacrifice of himself.

However, Paul assures us that the process will some day be complete:

Phillipians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

2 Likes
#77

If that were true, qaz, then everyone would go to hell. The quote I gave above, and which I quote again below shows that salvation from sin (or sinning) is a process which will be completed at the day of Jesus Christ.

Phillipians 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

“Perfect” means “complete.” I don’t think that the process is completed in anyone BEFORE the day of Jesus Christ.

However, I believe that everyone who goes through this life in rebellion against God and His Son will go to hell—not to be punished in the sense of receiving a penalty for their attitude and their actions but to be punished in the sense of being corrected, so that they will become children of God also.

1 Like
#79

The author of this writing, apparently the apostle John, said:

1Jn.1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

#80

There is no Hell! qaz believe it!

#81

I appreciate the post and ask Saved from what?

#82

No, I see no basis for assuming that everyone remains in rebellion. We all enter life finite and ignorant and remain far from perfection. But part of the Gospel’s invitation to repent and seek God’s kingdom is precisely about fundamentally turning from our rebellion to embrace the Lordship of Christ.

For Paul in Romans 8, this means God can enable in those who love that “the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

#83

This is an interesting view Bob Wilson ,

I found you said: We all enter life finite and ignorant and remain far from perfection.

That does ask a question.

#84

So shouldn’t that then tell you that your continued assertion and self-assessment that… “I’m unconvinced that the promises of taking away “sin” meant only removing “the condemnatory guilt of Adam’s rebellious offense,…”” has been incorrect, inept and FALSE this entire time?

I’ve pointed to the fact that as I’ve noted, said… removal was the primary business, NOT “meant only” — what you’ve raised I see as its ongoing effect, i.e., we ONLY have the latter BECAUSE OF the former — how you guys can claim and tout either academic or grammatical knowhow but CANNOT (choose not to??) see this staggers me and leaves me wondering… is this just positional bias and myopathy on your part? — sorry for the bluntness.

#85

What would pantelism say it means?