Pantelism, universalism & postmortem punishment

[davo]

So the question remains for you Bob… do you agree that Jn 1:29 and Heb 9:26 reveal that Jesus HAS TAKEN AND PUT AWAY THE SIN of the world, i.e., AT CALVARY… very simple, YES or NO?

Davo, Essentially in an important sense, Yes!

On such an important factor in God’s dealing with mankind in Christ this is a welcome agreement.

For the whole point of the questions you keep ignoring is that I assume your perception that texts declare that sin was defeated in the past tense.

It is true I do tend to ignore assumptions that keep being made of my position when once I’ve explained, clarified and challenged such, but then those assumptions keep being run.

While I don’t see that Jn 1 uses the past tense, I have repeatedly affirmed to you that Jesus came to put sin away and that several texts use past tense language for the crucified victory over sin that he established.

Thumbs up!

But that such affirmations do NOT mean that the apostles, even after “the sacrifice of the cross,” don’t continue to preach to the lost world that sin and guilt remain, and that faith and repentance for forgiveness are necessary.

In essence the apostles are preaching their message of repentance in the context of the coming end, i.e., the end of their old covenant age / world (not the end of our time-space universe) urging them to avoid that coming disaster (Rom 11:14; 1Tim 2:4; 2Pet 3:9; Mt 24:13) — and in particular those in Jerusalem who believed would by the nature of things heed Jesus’ words to get out of Dodge or they would face what was coming (Lk 21:20-22; Deut 28:49-57; Jos. Wars 6:3:4) when THEY saw certain signs, as these were such as indicating… “the end is nigh.”

My own sense is that it requires a classically fundamentalist kind of simplistically using selected texts to insist that the Bible’s message is that sin itself no longer exists.

Well THIS is so disappointing, but to be totally honest UNSURPRISING… just when I thought you were getting it, it appears YET AGAIN not! Pantelism does NOT say… “sin itself no longer exists” — Pantelism says the offence, i.e., the guilt-separation-condemnation etc that the sin wrought against man has been taken out of the way.

As a result we can all take accountability for our own misdeeds, transgressions, trespasses and sins that affect EACH OTHER. God removed the blockage that stood between humanity and Himself vertically and his grace enables us to do the same with each other horizontally.

[davo]

Jesus uses a real-life HISTORICAL event they could all relate to and uses the same to give HIS OWN PEOPLE warning…

So what? No one doubts that the Bible narrative’s typical picture of God’s judgments on sinners is presented as coming in HISTORICAL events. But it doesn’t follow from citing that, that you can assert that God won’t exercise judgments anymore, or that repentance is no longer called for. Like Paidion, Jesus argues that the past is prologue, and the lesson is that repentance remains vital, even for those who assume that it was only a concern for others.

“But it doesn’t follow from citing that, that you can assert… that repentance is no longer called for. YOU Bob are being blatantly DECEPTIVE AND DISHONEST as I’ve made NO such claim — find a quote!!

[Bob_Wilson]

Davo, your constant criticisms about the language we non-experts on Pantelism use to express your view gets old!!! You insist that we must hold that already “sin has been taken AWAY.” So I state that assuming your definition of it, such “sin” is no longer existent upon us, and you mock me for not repeating your idiosyncratic definition (which I have not missed grasping at all). That repeated kind of word game response just means that the real differences I am presenting get ignored by you.

More positively, your admission that while you find the texts you cite to be applicable, the texts I cite are to be understood as outdated reflects as I have repeatedly said, a pivotal difference in our assumptions. It would have been nice if the apostles had spelled out that the sacrifice of Christ had not been adequate to take away sin, but that when the Romans invade Jerusalem, THEN God would be satisfied, and the kind of guilt and judgments that had always reflected God’s disposition toward sin would no longer need to concern readers.

But as I’ve repeated, I am not surprised that reasonable readers did not deduce that.

[Paidion]

This is fantastic Paidion… you couldn’t have given a more perfect example of your poor grasping of the text.

Thank you. The same to you.

[Bob_Wilson]

[quote=“davo, post:152, topic:13100, full:true”]

(After speaking of God’s historical judgments on “sinners,” I said)
But it doesn’t follow… that God won’t exercise judgments anymore, or that repentance is no longer called for.

YOU Bob are being blatantly DECEPTIVE AND DISHONEST as I’ve made NO such claim!

I know you want believers to turn from sins. But Paidion argued that Jesus’ message was repentance, which I’ve regularly taken MM to say is not the right message to proclaim today. You objected that Jesus’ message of repentance was for his own, and judgment ended in AD70.

Are you now saying that you’ve only agreed with my and Paidion’s claim that in the face of God’s judgment, the Bible does point toward calling the world to faith in Christ and the “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” that I keep citing?? If that simply IS your imperative to sinners, your repeated assertions that I blatantly LIE and DECEIVE are nonsense. It would be that my lack of acuity just finds your rhetoric confusing.

I’d be glad to hear that you agree with us that warnings about repentance are crucial for a world of “sinners” to hear, and I apologize for my dimness if that is what you’ve asserted. If that is actually not the imperative for you, then your outrage is just again evading our actual issues.

[davo]

“ But it doesn’t follow from citing that, that you can assert… that repentance is no longer called for.

It’s either a case of put up or shut up… some quotes of mine please Bob That you can say this after my previous statements is unbelievable. I have for example made my (pantelist) position CLEAR even in this very thread, right HERE.

And here below from up the page I gave YOU a CLEAR response regarding the pantelist position on repentance…

More vital, again, my response’s whole emphasis was that your interpretation is contradicted by many apostolic texts which do not address those in rebellion with declarations that “Jesus’ sacrifice of himself” means they now should hear that there is no guilt or offense attached to their sins.

This is just more poor form on your part Bob with regards to your own “interpretation” as you CANNOT provide a single quote of mine (I challenge you to) to where I attach no onus on any committing sins (verb) to deal with via repentance / reparations etc… invariably THESE injunctions ARE made, given and implored of THOSE IN COVENANT, i.e., God’s people. And where it is not, the immediate CONTEXT generally makes that reason clear.

Misunderstanding I can manage… your wilful lying however I’ll call it for what it is — don’t keep us all waiting for some quotes Bob.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

That is good. But Bob you need to look outside the evangelical model and see what is there.

This is fantastic Paidion… you couldn’t have given a more perfect example of your poor grasping of the text.

Well, to Chad and Davo. I have looked outside the Evangelical model. And I have attempted, to grasp at the text. So I assume the Biblical committees of scholars, have gotten their translations right. And if I were to read the Protestant Bible, through the NIIV, NLT, and ESV…I probably have a good understanding, of what the texts mean.

And I have also studied what the Eastern Orthodox, bring to the table. Along with Anglicans, like N.T. Wright and C.S. Lewis. And I even stepped into, the non-traditional world - of Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science.

But also this reminds me of Plato-ism. Where we are trying to understand, the ideal or perfect form of “text”. As if Christ and the apostles, are teaching some type of Esoteric Christianity…much like the Theosophical clergy, of the Liberal Catholic Church proclaim.

Now maybe at the end of the day, Davo might have things right. Or Mary Baker Eddy, might have things right. But again, God has made a callosal failure - to get his or her message across.

At least with those proclaiming the Zombie Apocalypse,… I know what point, they are trying to make.

[davo]

But again, God has made a callosal failure - to get his or her message across.

What’s the basis for your claim Randy?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

What’s the basis for your claim Randy?

Only a SELECT FEW, are understanding God’s message. Whether that’s you, Mary Baker Eddy or others, with “non-traditional” theologies. Assuming one or more is true. If God wants to save and redeem the world…then God should try to have everyone, understand the basics at least. I shouldn’t need Davo to explain Pantelism, for me to get Christ’s message. Or read Science and Health, with a Key to the Scriptures - to understand Christ’s message.

It’s like the church collectively (i.e. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant), just don’t get it. That is… Until Davo came along. Or Mary Baker Eddy came along. Or Rev. Peter Popoff came along. Etc.

“Nobody cares if you can’t dance well. Just get up and dance.”-- Dave Barry

[davo]

I shouldn’t need Davo to explain Pantelism, for me to get Christ’s message. … It’s like the church collectively (i.e. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant), just don’t get it. That is… Until Davo came along.

You don’t need me nor pantelism… I’m simply contesting ideas. You might as well dress your logic up in universalism and bleat the same rationale about that given the bulk of fundamentalist evangelicalism isn’t buying the universalist message either — let alone your own zombie missive; where’s your consistency Randy?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

let alone your own zombie missive; where’s your consistency Randy?

I follow the zombies. They are not consistent. It should be noted that I’m a hopeful universalist…And not a convinced universalist.

I’m NOT so worried about Pantelism, Davo. In fact, I do hope it becomes as popular…as Christian Science was - in its heyday. But the more popular you might become, the more enemies you will have - to try and take you down.

Let others like Bob and Paidion, argue on the merits of text. I still need to promote the Zombie Apocalypse…as the most probable, end-times tribulation model.

Anyway, I leave everyone with a 3 minute review…by some person on Science and Health, with a Key to the Scriptures.

Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures

[davo]

But again, God has made a callosal failure - to get his or her message across.

Well you only heard from me Randy with regards to this ridiculous claim of yours above, and as though that was somehow relative to my position.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Well you only heard from me Randy with regards to this ridiculous claim of yours above, and as though that was somehow relative to my position.

You can label it what you will, Davo. But if what you say is the truth, then only folks like you and Chad - get it.

Or perhaps folks like Mary Baker Eddy?

Suppose a movie producer produces a movie. And Wiki does a plot summary. Well, everyone contributes to the movie review. But only ONE reviewer, understands what the movie is about. But they don’t contribute on Wiki. Maybe he or she is right. Maybe NOT.

Or let’s put things into a MARKETING prospective. Now you talk about Pantelism here. But HOW MANY are agreeing publicly - with it here? And in all the websites and blogs you post it on…what does the Google Analytics and other tools…;say about the number of visitors, etc? Compared to the population of the world?

[davo]

Well you only heard from me Randy with regards to this ridiculous claim of yours above, and as though that was somehow relative to my position.

You can label it what you will, Davo. But if what you say is the truth, then only folks like you and Chad - get it.

[pilgrim]

That you can say this after my previous statements is unbelievable. I have for example made my ( pantelist ) position CLEAR even in this very thread, right HERE .

It seems to me that you (Davo) are saying that in order to experience salvation, one needs to repent. However, even the most unrepentant sinner is still completely reconciled to God.

In my limited understanding, I would imagine that if Bill is fully reconciled to the God of Love, Peace and Joy, then Bill would experience the same bliss and wholeness that the most devout saint would experience. In fact, I would call Bill’s state of bliss ‘salvation’.
Apparantly you would not? Can you please clarify for me Davo?

[Agnostic_Gabe]

Davo & Bob - You both are great people. I hate to see both of you get bent of shape. One thing I have noticed, and I think Koine_Lingua started it, but things are getting a bit more hostile in general on these forums. I don’t remember them being this way. I think that is because there isn’t any active moderation. All of us need to be called out from time to time. Without someone doing that, I think we might just continue to go down a more confrontational path.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Davo & Bob - You both are great people. I hate to see both of you get bent of shape. One thing I have noticed, and I think Koine_Lingua started it, but things are getting a bit more hostile in general on these forums. I don’t remember them being this way. I think that is because there isn’t any active moderation. All of us need to be called out from time to time. Without someone doing that, I think we might just continue to go down a more confrontational path.

Well, tomorrow is the Fourth of July. So folks in the US (and perhaps Canada), will take the day off. So we might not respond right away - to any posts.

Folks want to “sell” something. Not just here. But outside also.

• Science can explain everything eventually - without God.

• Calvinism, Roman Catholicism, etc…is the fullest expression of Christianity.

• Pantelism, Christian Science, etc…is the TRUEST, non-traditional approach to Christianity.

• The Zombie Apocalypse…is the most probable, end-times tribulation model.

• President Trump is the greatest thing, since sliced bread.

• Etc.

You just need to pick a theological and philosophical perspective - and run with it. I’m sure if some obscure position, turns out to be correct…God will let us all know…when all is said and done.

[Bob_Wilson]

• YOU Bob are being blatantly DECEPTIVE AND DISHONEST!!

Davo, all of us who came to universalism late in life know the hurt of having ourselves and our interpretation ridiculed as weak and unbiblical. And I repeat that I’m sad that you read me as purposely distorting, much less lying about your sincere convictions. Why would I do that? That would seem inane to me, and I regret that you see my pursuit of challenging interaction with your stimulating interpretation as motivated by such a perverse desire. I certainly see you as an honest and diligent person.
(FWIW we share painful difficulties here, since I find your selecting phrases among my words about evangelism’s need to call sinners facing judgment to repentance and faith as claiming that you personally denied any place at all for repentance, very misleading about what I believe and tried to say and challenge.)

That’s why I responded by affirming that I know you believe that repentant turning from sinS is vital (certainly to “God’s people”), and tried to rephrase how I understand your position and why, and what mine is, and asking you if I’ve misrepresented it, or if you differ from my clarification.

The reality that you then offer no response to my questions of clarification of your position or of whether you differ with the understanding I was challenging, only to again assert that I am a “willful liar” tells me my approach has inflicted real hurt for which I am sorry. But after repeatedly clarifying what I intended and actually perceive as best I know how, I don’t know what else to say. Even as you repeat that it’s a lie, I only know to repeat that I genuinely think that I am not entirely grasping your system and the distinctions it seeks to clarify.

[Bob_Wilson]

Qaz, We have the same perception on this!! Indeed, I suspect that my sense that an ugly to me retributive penal interpretation of my fundamentalist past distorts the Bible’s narrative, is part of the reason I have a hard time seeing pantelism as best making sense of the many messy pieces of the Biblical puzzle (since I perceived it as similarly resting on an objective penal atonement that removes God’s judgment and retribution).

[davo]

IMO pantelism makes sense only if one holds a retributive atonement model.

I’m intrigued how some who confess they grapple with pantelism can readily agree to what you are saying here, but that aside, this assessment of yours on pantelism is possibly suspect… can you briefly define how you are defining… “a retributive atonement model” AND how you then link your defined understanding to pantelism.

I read some of Mike Williams’ book. He holds a retributive model.

Not sure of your link here BUT MW is NOT a pantelist.