Bart, I appreciate your gracious correction, that despite emphasizing the widespread consensus that the Bible teaches ET: “I do not conclude that ET is what God wants us to believe in.” It was your conclusion below that I’d wrongly thought sounded like you endorsed the opposite reasoning.
The reasons that a majority view might be incorrect is an interesting topic, and I’m sorry that I misread your words.
No biggie Bob, I was not very clear. For the record, I do not believe ET is the correct view of salvation.
Hi eaglesway,
I trust you’re not making the case that olam is never translated as forever? Assuming you concede it’s sometimes [or even quite often] translated as “forever”, we run into the same problem here as with aion and aionios. When are we justified in plucking “not forever” from somewhere and plopping it down elsewhere it’s commonly thought to intend “forever”? I struggle enough with my native tongue, am not at all learned on the ancient languages, but it does seem to me arguments about words have never [or maybe rarely?] had the strength, after so many centuries of scholarship, to change doctrine. All the same, these are interesting ideas and lend food for thought to the debate.
If you step back and start with a clean slate and just try to judge it in with an unbiased method you may see ET actually has little support, really just Matt 25.46
Actually from my own studies I also include Dan 12:2 from the OT. Seems to me these are the only two in the Bible that seem to offer anything approaching explicit supporlarly t for ET–and the fact that they are both from highly metaphoric passages suggests a potential caveat for taking them too literally.
Hi Bart,
Just out of curiosity in Dan 12.2 how do you see ET in “eternal contempt”? To me it sounds more like annihilation especially because there are no other real references to ET in the OT?
No, I was not making the point it is never translated forever. My point is that olam is one word. If in many places it cannot possibly mean forever, it is reasonable to consider the possibility that forever is not the best, or correct translation. My point is also that olam means, as both the Strongs and NAS concordances show," long duration, antiquity, futurity", - a period of time in a dependent relationship to the subject it describes and the context.
It is far too convenient to make it “forever” when it suits the purpose. imo it cannot really mean forever if it is attached to things like a slaves life, or an ancient time in history.
A good example of this is “hell” which is translated for three different words(70 some times in the kjv 50 or so in the NAS)- sheol, gehenna and tartarus - none of which is a proper translation. Whatever popular religion has taught for the last millenia- it is easily provable in any lexicon.
Here is a text, that although doesn’t make universal salvation explicit, does make correction of the unrighteous after judgment explicit.
The Lord knows how to deliver the devout out of trial, but to reserve the unrighteous for a day of judgment, to be corrected. (2 Peter 2:9)
Here is an interlinear for your consideration:
οιδεν—κυριος— ευσεβεις εκ πειρασμου ρυεσθαι— αδικους
knows the Lord- devout—out of trial—— to deliver-unrighteous
δε -εις —ημεραν κρισεως—— κολαζομενους τηρειν
but into a day—- of judgment to be corrected to keep (2 Peter 2:9)
The whole strength of this “proof” lies in the translation of the lexical form of κολαζομενους, that is, “κολαζω” as “to correct”. I realize that some may object to this translation, but the Online Bible Greek Lexicon gives the primary meanings of “κολαζω”as:
Abbott-Smith’s A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament gives the meanings:
Originally, the word was used to reference to the pruning of trees, shrubs, or vines with a view to correcting their growth by shaping them. Later it was used figuratively with reference to the correction of people, e.g. Children. To translate the word as “punish” is correct as long as it is understood to be reformative rather than retributive. In English, “punish” may have either connotation, although it is more often taken in the latter sense, or in the sense of administering a penalty.
In Greek, the word “τιμωρεω” has the meaning “to punish” in the retributive sense. Indeed, every lexicon I have checked gives the primary meaning as “to avenge”. Strongs indicates that the word was derived from the two words “τιμη” (honour) and “οὐρος”(guard). Put them together, and you have the concept of a person guarding his honour through vengeance. In recording Paul’s own words concerning his treatment of disciples of Christ prior to Paul’s becoming a disciple himself, Luke wrote:
Acts 22:5 "as also the high priest bears me witness, and all the council of the elders, from whom I also received letters to the brethren, and went to Damascus to bring in chains even those who were there to Jerusalem to be punished (τιμωρεω).
Acts 26:11 "and I punished (τιμωρεω) them often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly enraged against them, I persecuted them even to foreign cities.
One of the best ways to get a sense of how a Greek word is used is to note how it is used in literature. The word is used in 4 Macabees 2:12 to indicate correction of children. No good parent punishes his children out of vengeance, but corrects them out of love.
4 Macabees is thought to have been written sometime between 100 B.C. to 100 A.D., that is, in the period in which the New Testament was written. It seems the author had been strongly moved by his reading of the deeds of Antiochus Ephiphanes against the Jews in 1 and 2 Macabees. So much of his “philosophical” thought and “devout reason” centers around the history he read there. In the following sentence he uses both “τιμωρεω” and “ κολαζω“ in a single sentence!
The tyrant Antiochus was both punished (τιμωρεω) on earth and is being corrected (κολαζω) after his death. (4 Maccabees 18:5)
The Judaistic belief at the time was that people’s souls survive death. So the sentence seems to say that while Antochus’s enemies got their revenge on him and his armies here on earth, God began to correct his soul after death. The author apparently held that post-mortem punishment was remedial. Otherwise he would not have chosen the word “κολαζω” but would have maintained the word “τιμωρεω” for his punishment after death, too.
Here is an example from the Septuagint translation of Ezekiel 43:10-11:
*And you, son of man, show to the household of Israel, the house, and show its appearance and its arrangement,that they may cease from their sins. And they shall receive their κολασις concerning all their doings, and you shall describe the house, and its entrances and its foundation, and all its systems, and you shall make known to them all it regulations and describe them in their presence, and they shall guard all my righteous ordinances and all my commands and do them. (Ezekiel 43:10-11) *
In this passage, God states His purpose in asking Ezekiel to show the house to Israel, namely that they may cease from their sins. He immediately follows this with “And they shall receive their κολασις concerning all their doings.” If God wants them to cease from their sins, and then gives them κολασις, is he punishing them retributively, or is He correcting them? The answer seems plain. Furthermore the conclusion of the matter is that the Israelites “will guard all my righteous ordinances and all my commands and do them.”
Surely this is reformation, and not mere revenge for their wrongdoing in the past.
Here is the Concordant translation of the verse in question:
*The Lord is acquainted with the rescue of the devout out of trial, yet is keeping the unjust for chastening in the day of judging.
*
Hi davo,
If you’re suggesting God’s meaning in Scripture can include a grammatical-historical literal interpretation of Jesus’ warning of Gehenna as the AD70 historical application* allowing freely for other layered other meanings*—which would clearly stand outside author intent—then I agree. If you intend to make the case that the former is the in toto meaning then I will take the position you’re performing the literalist corruption of stripping out the most important elements of what God is saying in His word in order to force a single, limited understanding that can be controlled by human reason.
What evidence would you offer to support this notion of a solitary meaning of annihilation?
This may be true of some or even many notions of universal salation, but as I see it universalism that does not take into account the validity of Scripture’s references to specific groups and incorporate them as potential metaphoric patterns to a literal reality don’t have a complete or systematic universalist theology.
I’d agree with this.
No fundamental disagreement here, either.
If universalism is true, I’d take it a step further; if Israel was firstfruits, Christianity is secondfruits, i.e., the expansion of God’s grace in time thus progresses from [possibly ever increasing in size and influence?] specialized groups one after the other, all leading to the eventual unfolding of the whole of salvation. Just as Judaism suffered its own corruption in her rejection of Christ, so modern Christianity is showing her own rejection of the scope of God’s grace by adherence to her own exclusivist doctrines, pushing Christ’s atonement further out into the sea of humanity. If true, I wonder how the next historical step will unfold?
As noted earlier, languages and the minutia associated with them are above my pay grade. I’ve read that in word usage then as now context plays a major role in interpretation. You may be right that forever may or may not be the best usage for olam, but that can also be turned around to say that it also can’t be applied willy-nilly as having non-eternal meaning either. This goes back in my mind to the question I asked in another thread, if God has controlled His Scriptures (which I believe to be true), to be presentable to us today, then are the reasons we want to override consensus interpretation justified, i.e., might it be that God wants it read according to consensus? Admittedly, the power of authority (in this case the authority of scholarship) is not identical to certitude of course, and God is often found in the Bible to be sided with offshoots and individuals instead of the crowds. These are tough nuts to crack.
I agree, it cannot be applied willy nilly. But it isnt a matter of inconsistent application if the scriptures themselves apply the word in ways where context clearly suggests it does not mean “forever” or “everlasting”. In such a case it is clear that the issue is inconsistent translation, being as that a slave does not live forever, and the Nephilim existed in antiquity- a long time ago, not forever ago. Therefore it is reasonable and honest to conclude that in relationship to punishment, it could mean for a long time, or for a given indeterminate time in the futre, not “forever”.
That may not be the conclusion most people reach, but to portray that possibility as frivolous or without basis in the scriptures(not saying you in particular are doing that) is, imo the result of superficial thinking. If context must be the only evidence one can receive, then the context presented in a parallel view of **Ephesians 1:9-11; Colossians 1:15-30; Romans 8:18-23; Romans 11:11-36; 1 Cor 15:21-28; John 12:32; 1 John 2:2 and 1 Tim 2:3, **among many others, provides enough contextual evidence to cause one to consider the possbility.
, among many others, should provide enough contextual evidence to cause one to consider the possbility.
This, in fact, is how I came to believe in the ultimate salvation of all through the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ- before I ever began to study translation issues.Being as I am, very much a “Word” guy, I felt it necessary to resolve the seeming paradoxes between statements that lean towards ultimate universal salvation and those that seemed to lean towards eternal torment. I am not fluent in any language of antiquity. One does not have to be because we have a rich supply of lexicons, dictionaries, interlinears and commentaries from which any serious seeker/disciple/student of the word can find these treasures hid in the field, if they so desire.
So if a person is unwilling to examine such context, and is arguing from a reliance on the expertise of religionists and churchmen from throughout history, consider that that thinking is what led to 1200 years of Roman Catholic dominon over the world, inquisitions, crusades, martyrdoms, indulgences, bowing down to idols, etc, etc.
Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. Mt 22:9
The whole of the Reformation began because people started reading the scriptures with a fresh perspective, and the Reformation is only 500 years old, and imo it is not over yet. It began because the Bible was made available to the masses. it is continuing because scholarly review of the scriptures and the languages of scripture has flourished abundantly over the last 300 years or so and exponentially so in the last 150 years or so.
“Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” Acts 17:11
They went to the scriptures… they did not ask for the opinions of experts, seeing as that in those days, the experts(the Sanhedrin) were out to kill them, and did not even understand their own scriptures.
Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’? 35“If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
If the scriptures cannot be broken then the verses I listed above(in bold type) cannot be disregarded.
The Greek or Western mindset of “prophecy” is that of prediction and fulfillment. The Hebrew idea of prophecy, however, is that of pattern and recapitulation of the pattern, leading upto the consummate fulfillment or desired goal within the biblical narrative / timeframe. Each fulfillment being a “type” — teaching something further about the ultimate end. For example, Peter on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16) stands and recapitulating Joel says “This IS that…”
OT prophecy was more than mere predictive foretelling, but more so prescriptive forth-telling, or telling forth the Word of God. Certain “events” were foretold, while on other occasions the prophet’s utterance told forth or was instructive of God’s will to be followed, and or something to do with their response to it, etc.
In relation to “events” — prophecies were fulfilled in that OT setting — however, it was not unusual for Jesus to use such past fulfillment as a “type” of whatever it was that Jesus was speaking to, and thus it became the antitype; take for example Lk 13:3-5. Or for instance, take Matthew’s references of Hosea’s words… “Out of Egypt I called my son” as a prophecy concerning Jesus. Hosea’s words in Matthew’s mind had more than one meaning i.e., application. They meant historically that God had called Israel out of Egypt, and yet also now meant contemporarily that the young Jesus was being likewise delivered, being God’s chosen Son and Deliver and the Messiah. More than one dimension is present, as is plain to see, BUT always within the biblical narrative.
So this isn’t so much a case of “multiple fulfilments” as it was the reapplying of the meaning of such a fulfillment. One way to understand this is Jesus’ words in relation to the Scriptures or old covenant tradition when he said — “you have heard it said… but I say to you…” Jesus’ reinterpretation or reapplication is the recapitulation of what has gone before — but with a renewed and somewhat “fulfilled” or completed meaning i.e., its ultimate end — and that always in light of the new covenant of which all of old covenant history and story ultimately was pointing. And we know that all redemptive history, of which much was expressed through the prophetic, came to fruition and fulfillment in Jesus’ “this generation” timeframe AD30-70; culminating with ‘the Day of the Lord’ circa AD70 with the destruction of the Temple itself.
If “prophecy” is seen in terms of multiple fulfilments beyond the biblical narrative then it is only natural to ask — how many times does prophecy get fulfilled before it is actually and really fulfilled? — it simply becomes an endless loop at the mercy of the next theory or prophetic timetable espoused. So, you can see what western Christianity has done… it has made us think metaphorically about simple and plain time statements, and yet think literalistically about symbolic metaphors. It’s all backward.
I’m yet to find any bible verses that speak of one’s total end BEYOND THIS LIFE… such ends speak of THIS LIFE and can be understood solely as pertinent to the end of one’s physical being — no more, no less. It’s the type of language used to describe a dire end or consequence of some culpable infraction.
There is no such thing, biblically speaking, as “secondfruits” i.e., they don’t exist. There is firstfruits and then the entire harvest, sanctified by them… again, no more, no less. The biblical pattern has AWAYS been that the firstfruits paid a/the price ON BEHALF OF the greater whole. Jesus (THE firstfruit) and His disciples and those called into that realm of service paid the price blazing the tail in the outworking of Israel’s redemption. This had the net effect of securing humanity’s reconciliation.
Back on the original topic, I think the apparent number of apparent non-UR passages comes from the following factors:
1.) The terminology around eon is applied less broadly (except when conveniently not on these topics!) than its usage overall would otherwise allow. This at least neutralizes a number of key passages which then opens up other possibilities: even if the neutralization still technically allows non-UR interpretations, they can’t just be prooftexted as a lock anymore.
2.) A lot of the statements are talking about death before the general resurrection, and so simply aren’t on the expected topic at all. (This is particularly a problem for Anni proponents but I’ve seen ECT proponents prooftext things of this sort, too.)
3.) Related to (2), It’s easy to ignore or discount as a factor, especially when prooftexting, that God (and/or inspired commentary) can be emphasizing a situation and its penalty without necessarily excluding further situations. The most absurd version of this factor I’ve seen was when a Calvinist cited all of some minor prophet to me daring me to find any universal salvation in it, with the idea that if there wasn’t then UR couldn’t be true. I reported that not only couldn’t I find any UR in it, neither could I find any indication of the coming Messiah, nor that God would save any sinners at all only people who were already righteous; and moreover that the next minor prophet showed no evidence of God saving even any righteous or innocent people at all but rather destroying everyone. By his logic then he should be a nihilistic non-Christian Jew who expects God to hopelessly destroy all people, since there’s nothing Christian per se in either of those two minor prophets. There are smaller examples, too, and just as importantly there are easy counter-examples of the same supposed principle which would be ludicrous “evidence” against non-UR beliefs, which no non-UR proponent would ever reasonably accept against ECT or Anni (nor should they).
4.) Ancient Near-Middle Eastern cultural idiom should be taken into account, which is often hyperbolic for emphasis purposes, like whole populations being apparently genocided off… aannnnd then they show up perfectly fine later. This is standard rhetorical coloring for the culture (and for neighboring cultures, too). A similar example would be the king in the Matt 18 parable of the unforgiving steward who declares the embezzler will be sold into slavery with all his family, but then doesn’t do this; and when the embezzler is punished after all, there’s no indication his family takes the hit either. Why? – because by the standards of the day, the king is staking out a position for bargaining, not making a fiat and final pronouncement (even though he could do that, so the threat isn’t only a bluff). What audiences would have found surprising was that the embezzler doesn’t try to haggle but throws himself immediately on the king’s mercy – and then they’d be more shocked that the king accepts this plea immediately! (Which then sets up cultural context for the king’s eventual judgement on the unmerciful servant.)
5.) The Matt 18 unforgiving servant parable is a highly obvious example of something I’ve found to be a lot more subtly but also a lot more frequently prevalent in the Gospels (and less occasionally in the OT) when looking at non-UR prooftexts: a high proportion of apparently hopeless punishment declarations from Jesus, turn out to be character tests for His followers, along the line of Nathaniel’s “Thou art the man” to King David. (Jesus throws these at the Pharisees more obviously, too, but it isn’t often appreciated that He regarded them as erring chief servants, so the pattern still fits.) If his audience is nodding along at those people being, apparently, hopelessly zorched for something, it then turns out that they’re being punished for insisting that someone else should be hopelessly punished and/or never saved (especially from their sins) – which again the parable of the unforgiving servant is highly obvious about. Insisting that the punishments are hopeless puts us in the position of the unforgiving servant or the Pharisees who agreed that the king shall certainly be killing those murderers or the Pharisees who insisted that God would not save someone whose last state was worse than their former or the baby goats, the least of Christ’s flock, who thought they were serving Christ the whole time but who refused to save the least of Christ’s flock from various situations (typical of punishment by God) into which they themselves will be put – so should we interpret their punishment the way baby goats would, or the way the mature flock who follow the Shepherd would? (Paul does much the same gotcha switch in judgment from Rom 1 into Rom 2 when he expects his audience to be expecting him to be talking about those filthy pagan sinners over there being zorched – but they themselves are under the same judgment, and actually even moreso for expecting God to be unmerciful toward those other people.)
This factor is a huge reductor in the apparently greater number of non-UR texts. Its bolstered and complimented by frequent testimony in the OT to the effect that if you’re called by God to punish someone else, you better damn well be merciful about it or you’re setting yourself up to be zorched the same way for being unmerciful about it!
6.) Another huge reductor, sometimes parallel with (5), is just immediate, local, and extended context, putting together and harmonizing more of the story. Jude looks like things are hopeless for Sodom and for anyone (including rebel angels) punished along the same line; but extended context shows Sodom gets reconciled with slain rebel Israel and both reconciled to God eventually. Local and even immediate contexts of prooftexts often show God reconciling the people He has punished, even to death, after they learn their lesson and repent; God even goes back on the most final sounding statements this way. Those people will never be forgiven and will never even be resurrected – annnnd then they will be after all a chapter later, and everyone will live happily ever after. (I’m thinking offhand of some statements in Hosea, but there are some other examples of this extreme flipflop scattered around the OT.) This factor seems to apply most to the OT, and when applied will often result in uncovering a TON more testimony in the OT for bodily resurrection than is typically thought by scholars nowadays (Christian and otherwise). But it shows up occasionally in the NT, too: Jesus by report in GosJohn 8 prophecies that His opponents (who have all the advantages and who should definitely know better and whom Jesus could have reasonably been expecting to support Him but willfully aren’t out of spiritual pride) shall definitely be dying in their sins for refusing to believe He is “I AM”. …annnd then they will also definitely be knowing Him (in the positive and intimate sense of knowing) as “I AM” later. Non-UR prooftexting evidence will focus on the first part and completely ignore or discount the second part. But the second part at least strongly implies that the first part isn’t hopelessly final after all. Or in a more immediate-context example, non-UR prooftexts from GosJohn 6 about resurrecting to judgment instead of to eonian life, will typically ignore or discount the immediate statement for the goal and purpose of this resurrection to judgment: so that those who do not honor the Son and the Father shall come to honor the Son and the Father, where honoring is obviously connected to coming out of death and into eonian life. Which of course is why the context is ignored or discounted, because if the judged people did come to honor God (which the context indicates is certain) then they’d be saved from their sins after all which from the scope of the statements would logically entail universal salvation.
I may be missing some factors, but I’m still sleepy and I have ‘work’ work to do. Just wanted to opine in. 
(And some other claimed factors I don’t agree with, but I’m not going to opine on those. 
)
Hello davo,
The rules and standards you embrace for prophecy have little to do with the statement quoted. My comment was not about prophecy, it was about meaning God has woven into Scripture. My point: if you take the position that a historical (and in the case of the passage being considered) prophetic meaning can be the only one derived to the exclusion of all others, I think you’re wrong. This is the same sort of error as the Pharisees stood in relation to God’s word in their day. I said nothing about, nor do I contend for, the idea of “multiple fulfillments”. This seems to be thinking stuck inside the literalist box, e.g., ‘if you’re talking about further meanings the only meanings you could possibly intend would be further literal and historical fulfillments.’ You claim,* “…western Christianity…has made us think metaphorically about simple and plain time statements…”* ; I suspect the more accurate stance is that God has inspired western Christianity [through the doorway of inspired Scripture] to lead us to areas of His symbolic meaning. His symbols use historical circumstances as His stage, events as His backdrop and people as His actors upon that stage and within those events to weave masterful metaphors that provide spiritual principles.
I don’t understand what you mean by the notion that western Christianity has led us to, “think literalistically about symbolic metaphors”, especially in light of my understanding that everything God does leads to literal events or consequences on some level, either in time and space or the hereafter.
Agreed there’s nothing specific. But as I think I’ve heard Craig say in one of his talks, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. On the other hand most references to annihilation are found in metaphoric language. As noted above, God uses physical events, history and people to paint broader meaning pictures and this leaves open the possibility that the soul could be annihilated given supporting passages like Mat 10:28.
In response to my statement about second fruits, you say,
I didn’t use the term as a doctrinal statement but as artistic license, used in discussions to convey ideas and possibilities. I hardly find a narrow, literalist exposition on the subject of firstfruits compelling. Man has worked for centuries try to control Scripture’s meaning by informing others of the parameters within which they’re expected to form their theology, base their faith and the “obvious” and stark doctrines to which these parameters lead. Are you a universalist? I find it hard to see how your understanding of Scripture could allow for the salvation of all.
the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit either yet we still believe in it
the NT trumps the Old and it tells us ‘mercy triumphs over judgement’.
Incidentally, there is such a thing as second-fruits (though not called that specifically) in the Temple services. The first firstfruits are Rashith, given at Pascha (Passover); the second firstfruits are Bicourim, given at Pentacost. That’s why both Christ and believers can be called firstfruits yet distinctly with one coming after the other.
There was an interesting article today, by a Catholic blogger:
True.
Who is this “we”? Whoever it is, it does not include me.
Hi Bart…
Well that’s ok IF you have shown otherwise, but you haven’t. My point would be that (and in the case of the passage being considered) as per the likes of Jer 2:3a, that Israel fits as its primary application and fulfillment. Now IF beyond that one wants to adopt in principle such to one’s own life I don’t have an issue with that. There are any number of biblical texts that have NOTHING to do with US directly, but we can in faith imbibe of the truths contained therein; as per the likes of Jas 1:21; Acts 20:32; Psa 19:7 et al.
I made that statement with biblical prophecy in mind, but given own stated “My comment was not about prophecy, it was about meaning God has woven into Scripture” then it becomes somewhat of a moot point.
I’m not so much disagreeing with that but my thought is such things are best primarily understood within the biblical narrative. The HOW these things get transposed to us beyond the biblical narrative is for sure, always up for discussion.
Well, again that comment’s focus was the prophetic and how post-biblical Christendom has handled, or mishandled such, IMO. As I understand it… prophecy, to a large degree, is figurative language describing temporal (historic) events in terms of their spiritual significance. E.g., Israel and in particular her Temple becoming as the ever-burning ‘gehenna’ (rubbish-heap) was a very literal event (AD 70) portraying the greater covenantal (spiritual) reality of the death of old covenant Judaism.
I could be reading you wrong but the first part of this above sounds similar to the italicised part of my last statement above… so maybe (??) we’re on a similar page at some point.
You do the very self-same thing in claiming… “If universalism is true, I’d take it a step further; if Israel was firstfruits, Christianity is secondfruits,…”
I agree that the reconciliation of humanity to God is an established and present reality, though not all realise it in this life… hence the gospel. Ignorance of this reality, however, does not negate this truth.
As for being a universalist… more properly speaking I’m an inclusive prêterist aka a Pantelist.
Coooool.
I land in the middle on this. I accept that the concept of the Trinity as a doctrinal stance is Biblical and has merit intellectually, but no longer hold this to be a “necessary” or fundamental doctrine by which to gauge one’s Christianity. Accepting the Deity of Christ seems to me a more proper yardstick.
Hello davo,
I’ve been reading on the Pantelist site. Interesting reading but I can’t trace a logical path from Preterism to Universalism. The concept of forcing a literal, historical reading on Scripture is one of the types of literalism that’s like chalk on a blackboard to me, as you’ve probably gathered.
What I’ve read on the Pantelist site leaves me wondering how Pantelism would work. For example writings on the site suggest there’s too much thought spent on salvation postmortem, which you appear to support in your comment, “…the reconciliation of humanity to God is an established and present reality, though not all realise it in this life… hence the gospel. Ignorance of this reality, however, does not negate this truth.” Right, it doesn’t. But if Pantelism says we should focus our thoughts about salvation on this life and stop talking about being saved in the next, I have to wonder if Pantelists are oblivious to the fact that we live short lives here then all die in various states of imperfection? This is confusing to me. I have no issue with the idea that Scripture may be read to understand some are elected to special service to God for man in time, or the idea that much in the Bible alludes to a temporal salvation for those who properly conform to God’s standards, but I’m lost in grasping how this trumps a dismissal of salvation postmortem? A common argument of atheists is that theists generally and Christians in particular fail to reach their potential in this life because we’re too focused on the next. Except for extreme cases (e.g., Jonestown in the 70s) I don’t find this criticism compelling, but Pantelism seems to level similar charges. Seems to me all you’re doing is forming Universalism into a Preterist mold and calling it something different [inclusivism]. What am I missing?
With regard to your comment re my position that the literal is secondary in importance to Scripture’s allegorical meaning: “…that’s ok IF you have shown otherwise, but you haven’t. My point would be that (and in the case of the passage being considered) as per the likes of Jer 2:3a, that Israel fits as its primary application and fulfillment.”. You’re correct. I haven’t shown otherwise. This message board isn’t the proper venue to present the theology I contend for. I begin with a primary, abstract metaphysical concept and work from there to what I believe is a systematic unfolding of that abstraction to a comprehensive logical, ordered allegorical structure for salvation in Scripture. I will retire in a couple weeks and my first goal is to edit and publish the partial chapters and hundreds of pages I’ve compiled the last 24 years working on this. My understanding is that this message board will end soon so maybe I’ll bump into you on another board somewhere in the future and you can critique the position I contend for in another venue.