View Full Version : preterist vs pantelist?
ophelia
04-01-2008, 04:06 AM
i am a full-preterist. . . at least i was when i rampedly studied theology and Christian history. i took a few years hiatus rearing the children and all, and sat down yesterday to find that my favorite website, preterist archive, has abandoned and betrayed all full-preterism attacking it as dangerous and renaming it "hyper preterism." This was very disconcerning. Then i found panelism is the current name for past fulfillment of prophecy. Can anyone explain to me the difference, if any, between a full preterist and a panalist and when did this change occur at the preterist archive?
G'day Ophelia and welcome :)
Pantelism views redemption along with eschatology as being fulfilled in Christ's AD70 Parousia, as opposed to basic prêterism that only applies fulfillment to prophecy. Pantelism understands that Israel's AD70 redemption was the catalyst that brought about the world's reconciliation. So Pantelism is both prêteristic and inclusive.
Pantelism hasn't taken over prêterism at all – that is more Todd Dennis' over-reaction when realising the true "inclusive" implications of prêterism and not being able to refute them [which is what occurred when he invited some of us to explain our position on his message board he once had]. He subsequently ditched full prêterism.
You'll find more at my site below, as well as the other sites represented here in the "Welcome" thread. Hope you enjoy :)
TheNewAddiction
05-21-2008, 12:55 AM
Pantelism hasn't taken over prêterism at all – that is more Todd Dennis' over-reaction when realising the true "inclusive" implications of prêterism and not being able to refute them [which is what occurred when he invited some of us to explain our position on his message board he once had]. He subsequently ditched full prêterism.
Exactly. Todd Dennis' over reaction is HIGHLY emotional. I hadn't been to Preterist Archive in a long time and was also a bit shocked by it changing over and taking on a very negative unfounded view of Full Preterism. But I must agree with Dave in that I think Todd could not deal with the implications and 'freaked out' for lack of a better term. Todd has also adopted a very odd view of Preterism which seems to combine Preterism with Historicism and is called Idealism. The problem that I see with this is that it faces the exact same issues that Historicism does, in that things are basically archetypes and not so much rooted in reality. Todd is off his rocker, particularly when we note that he tries like all non True Preterists to accuse us of the Hymeanean heresy - which BIBLICALLY was a timing issue, but of course Todd and his ilk make it out to something it is not. I am deeply disappointed that Todd has allowed emotions and anxiety to trump reason and logic. Tsk, tsk.
TNA
Jotham
05-21-2008, 09:04 AM
Wow i missed all the excitement over at PA. I hadn't a clue any of the above took place as TG is my home-on-the-web. I live a sheltered life. grin.
For myself, once i set aside pride and the idea that as a human i wanted to somehow be involved in the "terminal generation", the bible is written to me mentality, and read the bible plainly with eyes open. . . Fulfilled Prophecy and Fulfilled Redemption was the message i came away with. BUT without doing the former exercise, i'd still be seeing the world through futurist, sinner-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god spectacles.
Eric B
05-21-2008, 09:43 AM
For myself, once i set aside pride and the idea that as a human i wanted to somehow be involved in the "terminal generation", the bible is written to me mentality, and read the bible plainly with eyes open. . . Fulfilled Prophecy and Fulfilled Redemption was the message i came away with. BUT without doing the former exercise, i'd still be seeing the world through futurist, sinner-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god spectacles.
Ditto here!
Though it was full preterism that made me aware of the issue and led to me finding pantelism.
Full preterism itself is basically a mongrelized theology, as it takes only part of "fulfillment", yet holds on to Hell fire, with the result that sin and eternal death continue on forever! That is why when I stumbled across Preterist Archive (and ran into Lou there) I could not see that as "the new Heavens and New Earth" promised in scripture. It was preposterous; like a great big mockery of all the promises.
People cannot give up that hell fire. It was hard for me, though not as if I actually wanted to believe in it. It's peer pressure. We still hear the echos of the great Hellfire sermons of old, and the more old-line fundamentalists complaining how the doctrine has been softened down on, and the belief that it led to great "revivals" of old. (What happened to "true love casts out fear"?) Then, you have apologetic movements such as CRI which throw the "cult" label at anyone who denied Hell. Martin used to uphold the banner of "historic Christianity", whose 2000 years of truth you are going against if you do not hold to an "essential" doctrine such as Hell. Like wow; what a great, truthful, undivided Body that was! [NOT!] (The Adventists still believe in a literal Lake of Fire that all nonbelievers get thrown into, but since they teach it annihilates rather than conscious eternal torment, they get a question mark from CRI, while others do boldly label them a cult). Tracts warn us if we don't believe in it, we're going there, where we'll find out it's quite real. So the belief has its own built in self-perpetuating mechanism: fear!
It's like this whole concept of hell is so crucial, that we can't take any chances, so hence, to teach it is no longer a danger is to basically trick everyone into going there, or "make the sinners comfortable on the road to Hell" (a term common to followers of Spurgeon, Edwards and modern people following those two who criticize what they call "easy-believism"). So even if we might allow the possible chance that it could be wrong, it is "better to err on the side of caution".
So we have to hurry and make sure we're not getting too lax in doctrine and behavior, and then frantically try to warn all the unbelievers, yet we cannot clean up the messed up, divided confusion that is turning off the world, and even disillusioning many of us within!
Still, the entire notion of trying to make sinners uncomfortable, as if that will make them more likely avoid Hell, is yet another betrayal of the de-facto works-righteousness of the entire evangelical mindset.
As for Idealism, that's just an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. So you can take all of those prophetic images futurism thrives off of, and give them new meaning in your own context, while still maintaining your so-called "New Heavens" with yourself as part of a chosen few with most others being "outside the gates" and still going to Hell.
Though that was usually full-preterism that was mixed with Idealism. Yet you all are saying this person abandoned full preterism. So what's he using; partial preterism?
If so, he is similar to everyone else, who believes in a future coming of Christ (which partial preterism still retains), yet applies the prohecies to our daily situations in the meantime. So he's probably alike current CRI leader Hank Hanegraaf, now.
Chiming in after the party's over, to say THANKS -- this really helps me to understand a bit more.
I came to a UR understanding first, but there were still plenty of unanswered questions (as well as scriptures I had to sweep under the "ask God later" rug).
Then, someone asked me to check out Preterism, which I initially found alarming, then compelling, and then alarming again, as I discovered that most Preterists seem to hold a Calivinist view of redemption (why is it that ALL those promoting Calvinism just so *happen* to be among the "elect"...? Why does no one say, "Yeah, I find Calvinism compelling, and dang it, it turns out I'm among the damned!").
It utterly perplexed me as to why Universalists and Preterists would malign each other...! One would think that two misunderstood mindsets would be in cahoots!
It made such sense to me that either would lead to the other, and each completes the other. It was wonderful to find this site, and Presence ... AND to find that y'all like each other --- THAT is fruit of the Spirit! (& sadly, all too rare)
Keep leading us each into all Truth, Papa!
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Me Again
08-18-2008, 05:19 PM
Many universalists are slowly embracing preterism: Gary Amirault (partial), Mike Williams (full), Dean Johnson (Quaker and full), Ken Allen (partial, I think), Robert Rutherford (full), just to name some of the more well-known names.
There are others who, although not embracing preterism, embrace us and recognize the logical implications that we offer in the debate.
Unfortunately, there are a handful of universalists who are downright hostile to preterism, probably because they rely on futurism to sell their books and tapes. It's difficult to cut your livelihood off when you've written so much. These men are few, at least what I've found; the largest group seeming to be those who do not embrace fulfilled prophecy, but accept us as brothers and sisters.
At least that's how I see it. It is always refreshing to go on a universalist website and see articles, from a positive viewpoint, about preterism, and thus pantelism. It's a good sign.
Thanks, Ed!
It just makes so much more sense, to put the two understandings together. Fewer loose ends.
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Me Again
08-18-2008, 07:28 PM
Well, the main difference is that pantelism deals with the issue of how God sees "unbelievers" in the present. We all agree on how He'll see them in the future, but in the here and now, there's disagreement.
Another disagreement we have is with the UUA, where they embrace a man-centered universalism, whereas pantelism remains God-centered; it's all about God, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.
adhitthana
08-18-2008, 10:49 PM
One of the great things about preterism is that it is a true grass roots movement. No person or organisation controls it. Partly for that reason there seems to be some disagreement about definitions at this stage.
My suggestion is as follows. Preterism says that all eschatology (end times stuff) is fulfilled. That is all it says.
That being said pantelism would be a form of preterism, but with extra opinions of some matters.
Hi Dena… one issue, and it's an important one is the matter of life in the "here and now". This is where Pantelism is significantly different from both prêterism AND universalism – prêterism remains stuck in the past while universalism is stuck in the future, as in post death.
Now in the religious realm, whether Universalism [all go to heaven] or Partialism [some go to heaven], the WHOLE argument is geared around "post-mortem" i.e., what happens AFTER death. Pantelism views this whole paradigm when aligned with the Scriptures as being in error. That there is life after life after death is NOT in dispute, but "how" that itself transpires the bible is relatively thin on.
Pantelism IS BOTH universalistic AND Partialistic [exclusive] BUT for very different reasons, AND with very different outcomes. The Calvinist doctrine of "election" is wholly and solely Partialistic and exclusive, and its main focal point is: "who does or does not get to heaven upon death". Pantelism on the other hand views "election" purely in terms of "who is called into God's priestly service" in THIS life.
Pantelism views "salvation" then NOT in terms of getting to heaven, BUT rather in terms of freedom from the toxicities of a "law-bound" life – MEANING not being bound to law-righteousness i.e., self-righteousness. It is NOT to be understood that Pantelism advocates ANY form of licentious lawlessness. It is the apostle James however who says: "[i]the implanted word… is able to save your souls" – IOW… the gospel brings a freedom into one's inner being that brings "liberty" in life. It is this that is a fruit of "being saved", yet we are "saved to serve".
Now NOT everyone is called of God to "serve" – such a calling then IS "exclusive" or "partialistic", BUT one can only be called by virtue of having ALREADY being "reconciled" in the first place; something God achieved on man's behalf through Christ – "universally" and "inclusively" so.
Thus in a real sense, Pantelism is beyond both prêterism and universalism, though bearing characteristics of both.
Well, the main difference is that pantelism deals with the issue of how God sees "unbelievers" in the present. We all agree on how He'll see them in the future, but in the here and now, there's disagreement.
Another disagreement we have is with the UUA, where they embrace a man-centered universalism, whereas pantelism remains God-centered; it's all about God, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.
I find that when most Christians hear "universalist" they think "UUA", and think that means Jesus is superfluous.
But, my understanding was through Christian Universalism, or Ultimate Reconciliation -- that ALL are (eventually) saved, even if it takes hell to rehabilitate them (burn their deception off so they can see Him for who He is, and thus believe).
I'd say my husband is largely there, but with some partial preterism thrown in ... he's not sure about everything being fulfilled, but, then again, he was marinated in seminary...! So - I'm dragging him to Transmillennial 2008, so we can get a new marinade recipe!:biggrinbounce:
I'm starting to grapple with what looks to me that all WERE saved - a done deal. Some are awake to that, and others are still snoozing (sleep-walking!)!:D
From what I understand, Universalism always meant "Jesus universally saves all" historically, until the past century, when the Unitarian and Universalist churches merged and hijacked the term.
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Davo -
Thanks for that spell-out... that's precisely what I've been trying to articulalte to my husband and others ... that where universalism and preterism have gaps, pantelism fills in the gaps, and engages us in the here and now (& continuing).
Like the "elect", we are saved not only for our own sakes, but we're saved in order to cooperate with God's unfolding plan for continuing to redeem all of creation.
(still trying to discern the distinctions, if any, between Pantelism and Transmillennialism -- I see incredible overlap, even among the posters!)
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chaela
09-15-2008, 09:09 AM
Something I'd like to solidify in my mind a bit more is how pantelism sees post-mortem life. Is there any sort of official conclusion drawn by pantelism in general pertaining to that?
Hi Dena… one issue, and it's an important one is the matter of life in the "here and now". This is where Pantelism is significantly different from both prêterism AND universalism – prêterism remains stuck in the past while universalism is stuck in the future, as in post death.
Now in the religious realm, whether Universalism [all go to heaven] or Partialism [some go to heaven], the WHOLE argument is geared around "post-mortem" i.e., what happens AFTER death. Pantelism views this whole paradigm when aligned with the Scriptures as being in error. That there is life after life after death is NOT in dispute, but "how" that itself transpires the bible is relatively thin on.
Hey Davo!
I'm back from Transmillennial 2008 conference -- gotta say, so much is now falling into place! I'm much less focused on either the past or the future, but wanting to explore the here and now -- man, the sky's the limit, no?
Of course I'm a bit curious about the "after physical death" thingy. Most of what I previously attributed to heaven, is really about the new heavens and new earth (this covenant we're living in). Now, there's mostly a blank about the afterlife, except that there's apparently no marriage. I'm wondering and speculating about all manner of things (especially as I get this question a LOT when I share about fulfilled eschatology). I've wondered if we become part of the "great cloud of witnesses"? Wondering about Paul's visit to the third heaven. Wondering if we go elsewhere in the universe? Lots to ponder - but again, I'm more concerned about living NOW. Really living, like never before!
BTW, I had the impression that you were coming to T-2008 - was that your plan? I was hoping to meet you in person. Perhaps another time!
Chaela
09-15-2008, 05:39 PM
Hey Davo!
I'm back from Transmillennial 2008 conference -- gotta say, so much is now falling into place! I'm much less focused on either the past or the future, but wanting to explore the here and now -- man, the sky's the limit, no?
Of course I'm a bit curious about the "after physical death" thingy. Most of what I previously attributed to heaven, is really about the new heavens and new earth (this covenant we're living in). Now, there's mostly a blank about the afterlife, except that there's apparently no marriage. I'm wondering and speculating about all manner of things (especially as I get this question a LOT when I share about fulfilled eschatology). I've wondered if we become part of the "great cloud of witnesses"? Wondering about Paul's visit to the third heaven. Wondering if we go elsewhere in the universe? Lots to ponder - but again, I'm more concerned about living NOW. Really living, like never before!
I'm curious about the after physical death thing as well. For all my enthusiasm for living in the Now, there is the realization that one day the Now will be at a point after physical death, and it seems (to me) that the realized-redemption/salvation thing gets eerily silent on that issue.
.
"It" gets silent only because the Scriptures are largely silent on the issue... whereas the traditional church system has no problem in speculating until a speculatioin is accepted as doctrine, this particular "movement" (for lack of a better word) has more integrity than to make something up, and push it as truth.
I understand your desire to know -- it's one of the top questions of all time. But if God sees fit to be silent on the issue, who are we to demand answers? Perhaps we can trust Him, given all that He's done for us, all that He has shown us, in the here and now, to trust that His character and nature can only give us something wonderful on the other side of that threshhold...?
Perhaps it's about so knowing Him, and trusting Him that we'll follow Him anywhere... even if the way looks dark and unfamiliar?
I don't find the silence eerie at all, only honest.
Shalom, Dena
"The unanswered questions aren't nearly as dangerous as the
unquestioned answers."
"We turn to God for help when our foundations are shaking only to
learn that it is God shaking them." - Charles West
"Naked is having no clothes on. Nekkid is having no clothes on and
being up to something."
"Our truth, when it becomes the ONLY truth, ceases to be truth."
"While we're not fearful of tasting new things, we don't necessarily
swallow all that we taste."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chaela
09-16-2008, 07:17 AM
Of course I'm a bit curious about the "after physical death" thingy. Most of what I previously attributed to heaven, is really about the new heavens and new earth (this covenant we're living in). Now, there's mostly a blank about the afterlife, except that there's apparently no marriage. I'm wondering and speculating about all manner of things (especially as I get this question a LOT when I share about fulfilled eschatology). I've wondered if we become part of the "great cloud of witnesses"? Wondering about Paul's visit to the third heaven. Wondering if we go elsewhere in the universe?
I understand your desire to know -- it's one of the top questions of all time. But if God sees fit to be silent on the issue, who are we to demand answers? Perhaps we can trust Him, given all that He's done for us, all that He has shown us, in the here and now, to trust that His character and nature can only give us something wonderful on the other side of that threshhold...?
It would seem I helped you answer your very own question, Dena! :o Still, do you see any difference at all between "wondering" about the afterlife and "demanding answers"?
Chaela,
Interesting point. I see the difference, and wonder though if it would even matter to God (whether we're demanding or wondering). Would he really not have us explore and question things? Every question is important imo.
As you probably know, I enjoy digging into the deep stuff. I think in this case that there is a simple sort of answer though - the resurrection of Jesus. Before that, the Hebrews also had no view of what lie beyond the grave. It was unknowable and the very word "sheol" translated "grave" means "unanswerable" or "unseen". That's because they couldn't see past their own experiences. Fellowship with God, from that perspective, could only happen in the here and now. Jesus opened their eyes to the bigger picture - and ours. The martyrs were fearless in giving up their lives because frankly though the Romans or fellow Israelites could take their lives, they knew that wasn't the end. But this is just my own point of view mind you and where I am at right now.
Amie
Barry
09-16-2008, 08:34 AM
Great discussion.
I have a few thoughts.
Hope no one minds my rambling. :)
If we go back to the traditional view (which is of course just another way of saying the view that developed through getting most things wrong to begin with), to take a closer look at we find that even there there is no real consensus.
Most Christians believe in some way two simultaneous opposing points. That being a Physical Resurrection while at the same time believe that the physical doesn't make it [as per the interpretation of "flesh and blood shall not inherit"].
Often concluding some sort of physical but yet spiritual postmortem continuity at the resurrection. [many Christians imagine some sort of spiritually preserved fleshly body]
Just bring up the subject to someone and ask them what they think of the resurrection [as this related to our post mortem discussion].
"Christ was raised physically, right?"
"He had both flesh and bone, right?"
"But flesh and blood doesn't make it right?"
Then usually the answer is something like, "Well I don't know exactly what it will be like but...."
Now bring up sheol [Hades].
Is that rest a conscious place or a bonafide sleeping?
And how often do we get any real consensus on that question?
And this is just the beginning of it.
Someone might say, that they believe, "the spirit goes to God and then waits for a body at the resurrection".
But why exactly then would one need a "spiritual body" if they were fine without one for a few hundred or even thousand years?
What is the point of such a body?
And why is that called "sleep" [Why is waiting for a body called "sleep"?]?
The the "traditional" view is IMHO very obscure. What it does often possess in it's doctrinal approach, is a way of trying to preserve the "self" beyond the framework of this realm. That pursuit gets framed in the subject of church "doctrine".
What we can "see" in the above is that "doctrine" takes a precedence over the concept of "relationship". In that it becomes a pursuit of a postmortem "self" that preserves what one thinks they are.
Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Mat 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mat 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mat 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
In the above setting we might see that Peter [Called Satan here], is trying to preserve something about how he sees himself for himself.
In my research I have called this the "self defined ego". With that in mind we get a somewhat better idea of what Christ is saying in the next few verses. So Jesus is asking for some type of "surrender" in the following context.
Mat 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
Now notice how postmortem became "unimportant" to "relationship" or the continuity of the relationship in what I have called the "God defined self" to the life or "soul" that was found.
In short, for the one who denied the self defined self, from within the authority to self define [which was attached to the "law" and the whole of the old economy] and so lost this "life", this "soul" by following Christ through the transition of the ages, their possible biological death then is seen as unimportant to the continuity of the relationship.
These first century or "pre end of age" Christians are giving up on trying to define themselves for themselves, through an independent human potential. IMHO once one sees this precedence in scripture it really stands out everywhere.
Like here:
Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me.
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
He was defining himself through ownership. He was defining himself through possessions. He was defining himself through law keeping.
Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
So the "soul" that was "lost" through the catastrophic ending of the old covenant was the self defined self that had standing in the precedence of types and figures.
An article that IMHO very well embodies my views on this way of seeing "identity" is by David Timm, here:
http://www.presence.tv/cms/con-grace-upon-all-timm.php
My view however is to see the "identity" issue as one of an "ego" issue. I believe that such explains very well Romans chapter 7.
With this in mind my view is that salvation was for "this life" and not for postmortem continuity.
Rom 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
My present view of Sheol is one of a historical [temporal] "rest" or "sleep". At times dead folk spoke but IMHO it related to their life here historically.
However my intent is not to support this view in this particular post. But rather just to show how unimportant biological death was to those who trusted in God. And that the relationship is the focus, more than any other matter or issue or "doctrine".
Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? [shall] tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Just a few personal thoughts on a very vast subject.
My intent is not at all to imply that the traditional views are "ego-centric" in and of itself, but only that it can be at times traced toward that direction in general terms of how Christian tradition has stayed the course of rejecting further investigation which might undermine it's perceived authority. Certainly no personal inference is intended in my comments. And all questions and comments, are welcomed.
We are all learning here, and I have many questions myself. In short, this view of mine is far from being fully worked through.
Blessings Barry
Correction:
"But rather just to show how important biological death" was changed to; "But rather just to show how unimportant important biological death"
Eric B
09-16-2008, 11:00 AM
I myself had grown weary of some of these debates.. I had long ago adopted the Millerite view of the slee of the soul. Traditionalists would insist, basiclly, that 2 Cor. "says" that "TO BE absent from the Body IS TO BE present with the Lord", which is not what it actually says. Yet they accuse the Millerites of ignoring "clear scriptures", and insist that "sleep" only refers to the body, yet could not for the life of them explain why the soul goes to Heaven or Hell first, then the body "joins" it later. (As one Adventist kept pointing out, Jesus said, "Lazarus sleeps; I go to wake HIM"; not "Lazarus' BODY sleeps; I go to wake IT".
In adopting the fulfilled view, yet not wanting to spiritualize the resurrection (Corinthians still makes it clear to me that it is literal), I've had to apply it to the saints then, following the theory of full pret Ed Stevens, who argues for a literal resurrection in AD70 (available on Preterist Archives. This was actually the first key to me opening up to a preterist-based view!)
So this leaves us out of it, and barring any future "dual fulfillment", it's back to the old "go to Heaven when you die", only we lose all the descriptions of Heaven to AD70 symbolism. Only, the firstfruits would have their original bodies back, and not us. Who knows.
As for "flesh and blood in the kingdom", many futurists realize that that was referring to the current sinful state, and does not preclude actual physical bodies. The resurrected physical bodies, they belive, would not have the sinful urges like we have today.
The "self-defined ego" Peter and others were displaying was the belief that the Messiah was to come and overthrow the Romans and set up a physical kingdom then. They believed in going to Heaven after you die if you were good and kept the Law, but they still wanted a kingdom on earth;
I guess, like everyone else, who wants to wait until you die, when you're not even fully certain what that is like, or if you're even making it to Heaven? So Jesus speaking of dying dashed that hope, thus Peter stood up and opposed it. You can almost see his (and everyone else's) dreams of "the gold and glitter of Solomon's day", etc (Phil Yancey) fading way with Peter holding onto it desperately as he says "No, this shall not happen to you!" (I know, for this is what it felt like holding onto a soon "Second Coming" that already seemed to constantly recede like a ghost ship on the horizon, and for thousands of years already; and then being confronted with Preterism, and seeing its superior handle on the time scriptures, which seemed to explain everything. Once I encountered the completely "fulfilled" view; then it all made total sense).
Chaela
09-16-2008, 12:01 PM
The martyrs were fearless in giving up their lives because frankly though the Romans or fellow Israelites could take their lives, they knew that wasn't the end. But this is just my own point of view mind you and where I am at right now.
Amie
Amie, what you said reminded me of Hebrews 12:2:
"Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."
I'm thinking this would have been harder for the martyrs you mentioned and Jesus Himself if there was nothing at least relatively pleasant awaiting them beyond the tomb. :)
Then there's Luke 23:43, where Jesus reassures the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in Paradise.
I find just those two passages alone very reassuring. I have found that the pantelist perspective really rocks, :D but have also had the sense that, in exchange for believing that everything's hunky-dory now, one had to give up the belief in a future happiness beyond the grave. In other words, our Nows now are fabulific; it's the Nows that come later that will, basically, stink. :eek:
I can't remember where exactly I read it, but some preterist types were actually settling for the prospect of outright nonexistence after physical death, and it seemed that, by golly, it was just fine by them because all of their Nows were coming up Eden. :uhh:
Maybe I've just lived too long with a future-paradise perspective, but even a present-Eden mentality is inadequate to me if it must come to an end the moment I stop breathing ....
As for "flesh and blood in the kingdom", many futurists realize that that was referring to the current sinful state, and does not preclude actual physical bodies. The resurrected physical bodies, they belive, would not have the sinful urges like we have today.
My personal view (which is where I am currently at, not declaratively at) is that "flesh and blood" was a mindset existant within "flesh and blood" Israel and representative of then human thinking. We do not think like that now because this is not the same world. IE:
Romans 8
5 For the ones that are according to flesh mind the things of the flesh. And the ones according to Spirit mind the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace;
7 because the mind of the flesh is enmity towards God; for it is not being subjected to the Law of God, for neither can it be.
My present view of Sheol is one of a historical [temporal] "rest" or "sleep". At times dead folk spoke but IMHO it related to their life here historically.
However my intent is not to support this view in this particular post. But rather just to show how unimportant biological death was to those who trusted in God. And that the relationship is the focus, more than any other matter or issue or "doctrine".
My sharing was per the meaning of the word and how the people then viewed biological death. It was an unanswerable question - there was no position. Rather, death itself was seen as the inability to have any interaction with God in view - therefore for as far as they knew at all.
I could not agree with you more that faith in God made the answer without importance. They understood that they knew not where he was leading them, but that they were in his hands.
Sheol therefore, imo, was the perfect example for the state of Israel historically - as well as the need for her resurrection within that same framework.
I think that the resurrection of Jesus, brought about the resurrection of Israel in that way. However, I also think that made the question of sheol answered - which is the same answer as always - "in God's hands".
As one Adventist kept pointing out, Jesus said, "Lazarus sleeps; I go to wake HIM"; not "Lazarus' BODY sleeps; I go to wake IT".
Imo, profound.
They believed in going to Heaven after you die if you were good and kept the Law, but they still wanted a kingdom on earth;
I do not think that they ever had a position on the afterlife. Rather, they envisioned God's kingdom coming to earth as Jesus declared it to be coming soon. That coming though, they viewed wholly as a physical thing. They had no concept of anything more. Jesus, imo, was a mind blower.
You can almost see his (and everyone else's) dreams of "the gold and glitter of Solomon's day", etc (Phil Yancey) fading way with Peter holding onto it desperately as he says "No, this shall not happen to you!"
I love the imagry that you use above.
In adopting the fulfilled view, yet not wanting to spiritualize the resurrection (Corinthians still makes it clear to me that it is literal), I've had to apply it to the saints then, following the theory of full pret Ed Stevens, who argues for a literal resurrection in AD70 (available on Preterist Archives. This was actually the first key to me opening up to a preterist-based view!)
I am not familiar with Stevens' view on things - it sounds as if I see things differently. I believe that the resurrection WAS literal, yet that not meaning that bodies were floating up invisibly out of graves. Rather, this was life brought to this life where there had not been life before.
Maybe I've just lived too long with a future-paradise perspective, but even a present-Eden mentality is inadequate to me if it must come to an end the moment I stop breathing ....
I couldn't agree more sis. There is more to it and I love and lift up that which you shared. Has anyone decided not to go to a loved one's funeral citing that there's a party to go to "now"?
Do you know that the ancient Hebraic view of "now" includes the past and the future? "Now" to them equated "what is, was, and will be". We can stand in a fertile field (now) and see the fruits of our labor (what was) and envision growth in that (what will be) for example. Time was circular and relative to cycles and seasons - not linear. Therefore past and future were included. I hope that makes sense.
Amie
Now NOT everyone is called of God to "serve" – such a calling then IS "exclusive" or "partialistic",
Imo, no one can NOT serve God. One can perhaps be however, unaware of their own importance.
Amie
Something I'd like to solidify in my mind a bit more is how pantelism sees post-mortem life. Is there any sort of official conclusion drawn by pantelism in general pertaining to that?Only that however it is that life after life after death works out, God has it all in hand.
BTW, I had the impression that you were coming to T-2008 - was that your plan? I was hoping to meet you in person. Perhaps another time!Hi Dena, sorry about that, I'm not sure how that came about… I sure would've liked to have attended as it sounds like it was brilliant :).
I'm curious about the after physical death thing as well. For all my enthusiasm for living in the Now, there is the realization that one day the Now will be at a point after physical death, and it seems (to me) that the realized-redemption/salvation thing gets eerily silent on that issue.I think it's more a case of being confident that just as we realise there's more to our life in God now, that however it is beyond this realm that such unknown-ness need not phase us, knowing again that God's grace is indeed more and beyond what we could imagine – something we're only beginning to grasp as we "see" how much more God's grace HAS abounded in THIS life – which surely bodes well, for well beyond it :).
Imo, no one can NOT serve God. One can perhaps be however, unaware of their own importance.Yeah well that's given hey… :) which really points to the fact that "fulfilment" REALLY DOES have a message i.e., "y'all count to God!"
Mystic
11-02-2008, 11:05 AM
Would anyone here agree that a Preterist Universalist is comparable to a Pantelist?
Me Again
11-02-2008, 11:21 AM
Comparable? Depends.
The same? No.
Barry
11-02-2008, 12:18 PM
Would anyone here agree that a Preterist Universalist is comparable to a Pantelist?
The administrators here at talk-grace have their own little variations on the subject of CG (comprehensive grace). [Which adds to the flexibility and openness of this forum]
I agree with Ed's point above.
My own position is that salvation was not for post-mortem continuity but for this life.
So the initial premise of Universalism (though I could be wrong, it's happened before LOL) as a means of getting everyone saved so that they can get to heaven would be IMHO a miss-direction of sorts.
I really like the spirit and love that PU advocates have, and would hope to see more fellowship and communication between us.
Barry
G'day Bruce… I tend to agree, naturally enough [:)], with the chaps above. Although IMO we'd be in a similar ball park I'd have to say the major and not insignificant difference between Universalism and Pantelism is as Barry noted… the focus of God's restorative grace in Christ being pertinent to this life. Obviously that doesn't discount nor dismiss life after life after death, but again that is the main focus of Universalism, whereas Pantelism in acknowledging the latter understands these things more in the "here and now".
Strangely enough however, Universalism [everybody goes to Heaven] IS most definitely in the same ball park as Partialism [most do NOT go to Heaven] – again the "hereafter" being the primary focus of BOTH positions. A Christ-honouring Universalism tends to come to its inclusive conclusions basically through a philosophical penchant. Pantelism however comes to its inclusive conclusions primarily through an eschatological grid.
Thus Pantelism sees the promises God made to and fulfilled in Israel as the means whereby His intended blessings of grace were to come upon the rest of humankind, the ends. Seeing this function of Israel's fullness isn't something Universalism per se really considers. It is in this light then that many texts universalists attribute to all mankind Pantelism views as pertinent to and primarily fulfilled in the AD30-70 end time period of the changing of the covenants – but then true for all by extension in secondary application.
One example might be how we respectively read and so understand the following:
Universalism = "God is not willing that any [all men] should perish [forever in hell], but that all [men] should come to repentance ".
[B]Pantelism = "God is not willing that any [of Israel, and those identifying with her] should perish [in Israel's AD66-70 conflagrations], but that all [of Israel, and those identifying with her] should come to repentance Lk 13:3-5 and so escape and so "be saved" Mt 24:13]".
So Pantelism views Israel's redemption as God's catalyst for the world's reconciliation – thus there is restoration.
That said however, I'd say we have more in common than what we don't :).
Anyway Bruce have a look at some similar thoughts on my blog I've just started HERE (http://pantelism.wordpress.com/).
Laren
11-02-2008, 10:48 PM
So how is this verse viewed from a panelist view:
1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.
who is the all men? is it "all Israel"??
which included grafted in gentiles.
are the "especially" those who were resurrected to life, via staying faithufl to the end
and the rest of "all mankind" those saved through fire??
Universal salvation was true, in the sense of "all Israel saved", (via Holy Spirit, or by Fire).
correct??
Bruce,
If you're looking for a friendly place to kick it, you've found it. As the folks have pointed out, though that is not the focus of "Pantelism", UR is a reality in both worlds (this and the hereafter). Not everyone around here takes on the monikor "Pantelist". I'd say it fits me well - as do some other labels :D (IE "Brucist" lol!). Non-labels are cool with me too, but I still find myself typically stuck with "Amie". Can't get past that one, lol!
I'm glad to see ya checking in and hope to see more of you. They would appreciate your killer sense of humor around here!
Amie
So how is this verse viewed from a panelist view:
1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.
who is the all men? is it "all Israel"??
which included grafted in gentiles.
are the "especially" those who were resurrected to life, via staying faithufl to the end
and the rest of "all mankind" those saved through fire??
Universal salvation was true, in the sense of "all Israel saved", (via Holy Spirit, or by Fire).
correct??
Laren,
I think that "all men" is "all men" universally. I think that the salvation of all Israel was an outward revelation of the salvation of humanity as a whole.
The beginning of the book imo, is a macro/universal story which enables we readers to understand the micro/local story. The micro/local story also enables we readers to understand the macro/universal story. I hope that makes sense, lol!
Amie
Me Again
11-03-2008, 09:44 AM
So how is this verse viewed from a panelist view:
1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.
who is the all men? is it "all Israel"??
which included grafted in gentiles.
are the "especially" those who were resurrected to life, via staying faithufl to the end
and the rest of "all mankind" those saved through fire??
Universal salvation was true, in the sense of "all Israel saved", (via Holy Spirit, or by Fire).
correct??
I would say that, in the near term, that verse referred to all Israel, especially believing Israel, but also Israel that would be "resurrected FROM condemnation." In the broader sense (what Israel's salvation represented), it means ALL humanity, because Israel/Adam was to be God's representative for all humanity. The first Adam failed, and the Last Adam did not. Adam failed to "save his bride" and thus brought condemnation/death on all, whereas the Last Adam did save his bride (Israel/church), and thus brought reconciliation/life to all humanity.
Hope that makes sense.
ed
Barry
11-03-2008, 10:16 AM
A couple of thoughts:
1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe.
1Ti 2:1 I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men;
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
1Ti 2:3 For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
Tts 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
Paul's "all men" is Universal within the sphere of then then applicable "world" of Israel's influence. Which did include both Jew and Gentile.
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device {or that he dwells in temples made with hands 17:24}.
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Act 17:31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Act 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as [he did] unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
Act 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
The only way out of this is (IMO) to make a claim that all of the Gentiles in question in all of these verses are Israel as Diaspora or lost tribe.
A position which I believe is untenable.
Paul's "all men" referred to the then "world" of Israel's reach, or auspice.
Those that could "see" what God was doing by revelation through Israel as the "roots".
Such represented the universality of the revelation toward all men period.
For when Man defines himself for himself through the visible or natural world around him (the self defined ego in the precedence of types and figures) he does not see the divine within him. For such does not itself reveal or manifest the unconditional love of God.
This was the point in having a fulfilled revelation which sprang out of types and figures which did not contain the express image of the true things.
Israel both expressed and headed up a Universalistic problem (rather an immaturity) in the temple made with hands and animal sacrifices. It was use therefore toward a Universalistic solution wherein it's sphere or influenced is used to reveal the truth about God. Wherein the influence itself serves as a historical marker even beyond its initial manifestation.
Barry
Mystic
11-03-2008, 10:45 AM
Bruce,
If you're looking for a friendly place to kick it, you've found it. As the folks have pointed out, though that is not the focus of "Pantelism", UR is a reality in both worlds (this and the hereafter). Not everyone around here takes on the monikor "Pantelist". I'd say it fits me well - as do some other labels :D (IE "Brucist" lol!). Non-labels are cool with me too, but I still find myself typically stuck with "Amie". Can't get past that one, lol!
I'm glad to see ya checking in and hope to see more of you. They would appreciate your killer sense of humor around here!
Amie
Thanks, Amie.
It slipped my mind, as many things do, that Universalism has many meanings. I was going for the " born saved" interpretation. In that respect I would be of the Pant-less persuasion as well.:D Amie suits you kindly by the way. Thank you all for taking time to respond. I'll check out your comments at your site, Davo.
On a side note, my buddy Berkeley sent Opus to bed. Sunday mornings with communion-ie starbucks-and the comics just won't be the same.
On a side note, my buddy Berkeley sent Opus to bed. Sunday mornings with communion-ie starbucks-and the comics just won't be the same.
First Calvin and Hobbes and now this?! What is the world coming to?!
Amie
Laren, as I would see it this is not so much in an either/or situation but more a "what is the order of these things" etc – it's this order of things, that when considered can help explain certain passages of scripture in ways that make more logical sense. You'll note that often Paul writes of "first the Jew and then the Gentile" i.e., there was an order to the outworking of the redemptive story. Also above you'll remember that I posed what I said in terms of "primary fulfilment" and then "secondary application" – perhaps "subsequent" might be a better choice of words.
That said… generically speaking i.e., the end result or subsequent application is indeed inclusive of all humanity, BUT "how" that came to be was specifically speaking to Israel and the first-fruit saints and the changing of "their world" – a change that wrought divinely intended perpetual effect thereafter. IOW, God was indeed the Saviour of all Israel, and more the so of them the first-fruits that believed. Now because this was true, the rest is likewise in consequence true; BECAUSE in Israel's redemption is found the reconciliation of the world beyond Israel – and so in that much broader sense God IS the Saviour of all… Jesus you will recall said: "salvation is of the Jews" – meaning it was primarily FOR the Jews [first] and OF or by way of the Jews to those beyond i.e., the Gentiles.
Let me give you another example of what I'm trying to say. This is God's world, He made the world and He loves the world. Now when we think of that we can quite naturally think of that well known passage Jn 3:16. Now as true as the "global" implications of this verse are, Pantelism actually understands this verse more specifically in terms of Israel, and this is how – typically read "globally" we have:
Jn 3:16-17 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Now taking into account Israel's covenant world the meaning of the above can be understood as:
Jn 3:16-17 For God so loved Israel that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever of Israel believes in Him might not perish in the coming wrath, but might have life into the age about to come. For God did not send His Son unto Israel to condemn the Israel, but that Israel through Him might be saved [Mt 1:21; Rom 11:26-27].
As you can see "world" is viewed as being focused on "Israel", but again, not to the total exclusion of all else, but Jesus FIRST came as Israel's Messiah, and THEN in obedience became the world's Lord. Now there are a number of texts that tend to indicate this more localised understanding of "world" – one verse such is:
[b]Lk 1:70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, who have been since the world began…
From Israel's inception the prophets were God's mouthpiece in Israel – from her beginning i.e., "since the world began".
So Pantelism does see certain "world" texts [not all] of the New Testament as "Israel" orientated by virtue of the fact that Israel was the divinely pre-ordained and chosen redemptive vessel, but always with a wider divinely pre-ordained "all inclusive application" that all humanity might ultimately be reconciled to Him. Thus it is not wrong in that sense to acknowledge that God does indeed pursues us for He does indeed "so love the world".
Again Laren just to recap – Pantelism ISN'T saying it's one as opposed to the other; but rather it's one BECAUSE OF the other, that is, the world of man has been reconciled BECAUSE the world of Israel was redeemed. And it is some of Israel's redemptive story which is the basis for the greater story of restoration that Universalism per se misses but that Pantelism because of its "fulfilled" hermeneutic picks up on.
Laren
11-05-2008, 06:23 PM
Laren, as I would see it this is not so much in an either/or situation but more a "what is the order of these things" etc – it's this order of things, that when considered can help explain certain passages of scripture in ways that make more logical sense. You'll note that often Paul writes of "first the Jew and then the Gentile" i.e., there was an order to the outworking of the redemptive story. Also above you'll remember that I posed what I said in terms of "primary fulfilment" and then "secondary application" – perhaps "subsequent" might be a better choice of words.
That said… generically speaking i.e., the end result or subsequent application is indeed inclusive of all humanity, BUT "how" that came to be was specifically speaking to Israel and the first-fruit saints and the changing of "their world" – a change that wrought divinely intended perpetual effect thereafter. IOW, God was indeed the Saviour of all Israel, and more the so of them the first-fruits that believed. Now because this was true, the rest is likewise in consequence true; BECAUSE in Israel's redemption is found the reconciliation of the world beyond Israel – and so in that much broader sense God IS the Saviour of all… Jesus you will recall said: "salvation is of the Jews" – meaning it was primarily FOR the Jews [first] and OF or by way of the Jews to those beyond i.e., the Gentiles.
Let me give you another example of what I'm trying to say. This is God's world, He made the world and He loves the world. Now when we think of that we can quite naturally think of that well known passage Jn 3:16. Now as true as the "global" implications of this verse are, Pantelism actually understands this verse more specifically in terms of Israel, and this is how – typically read "globally" we have:
Jn 3:16-17 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Now taking into account Israel's covenant world the meaning of the above can be understood as:
Jn 3:16-17 For God so loved Israel that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever of Israel believes in Him might not perish in the coming wrath, but might have life into the age about to come. For God did not send His Son unto Israel to condemn the Israel, but that Israel through Him might be saved [Mt 1:21; Rom 11:26-27].
As you can see "world" is viewed as being focused on "Israel", but again, not to the total exclusion of all else, but Jesus FIRST came as Israel's Messiah, and THEN in obedience became the world's Lord. Now there are a number of texts that tend to indicate this more localised understanding of "world" – one verse such is:
[b]Lk 1:70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets, who have been since the world began…
From Israel's inception the prophets were God's mouthpiece in Israel – from her beginning i.e., "since the world began".
So Pantelism does see certain "world" texts [not all] of the New Testament as "Israel" orientated by virtue of the fact that Israel was the divinely pre-ordained and chosen redemptive vessel, but always with a wider divinely pre-ordained "all inclusive application" that all humanity might ultimately be reconciled to Him. Thus it is not wrong in that sense to acknowledge that God does indeed pursues us for He does indeed "so love the world".
Again Laren just to recap – Pantelism ISN'T saying it's one as opposed to the other; but rather it's one BECAUSE OF the other, that is, the world of man has been reconciled BECAUSE the world of Israel was redeemed. And it is some of Israel's redemptive story which is the basis for the greater story of restoration that Universalism per se misses but that Pantelism because of its "fulfilled" hermeneutic picks up on.
...
So Pantelism does see certain "world" texts [not all] of the New Testament as "Israel" orientated by virtue of the fact that Israel was the divinely pre-ordained and chosen redemptive vessel, but always with a wider divinely pre-ordained "all inclusive application" that all humanity might ultimately be reconciled to Him. Thus it is not wrong in that sense to acknowledge that God does indeed pursues us for He does indeed "so love the world".
thanks davo for your entire post, and i'm still trying to grasp. I think what u are saying is that the "non believers" were saved in the sense that they were reconciled,
but not "saved, in the sense delivered" from the wrath of God;
And because of this reconciliation, every human from the parousia onward is reconciled to God, or saved in that sense.
What I struggle with, is that this requires imo; a view of God who was angry for man's disobediance, and not at peace with mankind; but now is at peace because of the sacrifice of his son. This to me represents a "changing" God, one who is appeased now because of Jesus death, burial and resurrection.
With the "unease" I feel lately with life, I struggle with this concept that Jesus sacrifice was needed in order for God to be "OK", reconciled to disobedient Israel and as a whole to all mankind.
For me, what I keep going to in my mind is, God has always been at peace with mankind; always unconditionally loving us, and it was mankind who has not been at peace with God. Until LOVE was/is revealed, we respond in a similar manner to those who were under law; and "project" our limited understanding onto God. We project a "conditional love" onto him.
I think a thread on what was the "cross really needed for" from a pantelist point of view would be interesting, and hopefully help me to understand better the purpose of Jesus death, burial and resurrection.
hope this all makes sense, and I apologize if it is the same old "me" rehashing things that don't make sense anymore, since coming to a better understanding of "unconditional love".
Once again, "why did God need Jesus to die and be resurrected"?
Paige
11-05-2008, 07:41 PM
Laren,
I wonder about the wording of your question.
"why did God need Jesus to die and be resurrected"?
Did God need? Is this what you understand pantelism to be teaching?
Paige
Laren
11-05-2008, 08:55 PM
Laren,
I wonder about the wording of your question.
Did God need? Is this what you understand pantelism to be teaching?
Paige
probably poor wording Paige. Not only pantelism, but Christianity in general. Here is what I struggle with, not sure I can put it in words real well. I grew up with the belief that the heart of man is exceedingly deceitful, no good.
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Mankind is not Holy, and God demands Holiness. To remedy this horrible state of mankind; God sent the solution, Jesus Christ. Through his death, burial and resurrection; those who believe in Him, no longer will be seen as sinful, deceitful, and failure (in measurement to his Holiness) but will be seen through the blood of Jesus as righteous and actually will have a "heart change", a new creation. Those believers will escape the wrath of God. God no longer is angry at them, but continues to be angry at those who reject the gospel.
Then my beliefs changed, as I contemplated; how could a God eternally damn his creatures to a life of hell/fire.
I became universalist in thinking. Now the universalist thinking was not just, OH God loves us, and all are going to spend the next life in bliss; but rather God is "creating" (not created) mankind into his image; and this process is through a process of judgment. This judgment is fire. The elect, which I believed was still "in effect", would go through judgment now (judgment to begin at the house of God) and we believers who were faithful to the end (a future coming of Christ) would be resurrected in the first resurrection and get to reign with Christ in coming ages to be the means throught Christ (Resurrected Jesus-head, adn his body of believers) to bring all to a knowledge of him. All would learn righteousness
Isa 26:9 With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. The second resurrection was to the lake of fire, which was the judgment.
Then I learned about preterism, and before ever finding this sight, could see universalistic plan via preterism. But the focus was on, prophecy was fulfilled, through Christ; reconciliation took place; and God no longer looks at man as having a deceitful heart, but actually because of the blood of Christ, and the change of heart in all; we are "friends" with God, with no more wrath to come upon mankind. The everlasting age of grace. Then I found pantelism beliefs, and to me; it was saying the same thing. God's judgments were only for his chosen, Israel; the "House of God" went through judgment, a trial of their faith by fire
1Pe 4:12 Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you:
which produced and resulted in them being made into his image
1Jn 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
and the "non believers" went through destructive judgment, for lack of faith; and saw their house come crashing down. Ground to powder.
Mat 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
And through this, reconciliation to all.
Now, as I have read here and other places; I am coming to a realization that God's view of man has never changed. His love is unconditional, and always has been.
The reconciliation that took place was in "our minds", coming to awareness of unconditional love. God was at peace with us all along, it was us or them who were not at peace with who we are or how God sees us.
So, now; I question; why did there need to be a death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus; which brought in reconciliation; when imo; God has always been reconciled. He never changes. Why did he pour out wrath upon non believers, when he never was "angry". Why could a God who is unconditional, choose to pour out wrath upon some (and blind their eyes and hearts and ears so they couldn't understand) and poor out his glory on another group??
Mat 13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
So if I believe the preterist view/pantelist view; that all prophecy is fulfilled, and God is not choosing to "give some to know the mysteries while witholding it from others" and that he no longer judges people; and no longer is a "consumng fire",
I question what is different now from then. Why are we off the hook from God's wrath and judgment and Israel wasnt'.
Why has God's view changed? or did it?? or was it man's view of God that was what always needed cchanging??
So, I get down to my question again,
did the cross change God's view of mankind??
I don't think so,
so then why was the cross necessary for you and me now. We were never under law, we were never God's chosen people, we never had God come and specifically part the red sea, etc etc. We never were in covenant with Him. So why do we need the cross?? Is our heart deceitful above all else, and only through the cross is God appeased??
I probably don't express myself clearly; and I'm sure many of u are tired of me being me, but these are sincere questions from my heart.
I am close to being done here, not because of all of u; but because I dont' understand why we are off the hook, and Israel wasnt'. They were judged, and we arent'. They were given the Holdy Spirit and we arent'. A few were saved, and most weren't. God is not pleased with sacrifice (can't remember the verse), yet Jesus sacrifice pleased Him.
frustrated internally
Laren
If you have time, this website outlines my previous views of universalism, which to me is much different than what most here see univeralsim as.
http://www.savior-of-all.com/
Laren,
In my view, what we are coming to terms with "in our minds" is because of the cross. The revelation of the love of God changed everything.
I believe, and I think (?) I understand that we have this in common -- that God loved us from the start, yet we were ignorant of it.
God's love was revealed to us in this life. From there, how do people react? Some go into denial, some try and prove why it can't be true even - some celebrate, some are still fearful. Eventually, reality wins imo. How long can humanity deny that there is an elephant in the room when each time they do it, they are stepped on by the elephant? "Kicking against the pricks" is a painful thing. Fighting reality hurts.
How much happiness is really found in religious settings? People go there and feel that they have to act fake, feel guilty for thinking for themselves, and think that they have to justify a God only interested in rewarding them for what they can do, and punishing them when they can't -- and who can all of the time? This God loves us, but has not a problem one with throwing us into hell, taking away our houses, or however else he chooses to punish us.
I have never been completely open about my views on that Laren, but I don't see any difference between what "I" have personally experienced in churches, and any other mind control cult. Not just in churches actually, but in groups of people adhering fervently to a single doctrine -- all who disagree are snubbed or painted as nuts. You MUST think like them, or you're an "idiot", "nieve", "devil spawn", "Jezebel spirit", etc etc.
I mentioned in another post about this book that I'm reading, "In Search of a better God". Well, already it turned out to be the same old crap - the author's effort at manipulating the reader into believing his way. I'm so sick sometimes of the vacuum cleaner dishonesty - of the tactics used by people interested in converting me - even using love as a means rather than the end itself. They pretend to be your friend, to relate to you, to connect with you, or whatever, but it is all with an agenda so to me it is FAKE.
I have found the folks around here to have real integrity. That we are exploring the bible with an open mind, and trying to keep our feet on the ground concerning history, culture, etc. I think that you are one of them/us. I do not think one need be a "pantelist" to be authentic and I personally would miss you horribly if you leave. HOWEVER, if staying is impeding your growth or happiness, I also would wish you God speed and much love.
To put things bluntly, as I seem to feel like doing right now, lol, Jesus did not die on the cross and get resurrected to appease God, he did so to reveal God. God was revealed in the afterlife imo, but not in this life. Jesus made the choice that he made - to expose the truth - knowing that he would die for it.
Also knowing that he would reveal life beyond this one, I don't think, would be so comforting. His death would be the most horrible in history so that it would be the loudest. He sweated blood in Gethsemane he was so afraid.
The salvation of "unbelievers" came in that it was revealed to the world that they are servants of God. Every unbeliever, God denier, liar, and murder, belong to God. Pharaoh, the people drowning in the flood, and Hitler -- all God's.
Apostate Israel believed that the law served as a means to keep them in relationship with God. They did not believe that the gentiles/Romans were God's. They believed that they could overthrow the Romans for that reason and their inabilty to do that will have been experienced for them as God's rejection of them. Their suffering, will have inspired wrath in God imo.
Have you never felt ticked off when your children would not listen and were suffering for it? Have you ever felt angry when you knew that they would have to experience negative consequences for themselves to learn a lesson? You are a passionate man, you must have.
Had the love of God never been revealed, we would never have known it either. The law convicted every person ever as sinners. No one was not a sinner, and no one would would be would not be a sinner. That was a universal judgment, as was the show of mercy.
I've got to get to work now. Hope I haven't rambled too much.
Amie
Paige
11-06-2008, 08:57 AM
Laren,
My thoughts can be summed up with what Amie said (beautifully) above. I would stress:
To put things bluntly, as I seem to feel like doing right now, lol, Jesus did not die on the cross and get resurrected to appease God, he did so to reveal God. God was revealed in the afterlife imo, but not in this life. Jesus made the choice that he made - to expose the truth - knowing that he would die for it.
Paige
Laren
11-06-2008, 10:31 AM
Laren,
In my view, what we are coming to terms with "in our minds" is because of the cross. The revelation of the love of God changed everything.
I believe, and I think (?) I understand that we have this in common -- that God loved us from the start, yet we were ignorant of it.
God's love was revealed to us in this life. From there, how do people react? Some go into denial, some try and prove why it can't be true even - some celebrate, some are still fearful. Eventually, reality wins imo. How long can humanity deny that there is an elephant in the room when each time they do it, they are stepped on by the elephant? "Kicking against the pricks" is a painful thing. Fighting reality hurts.
How much happiness is really found in religious settings? People go there and feel that they have to act fake, feel guilty for thinking for themselves, and think that they have to justify a God only interested in rewarding them for what they can do, and punishing them when they can't -- and who can all of the time? This God loves us, but has not a problem one with throwing us into hell, taking away our houses, or however else he chooses to punish us.
I have never been completely open about my views on that Laren, but I don't see any difference between what "I" have personally experienced in churches, and any other mind control cult. Not just in churches actually, but in groups of people adhering fervently to a single doctrine -- all who disagree are snubbed or painted as nuts. You MUST think like them, or you're an "idiot", "nieve", "devil spawn", "Jezebel spirit", etc etc.
I mentioned in another post about this book that I'm reading, "In Search of a better God". Well, already it turned out to be the same old crap - the author's effort at manipulating the reader into believing his way. I'm so sick sometimes of the vacuum cleaner dishonesty - of the tactics used by people interested in converting me - even using love as a means rather than the end itself. They pretend to be your friend, to relate to you, to connect with you, or whatever, but it is all with an agenda so to me it is FAKE.
I have found the folks around here to have real integrity. That we are exploring the bible with an open mind, and trying to keep our feet on the ground concerning history, culture, etc. I think that you are one of them/us. I do not think one need be a "pantelist" to be authentic and I personally would miss you horribly if you leave. HOWEVER, if staying is impeding your growth or happiness, I also would wish you God speed and much love.
To put things bluntly, as I seem to feel like doing right now, lol, Jesus did not die on the cross and get resurrected to appease God, he did so to reveal God. God was revealed in the afterlife imo, but not in this life. Jesus made the choice that he made - to expose the truth - knowing that he would die for it.
Also knowing that he would reveal life beyond this one, I don't think, would be so comforting. His death would be the most horrible in history so that it would be the loudest. He sweated blood in Gethsemane he was so afraid.
The salvation of "unbelievers" came in that it was revealed to the world that they are servants of God. Every unbeliever, God denier, liar, and murder, belong to God. Pharaoh, the people drowning in the flood, and Hitler -- all God's.
Apostate Israel believed that the law served as a means to keep them in relationship with God. They did not believe that the gentiles/Romans were God's. They believed that they could overthrow the Romans for that reason and their inabilty to do that will have been experienced for them as God's rejection of them. Their suffering, will have inspired wrath in God imo.
Have you never felt ticked off when your children would not listen and were suffering for it? Have you ever felt angry when you knew that they would have to experience negative consequences for themselves to learn a lesson? You are a passionate man, you must have.
Had the love of God never been revealed, we would never have known it either. The law convicted every person ever as sinners. No one was not a sinner, and no one would would be would not be a sinner. That was a universal judgment, as was the show of mercy.
I've got to get to work now. Hope I haven't rambled too much.
Amie
Hi Amie, I need to read what u wrote better when i have more time, but this quote u said struck me:
"God was revealed in the afterlife imo, but not in this life. Jesus made the choice that he made - to expose the truth - knowing that he would die for it."
Are you referring to those that went through the wrath, LOF/destruction of temple as the one's having love revealed in the "afterlife"?
because that is one of the things i've struggled with, is how did those who went through "fire", have "love revealed to them".
I love the part in romans 11 where Paul is talking about those that rejected the "stone", and he says they are enemies for the "elect" sake, but BELOVED for the fathers sake.
talk later.
Are you referring to those that went through the wrath, LOF/destruction of temple as the one's having love revealed in the "afterlife"?
because that is one of the things i've struggled with, is how did those who went through "fire", have "love revealed to them".
Imo, and I am pretty sure that Davo at least sees things differently -- there was never a problem in the afterlife to begin with. God was not revealed "in the flesh" so flesh did not know him. Everyone in the afterlife before and after "nonbelievers" - goes straight to the arms of a loving Father.
Does that mean a revelation of truth that is hard? That God reveals things as we can handle it (so sort of a purgatory)? Etc? I would think so, just because of how God's character is described biblically (a "consuming fire", "love", "merciful"). The only thing that I can know for sure is that we will be in his hands.
For some reason, though our life is "but a vapor", God thought it important to reveal himself right here.
Amie
What I struggle with, is that this requires imo; a view of God who was angry for man's disobediance, and not at peace with mankind; but now is at peace because of the sacrifice of his son. This to me represents a "changing" God, one who is appeased now because of Jesus death, burial and resurrection.Laren, it would be more correct to view God's displeasure more specifically as applying to those to whom had knowledge of His will.
Jas 3:1 My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
It is said that "knowledge is power". Israel as chosen by God to receive His revelation, call and priestly mandate were in the position of great responsibility. Adam's/Israel's deliberate contravening of God's word is what brought about their great separation, a separation that brought temporal wrath and a separation in need of redemption. This is what Jesus rectified through his faithful obedience. Mankind beyond Israel, out of whom Israel was chosen, were for all intents and purposes lost in the darkness of ignorance – God in His love for his creation chose Israel/Christ [true Israel] to bring mankind in from out of the cold i.e., reconciliation.
With the "unease" I feel lately with life, I struggle with this concept that Jesus sacrifice was needed in order for God to be "OK", reconciled to disobedient Israel and as a whole to all mankind. WHY did God see fit to do things this way? – no idea. But one thing is for sure – it is absolutely ok be feel uneasy. We don't like it but it is all part of journeying in life to have these times of internal uncertainty – they come AND they go.
Not only pantelism, but Christianity in general. Here is what I struggle with, not sure I can put it in words real well. I grew up with the belief that the heart of man is exceedingly deceitful, no good.
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Mankind is not Holy, and God demands Holiness.Again Laren it is important to view this in terms of "the people of God". Certainly we can all defer to the wrong, and quite naturally so, BUT we can and do all the more most commonly defer to the better, and again quite naturally. Also note that these things are written according to life under the old covenant. Now IF such can be the case for covenanted people it's only natural to assume the same from those in the darkness of ignorance, BUT does that equate to them all being the absolutely most depraved as possible? I don't believe so. Example… there was something about that pagan Abram that appealed to God and was subsequently harnessed by Him.
So if I believe the preterist view/pantelist view; that all prophecy is fulfilled, and God is not choosing to "give some to know the mysteries while witholding it from others" and that he no longer judges people; and no longer is a "consumng fire",
I question what is different now from then. Why are we off the hook from God's wrath and judgment and Israel wasnt'."God's wrath and judgment" was always relative to the carrying out of His will with regards to the fulfillment of Israel's redemption and the subsequent reconciliation that flowed from it – this being complete the difference is… no more wrath for sin, for the Law that was associated with Israel's fullness [Gal 3:24] was ended in Christ.
Hey Laren you might find this LINK (http://www.inclusioninternational.com/pearsonspeaks/v1i5/) thought provoking and interesting.
Laren
11-08-2008, 12:30 PM
Mankind beyond Israel, out of whom Israel was chosen, were for all intents and purposes lost in the darkness of ignorance – God in His love for his creation chose Israel/Christ [true Israel] to bring mankind in from out of the cold i.e., reconciliation.
WHY did God see fit to do things this way? – no idea.
Yeah, I wonder why too.
But one thing is for sure – it is absolutely ok be feel uneasy. We don't like it but it is all part of journeying in life to have these times of internal uncertainty – they come AND they go.
Again Laren it is important to view this in terms of "the people of God". Certainly we can all defer to the wrong, and quite naturally so, BUT we can and do all the more most commonly defer to the better, and again quite naturally. Also note that these things are written according to life under the old covenant. Now IF such can be the case for covenanted people it's only natural to assume the same from those in the darkness of ignorance, BUT does that equate to them all being the absolutely most depraved as possible? I don't believe so. Example… there was something about that pagan Abram that appealed to God and was subsequently harnessed by Him.
"God's wrath and judgment" was always relative to the carrying out of His will with regards to the fulfillment of Israel's redemption and the subsequent reconciliation that flowed from it – this being complete the difference is… no more wrath for sin, for the Law that was associated with Israel's fullness [Gal 3:24] was ended in Christ.
Laren
11-08-2008, 12:31 PM
Hey Laren you might find this LINK (http://www.inclusioninternational.com/pearsonspeaks/v1i5/) thought provoking and interesting.
thanks, I started to check it out then got interupted. I'll give it another try.
Mystic
11-08-2008, 01:12 PM
What I believe ties into all this is the Old Law. It's purpose was to show humankind how sinful they really were. As Paul told the Christians in Rome, sin was in the world before the Law. There was no ruler, no gauge or type of measuring their sins, hence man's sins were ever increasing-to the point that God repented, baptized the world and, somewhat, started over.
BUT, man's sin was NOT counted against him. Without a law, "sin lies dead" as Paul put it.
In walks the law to the Hebrews, or otherwise known as Israel. What the hell, they can't keep this thing. What a cruel, cruel joke. Kind of like those tiny seeds in a delicious watermelon. Israel needing someone to come a free them of this burden. The whole while Sin was feeding on this Law growing stronger and more alive. If only someone could fulfill the Law by keeping it perfectly and thereby removing it, pulling the rug out from under Sin rendering "limp" and powerless.
Christ enters stage left, keeping the Law and nailing it to the cross (Galatians) redeeming Israel and by doing so, redeemed all those before and after. Jesus condemned sin in the flesh, not the spirit. The flesh returns to the earth from whence it came and the spirit back to God in the heavenlies from it's origin.
Christ has now written his laws on our hearts-Grace and Love-forever more.
JIMO...
Barry
11-09-2008, 07:27 AM
Hey Bruce,
Nice to have you join in bro.
Interesting insight:
What a cruel, cruel joke. Kind of like those tiny seeds in a delicious watermelon. Israel needing someone to come a free them of this burden. The whole while Sin was feeding on this Law growing stronger and more alive. If only someone could fulfill the Law by keeping it perfectly and thereby removing it, pulling the rug out from under Sin rendering "limp" and powerless.
Not sure what your thoughts are on the term "in the flesh" or "according to the flesh"?
Personally I think that Paul is not speaking from a purely "human" standpoint as is a common view, but that the term itself is close to interchangeable with "the law".
Examples of why this is my view:
IMHO Paul was not dieing to being human, but dieing to the law. He was dieing to the "independence factor" that the law manifested, (which gained a precedence through in types and figures from Adam) and called it "in the flesh" like circumcision was "in the flesh" and his (previous) confidence "in the flesh" meant that he was a Hebrew under the law, circumcised the 8th day (phil 3). So that what was nailed to the cross was not just "the law" as we may think of it but "the flesh" (Gal. 5:24).
Paul told the Christians at that time that they were not "in the flesh" but "in the spirit" (Rom. 8).
Paul attaches the fullness of perfection not with post-mortem but the ending of the old covenant temple "made with hands" (2 Cor. 5 and see Acts 17, Phil 3 and Heb. 9) and so the full visible ending of the "law" as they had no "remaining city" in this mode of life.
Just a thought,
Blessings Barry
URfriend
11-10-2008, 12:24 AM
Amie,
I appreciated your post.
In my view, what we are coming to terms with "in our minds" is because of the cross. The revelation of the love of God changed everything.
I believe, and I think (?) I understand that we have this in common -- that God loved us from the start, yet we were ignorant of it.
Amie
I like that comment, “We were ignorant of it”
The other night I had a dream. There was a house in the sky, and another on the earth. A friend of mine, using a square, was struggling to build a corridor or a partition to connect the two, to bring them together. Unsuccessful, he was requesting my assistance, but strangely enough, I was using a bowl of fruit to explain that we did not need to build a bridge, Ephesians 5:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=5&v=14&t=KJV#14)
This dream inspired me to write an article about the ignorance that blinds the old humanity and about the perspective of the new and perfect man. Ephesians 4:18 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=4&v=1&t=KJV#comm/18)
For we all come into the… "the knowledge of the Son of God, to a Perfect Man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ", Ephesians 4:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Eph&c=4&v=13&t=KJV#13)
The article considers what it might mean to wake up with a new "fulfilled" perspective.
Click here to check it out if you like (http://www.angelfire.com/dc/universalism/theperfectman.html)
Beautiful Dean!
Perhaps it might seem odd, but this reminds me of the subject of creation. My understanding is that in Genesis 1, God expands, separates, and fills the heavens and the earth. In that same day (Genesis 2), "Adam and Eve" were set apart from humanity in a garden. Before the story unfolds, "in the beginning", God is pitching his tent. It is his house. It is where he will dwell.
Gen 28:16 And Jacob awakened from his sleep, and said, Surely Jehovah is in this place, and I did not know.
Gen 28:17 And he was afraid, and said, How fearful is this place! This is nothing except the house of God, and this is the door to Heaven.
1Ki 8:27 But will God in truth dwell on the earth? Behold, the heavens and Heaven of the heavens cannot contain You; how much less this house which I have built!
Isa 40:22 He who sits on the circle of the earth, even those living in it are like grasshoppers; He who stretches the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Act 10:11 And he saw the heaven being opened and a certain vessel like a great sheet coming down on him, being bound by four corners, and let down onto the earth;
Where is the house of God? It is not in a place of division, though it might be perceived as such. As Barry sez, "unity is not made, it is realized".
Luk 11:17 But knowing their thoughts, He said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to ruin, and a house against a house falls.
2Sa 7:13 He shall build a house for My Name, and I shall establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
I would love to hear yours (and others too) thoughts on:
Heb 1:8 but as to the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom;
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; because of this God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness beside Your fellows." Psa. 45:6, 7
Heb 1:10 And, "You, Lord, at the beginning founded the earth, and the heavens are works of Your hands.
Heb 1:11 They will vanish away, but You will continue; and they will all become old, like a garment,
Heb 1:12 and You shall fold them up like a covering, and they shall be changed. But You are the same, and Your years shall not fail." LXX-Psa. 101:26-28; MT-Psa. 102:25-27
Heb 1:13 But to which of the angels did He ever say, "Sit at My right hand until I place Your enemies as a footstool of Your feet?" LXX-Psa. 109:1; MT-Psa. 110:1
Heb 1:14 Are they not all ministering spirits for service, being sent out because of the ones being about to inherit salvation?
Amie
Truthseeker
11-14-2008, 12:29 PM
Greetings from the Land of Preterist Universalism!
Trying this as a test to make sure it goes through. :D --rhonda
Truthseeker
11-14-2008, 12:36 PM
Glad to see I'm on now--don't know what the problem was yesterday.
Good to see you again! Also glad to see you, Dena, and Bruce here!
What a wonderful discussion--I'm lovin' it. :)
I think if there's a difference between Pantelism and Preterist Universalism, its all about the afterlife. While this isn't so much the focus in Pantelism, but the here and now is the focus--I'd say Preterist Universalism believes that its BECAUSE of the glorious afterlife that gives us so much joy and purpose in the "here and now." In Preterist Universalism, when we enter the Presence of our Lord, we enter Eternity. Not that we weren't in it before; we just didn't know it!:biggrinbounce: --rhonda
Barry
11-14-2008, 02:45 PM
Greetings from the Land of Preterist Universalism!
Trying this as a test to make sure it goes through. :D --rhonda
Not another Universalist!!
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Just joking,
Love Barry
Barry
11-15-2008, 07:01 AM
Glad to see I'm on now--don't know what the problem was yesterday.
Good to see you again! Also glad to see you, Dena, and Bruce here!
What a wonderful discussion--I'm lovin' it. :)
I think if there's a difference between Pantelism and Preterist Universalism, its all about the afterlife. While this isn't so much the focus in Pantelism, but the here and now is the focus--I'd say Preterist Universalism believes that its BECAUSE of the glorious afterlife that gives us so much joy and purpose in the "here and now." In Preterist Universalism, when we enter the Presence of our Lord, we enter Eternity. Not that we weren't in it before; we just didn't know it!:biggrinbounce: --rhonda
I'll try to be serious. LOL!
Really it's great to fellowship with you again Rhonda! And it's great to have the input of some similar minded folk.
I was just thinking about this:
Not that we weren't in it before; we just didn't know it!
It just seemed to me that in some ways that's saying almost the same thing as some of the the "Pantelism" leaning folk. [Though I realize there is a bit of a different perspective on approaching it.] :)
Anyway, just a thought.
Barry
Truthseeker
11-15-2008, 10:57 AM
Thanks for the warm welcome, Barry. Its great being back.
Yes, I think it can be said that Pantelism and PU are twins--perhaps not identical twins, but not easy to tell us apart. We use different names that pretty much mean the same thing. I admire the grand work you're doing; I consider myself a co-worker. I've sent many people your way over the years, knowing they'll be greeted with love, kindness and scriptural answers to their questions--I needn't worry. :)
I'm hoping to spend more time here, now that my life has settled down where I can.
--rhonda
Mystic
11-15-2008, 12:31 PM
Not sure what your thoughts are on the term "in the flesh" or "according to the flesh"?
Hey Barry,
Thanks so much for the welcome. Sorry I've lagged in responding to your post. Had another son to marry off.
My reference to "condemning sin in the flesh" was pointing toward Christ fulfilling the Law in his flesh or likeness of sinful flesh, at the cross, where we as fleshly creatures could not. Therefore, morphing us into children of the Spirit. My post was probably getting redundant.
Hey Rhonda and Bruce, good to see you guys around :9_cool:
Truthseeker
11-15-2008, 09:58 PM
Hey Davo! Thank you! Its great to see you too! --rhonda
Truthseeker
11-15-2008, 10:45 PM
Hi Sis Amie!
I wanted to comment on your beautiful post regarding the house of God. You quoted some of my favorite scriptures!
In the book of Revelation, the measurements are given to the New Jerusalem.
It literally would not fit on the earth! (If I understand it correctly.) Obviously--it isn't a physical City--but a Spiritual one.
For the longest time, one scripture kept going through my mind--over and over again.
"The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit here at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."
I kept wondering: Why does this scripture come to me so many times during the day? Is there something here that the Lord wants me to see that I'm not seeing?
So I pondered on it; meditated on it.
And so it dawned on me: "Sit here at my right hand..."
Jesus, when he ascended, sat down at the right hand of God. And "sitting" indicates he was waiting for the fulfillment of this. One isn't all that active when one is sitting down--"sit here at my right hand" is symbolic--and it must be that he was waiting for the right time.
Because I realized that Jesus would "STAND UP" in Kingdom Power at some point--the point when God would make Jesus' enemies a "footstool" for his feet--and that some point would not be thousands of years later. The "some point", historical evidence shows (as well as testimony from Jesus and the apostles themselves,) was in that very generation-- in 70AD.
The Old Heavens and Earth (Jesus' enemies) were replaced with the New Heavens and New Earth. Physically, (which I believe always symbolizes the Spiritual,) this was represented by the destruction of the OC Temple--and even the old Jerusalem herself. When that took place, it was testimony to the world that Jesus STOOD UP in Kingdom Power and his enemies were now a footstool for his feet.--rhonda
Rhonda,
Interesting, I had not noticed that before. I found:
Heb 10:12 But He, offering but one sacrifice for sins, "sat down" in perpetuity "at the right hand" of God,
Heb 10:13 from then on expecting "until His enemies are placed as a footstool" of His feet. Psa. 110:1
The first resurrection was a process, so I found myself a little confused. How can one "sit", yet at the same time work through the firstfruits. Then I thought about:
Mat 12:11 But He said to them, What man of you will be who will have one sheep, and if this one fall into a pit on the sabbaths, will he not lay hold of it and raise it up?
In Hebrews 4, God has entered rest and God's Word is working. I bet that there would be more there if we kept exploring it.
At the same time, what would you make of this:
1Co 15:24 Then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For it is right for Him to reign until He puts all the hostile ones under His feet; Psa. 110:1
And this:
1Co 15:26 the last hostile thing made to cease is death.
1Co 15:27 For "He subjected all things under His feet;" but when He says that all things have been subjected, it is plain that it excepts Him who has subjected all things to Him. Psa. 8:6
1Co 15:28 But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who has subjected all things to Him, that God may be all things in all.
Amie
Barry
11-17-2008, 07:09 AM
Not sure what your thoughts are on the term "in the flesh" or "according to the flesh"?
Hey Barry,
Thanks so much for the welcome. Sorry I've lagged in responding to your post. Had another son to marry off.
My reference to "condemning sin in the flesh" was pointing toward Christ fulfilling the Law in his flesh or likeness of sinful flesh, at the cross, where we as fleshly creatures could not. Therefore, morphing us into children of the Spirit. My post was probably getting redundant.
Redundant you say? I'm probably the captain of redundancy around here. LOL
My present view Bruce is the "in the flesh" refers the covenant status of an "independent human potential".
Like what we see here:
Mat 19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
Mat 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mat 19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Mat 19:19 Honour thy father and [thy] mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
Mat 19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard , they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
The text goes back to Adam.
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Gen 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
The knowledge of good and evil is directly linked to an independent human potential. It is in essence the "law". At minimum the precursor of the law.
"Good Master, what good thing shall I do?" It was for Adam, the knowledge of sin.
IMHO "Sin" is the covenantal status of the conscience in the precedence of an independent human potential. IMO it is not doing something inappropriate or unbecomingly. As this is something Adam (biologically a fleshly human) could have done without entering into an independent human potential [which is what happened when he eat of the forbidden fruit]. In this way Adam, in the garden relationship had to deal with consequence, but not condemnation until he eat of the forbidden tree.
An, independent Human potential finds both its "limits" and its "framing", in its physical or natural surroundings.
So the knowledge of good and evil then interprets "potential" and "possibility" through categorizing between what is seen to be "good" and what is seen to be "evil".
So being "rich" is then to be "blessed" with "good things". Being good is keeping the commandments. One then can become "good" through these means.
Jesus turned this upside down and simply said "no one is good" and that true blessings (incorruption), were not possible within an independent human potential. IMHO then Jesus is telling his disciples to enter into God's possibility by participating in "the faith of Christ Jesus".
So my view at this time is that there is a physical link to what the scriptures are calling "in the flesh" but that it is an indirect link. In other words, being human, in and of itself, was never the problem. However "in the flesh" referred to the covenantal status of the confidence in an [I]independent human potential.
We see this in the parable of the "good Samaritan".
The man left striped and naked and wounded by the side of the road for dead [because of sin, for the knowledge of good and evil left him that way], found that the priest and the levite [the law] was ineffectual in helping him in his helpless position.
The Samaritan [Christ] began the healing process and put him on his own donkey and paid for his entrance into the "inn" [the cross] and paid whatever further debt was incurred upon his return [second appearance].
It depicts the helplessness of an independent human potential and that of coming into reliance upon God's possibility where all things are possible [during the transition of the ages as the form of that world, in types and figures, was passing away].
In this way and IMO we are still learning that being human is not the problem. Yes it's a challenge for sure, but not the source of the difficulties for what they really are. Now we are waking up to the spiritual realities of our present position.
Not of course, to claim that anyone here is saying the contrary. But simply to explain my own personal view on what "in the flesh" means.
JMO and any comments are welcome.
Blessings Barry
Truthseeker
11-17-2008, 12:45 PM
[QUOTE=Amie;15817]Rhonda,
Interesting, I had not noticed that before. I found:
The first resurrection was a process, so I found myself a little confused. How can one "sit", yet at the same time work through the firstfruits. Then I thought about:
Yes...
In Hebrews 4, God has entered rest and God's Word is working. I bet that there would be more there if we kept exploring it.
YES! Excellent, Amie! There was no "ending" to the 7th Day in the Creation account as there were after the first 6--indicating to me at least, that God's Rest Day, (His Sabbath where he rested from creating physical things) was to be represented under the Law as the weekly Sabbath. So after all the physical "work" was completed, God began the Spiritual Work for mankind. In the First Century, mankind was invited through Christ to enter that Rest--which was a Spiritual Work.
Your scriptures fit right in, Sis! Jesus, when he was accused of breaking the Sabbath by healing a man explained, "The Father has been working up to now, and I continue to work." What was the point of saying that? It seems to me the point was that God had been working throughout the Greater Sabbath!
And your last scripture, indicates that after all of Jesus' enemies (the last one being Death) was made a footstool for his feet--God became all in all. This indicates that we're in the New Day (Sunday, or the First Day of a New Era. In the Holy Day celebrations that pointed to this time, it was called "The Last Great Day"--when the Tent of God would be with mankind (see also Rev 21: 3,4) and it would be everlasting.
Good stuff, Sis!--rhonda
Mystic
11-22-2008, 01:27 PM
Hey Rhonda and Bruce, good to see you guys around :9_cool:
Thanks Davo. It's great to hook back up with you guys and gals.
Mystic
11-22-2008, 01:32 PM
We see this in the parable of the "good Samaritan".
The man left striped and naked and wounded by the side of the road for dead [because of sin, for the knowledge of good and evil left him that way], found that the priest and the levite [the law] was ineffectual in helping him in his helpless position.
The Samaritan [Christ] began the healing process and put him on his own donkey and paid for his entrance into the "inn" [the cross] and paid whatever further debt was incurred upon his return [second appearance].
It depicts the helplessness of an independent human potential and that of coming into reliance upon God's possibility where all things are possible [during the transition of the ages as the form of that world, in types and figures, was passing away].
In this way and IMO we are still learning that being human is not the problem. Yes it's a challenge for sure, but not the source of the difficulties for what they really are. Now we are waking up to the spiritual realities of our present position.
Not of course, to claim that anyone here is saying the contrary. But simply to explain my own personal view on what "in the flesh" means.
JMO and any comments are welcome.
Blessings Barry
Loved your Good Samaritan angle. Never thought of it that way.
Truthseeker
11-24-2008, 01:12 AM
I feel the same way, Bruce.
Excellent! I hadn't thought of it that way before either, but it makes perfect sense!
What a beautiful illustration. I'd love to share it, Barry, if that's ok. :) --rhonda
Barry
11-24-2008, 06:41 AM
I feel the same way, Bruce.
Excellent! I hadn't thought of it that way before either, but it makes perfect sense!
What a beautiful illustration. I'd love to share it, Barry, if that's ok. :) --rhonda
Not the first to see the Neighborly Samaritan as the "Christ" and the priest and the Levite as the law. The first time I heard this being alluded to was by Mike Williams.
Share sis!
Barry
~Katherine
06-17-2009, 11:54 AM
Well, the main difference is that pantelism deals with the issue of how God sees "unbelievers" in the present. We all agree on how He'll see them in the future, but in the here and now, there's disagreement.
Another disagreement we have is with the UUA, where they embrace a man-centered universalism, whereas pantelism remains God-centered; it's all about God, in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself.
Which is why I was turned off by the Celestine Prophecies books (man-centered). God and Christ being such a wonderful influence on me, why would I prefer not to include them? People who haven't met them will naturally be turned off of thinking that it's desirable and that these must remain firmly in the background as a figment of our admittedly overworked imagination. But what a wonderful imaginative work he is who doesn't ask that we appease him though the Jews insisted on the whole Law thing and God allowed them to experience the outworkings of legalism, and here we all are. Kinda gives the lie to God being created by his worshippers.
Originally Posted by Eric:
Tracts warn us if we don't believe in it, we're going there [hell], where we'll find out it's quite real. So the belief has its own built in self-perpetuating mechanism: fear!
And that's so handy, it't? Self-perpetuating power mongering which God is not about at all. It's messed up. Somebody buys/sponsors those tracts for people to hand out. They aren't free.
~Katherine
~Katherine
06-17-2009, 12:02 PM
Chiming in after the party's over, to say THANKS -- this really helps me to understand a bit more.
Me too.. much later, like a year! Thanks for this thread! It clears up a lot.
~Katherine
~Katherine
06-17-2009, 12:11 PM
Pantelism views "salvation" then NOT in terms of getting to heaven, BUT rather in terms of freedom from the toxicities of a "law-bound" life – MEANING not being bound to law-righteousness i.e., self-righteousness. It is NOT to be understood that Pantelism advocates ANY form of licentious lawlessness. It is the apostle James however who says: "the implanted word… is able to save your souls" – IOW… the gospel brings a freedom into one's inner being that brings "liberty" in life. It is this that is a fruit of "being saved", yet we are "saved to serve".
And to be sure I haven't read a thing about what a righteous life looks like.. OR I haven't recognized that as the subject if it has been discussed in what I've read thus far. (I have PLENTY more reading to do!) My guess is that it looks different for different people, to a degree at least. What's the take on that?
~Katherine
~Katherine
06-17-2009, 01:31 PM
Mat 16:25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Everyone goes through physical death but doesn't necessarily lose their lives for Jesus' sake, ok.. which could lead toward futurist thought easily yet even Christians die without dying *for* Christ's sake. And thus, it has seemed very obvious to me (for a long time even before I left futurist ideas.. I just couldn't articulate why) that Jesus is not talking about physical reality but spiritual here.
Hello! The words are "for my sake" NOT just lose life, which could be read as an injunction to evangelize. So no wonder one is perceived as unsaved if one isn't martyred or at least persecuted for the cause. So... what if you preach, witness, evangelize and people don't kill you? You could view yourself as socially ostracized (persecuted). :conf44:
It seems too simplistic a view to keep things at a physical level.
It makes much more sense to see the above verses as a change of heart (spiritual) that gives up self for others (feeding those who are hungry, quenching their thirst, and clothing their nakedness). Many futurists do have that interpretation because of other verses such as the ones that speak of dividing sheep and goats at the Last Judgment.
So Preterism (or maybe just Pantelism) could certainly make the leap that prophecy is already fulfilled and that those who are saved fulfill the purpose of serving so that others can live life as abundant and free as Jesus said. :biggrinbounce:
~Katherine
Good to see you making yourself at home, Katherine!
About "others" (which I see as an illusion) ... I don't want to have an argument with anyone else ... including the UUA, or anyone else who's walking in the freedom of Christ, without knowing/acknoweging to whom that freedom is credited.
We've all got a bit of the big picture, and are all being led into all truth, as we can bear it. I often wonder who may be closer to *more* truth:
- The ones who claim to know Jesus by name, and yet are not exhibiting His life of inclusion and radical love ...
- The ones who are living in inclusion and radical love, and yet do not yet acknowlege Him...
Which one has a more shattering delusion to face? Which one is closer to Him in reality?
AISI, if all is fulfilled (& I believe it is), and if He is all in all, then His goal is to bring us to the Father ... not to be continuously/externally focused upon ... if HE is within, and we come to know that we're One with Him, then our thoughts become His thoughts, and our very life becomes a testimony to Him. For some, it may appear that they're not giving Him credit, but their lives may be declaring the glory of God -- God who is beyond comprehension, beyond labeling, even beyond the terms "Christ" or "God"... perhaps only the spirit knows how to know the Spirit, and that it's completely beyond words, beyond graspable concepts...?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.