Davo,
I’ve tried to read some Pantelism but I don’t understand it all. What happened to those who died in Gehenna? Did their souls go to heaven? Is this what happens to us now when we die? Is faith still a requirement? If it is, what about those that don’t have faith. Do they go to a purgatory?
I forgive you with all my heart!
Certainly…
The early church was predominately Hebraic… Acts 15:21: 2:5; 26:7; Jn 7:35; Mic 5:7-8; Jas 1:1; 1Pet 1:1 — hence its early reception and take-up of their (Israel’s) gospel, of which then gentile believers joined in on Israel’s redemption — that too was the pattern of former times where gentiles/aliens joined themselves to and became a part of the collective of Israel.
The language of John’s Revelation is also inherently Hebraic… take for example references to Jerusalem, the Temple, the Ark of the Covenant, and then the various temple objects and regalia, candelabra, elders, the twelve tribes, the Lamb, Key of David, Book of Life, Tree of Life in a new paradise, etc, etc, etc. Take also the reference to… “the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of satan” i.e., Judaisers from the Sanhedrin. There are also references to villains from Israel’s past, e.g., Balaam, Jezebel. You have those who are marked on their forehead… straight out of Ezekiel.
‘Revelation’ is littered and laced with Israel’s story from end to end. Any gentile having joined these congregations of Asia Minor would come to know these things. This was the END of the old covenant story with the fullness of the new covenant story coming to fruition in the Parousia to where from that point forward… “Behold, the Tabernacle of God IS with men…”.
Davo, I hear you to emphasize that Christianity developed out of the Jewish (or Hebrews’) faith and often describes its’ understanding of its view of how it fulfills that narrative and is a kind of new Israel built upon the old one (including in Revelation) by pointing to O.T. texts and symbols. And I find most serious readers do see that this is deeply true!
But I’m not seeing how it follows from that unmistakable development, that all readers of Revelation would be sure that its image of fiery judgment alongside a new heaven and earth would not concern non-Jewish folk.
You do assert that all congregations would “know this was the END of the old covenant story… in the Parousia” (by which I assume that you mean that they would all understand this as a destruction of Jerusalem which would soon be recognized as a past and completed return of Jesus).
Yet there appear to continue to be serious and Hebraic readers who don’t recognize that. Is it indeed your observation that every gentile in such congregations did in fact recognize after AD 70 that the Lake of Fire, etc, was no longer pertinent?
Given the pantelist position is that gehenna was Jesus’ prophetic reference to the forthcoming destruction of Jerusalem, those who died relative to that were like any other person having lived and died… separated from the very presence of God in sheol/hades, i.e., the grave, locked in death.
Heaven was opened when Jesus led captivity captive…
There are no plain texts of scripture saying otherwise.
Faith has nothing to with one’s ability to enter heaven… Jesus’ faith secured that for all. Faith is a prerequisite for godly service — not everyone has been called such service.
The pantelist position finds no such condition or habitat in the bible.
I do believe that Jesus had faith. What scripture do you have that says faith is a prerequisite for godly service as opposed to salvation. I like this idea and want to look into it further.
My point was that its primary focus was Israel… I’m sure there were plenty of concerned non-Jewish folks.
I doubt everybody recognised everything. I like the way Tom Wright describes those times where he says of Paul, had he been alive at the time, would have said… “this is that which I spoke of…” — much like Peter said on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:16 — “this is that…”
It’s easy for us post events looking back with historic hindsight at this prophetic fulfillment and recognising it, or at least some recognising it. But it’s the same with the Cross… I doubt too many there and then recognised the enormity of that even, save maybe one centurion (Mk 15:39,) but in time looking back… so the story goes etc.
Well you don’t recognise it… SO that wouldn’t be that unexpected.
Obviously I can’t tell you that. Certainly given all the eschatological schools of thought that have blossomed down through history since then, then logic would suggest otherwise. On a related note I have some speculatory thoughts HERE.
I call that “selling”…as versus voicing an opinion…and realizing it’s one among many…And sometimes “selling” reminds me, of used car salesmen.
“…as opposed to salvation” I didn’t say that; though THAT expresses perfectly the typical evangelical mindset that sees “salvation” as meaning “getting to heaven” — which it seems is how you interpreted what I said, though I didn’t really say nor mean that. So let me explain.
The pantelist position is that we are saved to serve. There is an aspect of FAITH that needs appreciating more than is given attention, i.e., sanctifying faith — a transforming faith that transforms. Paul’s message was to work such a change to where Gentiles could enter in on Israel’s blessings…
Act 26:18 …to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’
Paul was called and gifted to bring this revelation (to open) of repentance (to turn) that would then lead many hearing him to grasp (receive) the reality of forgiveness — this would in turn bring those respondents into an inheritance among those who of likes of Paul were “sanctified by faith” and thus be… saved to serve.
1Cor 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.
Those “called to be saints” were duly set apart (sanctified) for His purpose, i.e., service… again the primary meaning of sanctification — that which is dedicated and set apart for godly service. Paul further writes…
2Cor 5:15 …and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
Jesus’ atoning death was ON BEHALF OF and inclusive of all, yet within this were… “those who live” i.e., those elect and sanctified who through faith were called to… “live no longer for themselves, but for Him” through service to the rest. There is also this…
Heb 9:14 …much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
Again there is purpose, calling and cleansing relative to service unto Him.
2Tim 1:9 …who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.
Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.
Tit 3:8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I want you to affirm constantly, that those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable to men.
2Cor 13:4 For to be sure, he was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by God’s power. Likewise, we are weak in him, yet by God’s power we will live with Him to serve you.
As you can see the link in being called of God, i.e., saved… is service to God and others — getting to heaven isn’t the biblical focus of being saved.
Holy people of all traditions, would agree with that statement…And be a living example of it. It reminds me of an old song.
But first we might have, to rehearse a bit.
Yes Randy… where was Jesus trying to get his disciples’ focus? — “Thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven” i.e., in its fullness — not some escape into an ethereal future beyond this reality.
I take that verse as being self-explanatory… how do you take it?
deleted
Davo,
Your responses helpfully clarify your view, and especially the amplification of your attached “related note.” You had said, "Any (churched) Gentile would come to know… This (AD 70 “Lake of Fire”) was the END… in the Parousia where from that point forward, “the Tabernacle of God IS with men.” I was mainly skeptical of asserting such universal ‘knowledge,’ because of seeing no indication that post AD70 such churchmen actually perceived it that way. As you put it, there appears to be a “silence” about such an interpretation.
Indeed, even with the plus of historic hindsight, scholars like Wright whose grasp of the N.T.'s Hebraic nature you cite, still don’t interpret AD70 as meaning, “all was complete” in a “realized redemption.”
You bring a healthy emphasis that Jesus was fulfilling Israel’s story, and a stimulating argument that it should be clear that now, “all is complete.” I just perceived that your claim that ANYone in those early Asian churches would come to know that this redemption was completely realized in AD70 is unsubstantiated.
Thanks Davo, I do believe that faith sanctifies. I’ve experienced that. As long as I can keep my faith I don’t have a problem with Pantelism. Let me check into more on your site. I take 1 Timothy 4:10 to mean that there is a sense in which God is the savior for all and another sense in which He’s the savior for those that believe. I see no problem there. As you say not all are called to serve.
1 Timothy 4:10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.
I think Bob brought up something about definitions - on this thread. Let’s take a hypothetical, Twilight Zone episode.
Let’s say that there are aliens called Kanamits. And they hear about Pantelism. And they come down here, to help implement it. Did they get the concept, of service right?
qaz… are you forgetting there has been numerous discussions around differing aspects as to what salvation might mean according to various contexts? That verse in itself throws up a distinction with its use of “especially.”
Anyway, consider this example… God was Israel’s Redeemer, i.e., all Israel — the good, the bad and the ugly in toto — was redeemed out of Egypt by God; this was a corporate event, i.e., Israel to the last man was unilaterally redeemed / rescued. However… in time only those of faith (faithfulness) realised more fully given benefits associated with that redemption in terms of the peace of the land of Promise — thus Yahweh was the Saviour of all Israel… especially of those who believed.
Whenever I quote someone AND especially when I use partial quotes I try to make sure I don’t have their quotes appearing to say something other than what they actually said, or more to the point… making it sound like they’ve claimed a point (that they haven’t) to which I then supply a given disagreement.
My actual words above regarding… “any gentile having joined these congregations of Asia Minor” was NOT said with any specific reference to the event of the… “(AD 70 “Lake of Fire”) was the END…” NO, my words were related specifically to the whole paragraph BEFORE in which I was answering to Bob’s direct question… “Can you detail some of the clues in Revelation that would assure that a Gentile churchmen reading it would know that this fiery image was not of concern to them and not pertinent to their non-Jewish relatives?” IF you go back and read that paragraph it is CLEAR to what I said relates.
Not only this but just to be clear and certain Bob then specifically asks… “You do assert that all congregations would “know this was the END of the old covenant story… in the Parousia”” to which I gave a very CLEAR response… “I doubt everybody recognised everything.”
So is it just me, am I the only one seeing stuff here that I’ve allegedly said when Bob replies as above… “I just perceived that your claim that ANYone in those early Asian churches would come to know that this redemption was completely realized in AD70 is unsubstantiated.” ???
As I keep repeating… that folk don’t agree with my position is fair enough; each makes their case. BUT please… ease up with this UNSUBSTANTIATED stuff happening here — it only shows weakness. 
Davo, My intention in quoting and thanking you for your own “clear” response (“I can’t tell you that.”) was to recognize that what I restated that I had “perceiv ed” (past tense) was a mistaken conflation of your words.
I’m grateful for your clarification, and do now recognize that your statement that all readers would know “these things,” only referred to the reality that the NT uses the OT, but not that they necessarily would recognize your next phrase that this Hebraic nature of the NT meant, “This was the END…”
As I affirmed, I think most readers totally agree with your first claim and the Hebraic nature of the NT, and it is only your following claim about the Parousia and AD70, your earlier claim that, “The ‘lake of fire.… is pertinent solely to Israel,” and your attached note affirming that “all is complete,” that I should have said I yet perceive (pres tense!) as doubtful to readers. I’m sorry that I did not more quickly grasp and make that distinction clear.
.