Bedfellows or Bedlam - a considered response

[davo]

In his article Universalism and Preterism: Bedfellows or Bedlam? Samuel Frost critiques "universalism" as he finds defined in the work of Keith DeRose, and his apparent reading of certain scriptural proof texts; Frost subsequently gives his analysis of such. Frost's article partially sprung out of requests and or concerns raised by some to counter or at least challenge what several alarmist preterists label 'PU' or preterist-universalism. Within this context of surrounding discussions others seeking to broaden their appreciation of Scripture have asked many questions around this area of the more inclusive and comprehensive nature of God's grace...

Read more [HERE (http://pantelism.rubiconhosting.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=75)] and discuss it below:

[Infinite Grace]

I like it. I would say though that it seems you could have gone deeper as to Israel being the "world's" Priests. This, to me, is foundational for showing how "the church" as KOINONIA is "healing leaves" to the nations (gentiles).

However, that may be what you are going to deal with in your article on "the elect?" Am I correct?

One of my biggest frustrations has been our brothers' tendencies to put up these humanistic, general definitions of universalism, and then destroying them. That's all fine and good, but they are NOT dealing with our arguments at all. That was my premise of my series of articles refuting Mr. Edwards' articles on "PU." He never did deal with one single, solitary argument made by either you or me. In fact, when he reached a point where he knew he either had to shut up or shut me up, he chose to ban me from his site, i.e., "shut me up."

[davo]

I like it. I would say though that it seems you could have gone deeper as to Israel being the "world's" Priests… However, that may be what you are going to deal with in your article on "the elect?" Am I correct?

Yes Ed, that will come – I have some thoughts I want to work through with some of what I recently went through with MB over on Todd's site.


One of my biggest frustrations has been our brothers' tendencies to put up these humanistic, general definitions of universalism, and then destroying them.

Yes "straw-men" are lame attempts at NOT dealing with that which that those who raise them cannot grasp.


That was my premise of my series of articles refuting Mr. Edwards' articles on "PU." He never did deal with one single, solitary argument made by either you or me.

Yes it is always easier to throw up mud than a descent argument – RE made at most, two posts on my particular thread, and neither of them carried any weight of influence, but just demonstrated his own lack of being able to contribute anything of significance or substance.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand: Kevin Beck and Moira Flaherty raised some questions over @ the presence forum – this was my response that touches on what I raised in this article:

Kevin: Then there is the whole issue of Christ's faith. The majority of interpreters have missed the translation in may key texts, making "faith of Christ" "faith in Christ."

Kevin, you are absolutely correct – what is so often missed is that it was Jesus' faithfullness to the covenant that wrought redemption for Israel; which in turn enabled the world's reconciliation – thus the restoration of man. God was working microcosmically through Israel in Jesus, what He was outworking macrocosmically for the world.

Where there comes some confusion is that there is unquestionably in Paul times where he speaks of "faith in Christ" as being the actions of the one believing – where the conflict comes however is in the assumed implications of that, or the lack thereof.

It is assumed by both farthest views i.e., partialists and universalists, that eternal destinies are involved, i.e., certain supposed post mortem calamities, or not. What IMO is missed is that neither "faith in Christ" nor "Christ's faithfulness" has anything to do with life after life after death per se, BUT rather with this life – and our response in faith to the call of God to service; hence being saved to serve.

Both partialists and universalist positions inconsistently haggle of the language of ALL and WORLD – valid arguments can be made for both positions IMO, but mostly they both fall short in that they fail to take into account realised [covenant] eschatology. Pantelism I believe resolves much of this because pantelism views the "restricted" or "limited" nature of certain texts as pertaining to the first-fruit believers of the transitional period AD30-70 and their involvement in the outworking to completion of the redemptive purposes of God.

One example might be my reading of Jn 3:16-17 with this view in mind:

For God so loved Israel that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever of Israel believes in Him might not perish in the AD70 lake of fire, but might have life into the age about to come. For God did not send His Son into Israel to condemn the Israel, but that Israel through Him might be saved [Mt 1:21; Lk 1:68; Rom 11:26-27].

As you can see, I think "world" has a decidedly "Israel" focus, but again, not to the total exclusion of others [Jn 1:12b], but that Israel was God's redemptive focal point – the rest of the greater world would benefit from Israel's redemption, for they Israel were to be "a light" to the nations, and were IMO actually a kind of first-fruits of humanity – in keeping with the covenantal working of God of restoring man back to Himself. So, it is possible in my view [pantelism] that much of "world" and "all" language IS "exclusively orientated" – by virtue of the fact that THAT WAS the divinely pre-ordained redemptive path upon which the first-fruits came, yet with the wider divinely pre-ordained all inclusive intent that all humanity would be and is, reconciled to Him.

So what we have is realised eschatology along with realised redemption – and consistently so, IMO.

Moira: Could you please explain in what way do universalists fall short of realised covenant eschatology for me.

What I am meaning is that "generally speaking" the universal position is that "all" means all inclusively so, right across the board, no if or buts. Partialists argue against this position. What I'm saying is that in "some" NOT all, of the partialists argument in the light of preterism has some validity, i.e., there IS IMO "some" exclusiveness found in Paul.

BUT, having said that -- again, in the light the "fulfilled framework" I believe that THAT "exclusiveness" relates to the first-fruits and or Israel; depending on context. So I'm not challenging partialists exclusiveness per se BUT to whom they apply it. They apply their "exclusivity" to the destiny of "the chosen" of all time to a post death position [heaven as opposed to hell].

I'm saying that where there is "exclusivity" it relates to the first-fruit chosen IN THIS LIFE for the purpose of the outworking of redemption in that end of the ages period.

The end result however does not change -- all humanity inclusively so IS restored to God because ALL Israel inclusively so was redeemed, thus bringing reconciliation to ALL the Gentiles, inclusively so.

So it's a technical argument, but one that preterist partialists will have to grapple with because it is consistent in its prêteristic hermeneutic and answers their "exclusive" rationale from out of left-field.

[Amie]

Thus not speaking for DeRose' universalism as per Frost's understanding, pantelism in taking a fulfilled perspective sees this creational language as age specific to the world of Israel's day – a world that was "passing away" [1Jn 2:17].

I find this to be one of the largest obstacles that I've experienced in talking to those with the fulfilled view about the Pantelist position. Though they have fulfilled view, many still refuse to apply Scripture to the appropriate age.

You mention early in the article "Universalism per se is focused predominately on the "here-after" i.e., who gets to Heaven, whereas Pantelism is more interested in the "here-and-now", or as I often write – in this life i.e., beginning heaven today."

I am open as per my view of the afterlife (covenant reality affected afterlife reality) albeit I realize that I have neglected to clarify that I feel that the afterlife is a continuance of this life. This is not to say that I feel that those 'walking dead' cannot be awakened in the next - God is just and will handle things justly (whether they continue in a 'walking dead', hellish existance, or wake up).

I feel that redemption made a post-mortem life possible and realized redemption makes the life possible now. Under the OC, I'm not sure that they had either.

So, like yourself, I focus on the here and now, and advocate evangelism. I would like to add though, that assurance as to the "then" (post-mortem) is important to a great many people and can be found in this position as well.

Amie

[Truthseeker]

Hi Amie and Barry,

I've had many discussions with the Calvinist Objectors; Sam, David Green, Ed Stevens, and some others. I too believe in evangelizing which is why they fought so hard, (they think PU, as they call it, is the biggest threat out there to their own movement, and hallelujah for that!) I was kicked off of one preterist forum, and D. Green tried to have me kicked off the other one.

Sam was the most reasonable; he wrote to me privately with genuine questions and concerns, which I answered. We went back a forth about 3 times, and I never heard from him again.

I have to say that Calvinist Preterists are the coldest of all Christians I've ever met, with the most hopeless message I've ever heard. Whenever they were on a forum, it was so cold, I could see my own breath. The more loving they were treated, the angrier they seemed to get. I don't doubt that they've contributed a lot to the preterist side of things, but since God, according to them, predestines only a few for salvation, I make no bones about fighting against their propoganda against the Grace and Person of God. I apologize if this seems argumentive toward others whom God equally loves--I don't mean it that way. But the war of ideas, a very real spiritual warfare, is being waged. And any time I have opportunity to rebut the charges against the Love of God made by them, I'll speak out. --rhonda

[Amie]

Rhonda,

You are definately a strong spirit! Many of us have had bad experiences with the people that you mentioned as well.

Anyone know if Ward Fenley and gang are Calvinists? I don't know. If they are though, they are evidence that not all Calvinists are like that.

Reality is that we have God-given freedom. Some folks just want to argue with that and I know that when you get caught in the middle of it all, it feels like war. In my humble opinion, the war has been won. I use this example a lot (sorry to those who have heard it before) but, I've been caught up in debates and the such about whether or not I have the right to speak (as a woman). While I was fighting for that right, I wasn't speaking. When I realized that I already had the right (whether the other person realized it or not), I stopped fighting and started speaking. It's like Rosa Parks ya know, she didn't argue about it, she just stayed seated.


And any time I have opportunity to rebut the charges against the Love of God made by them, I'll speak out.

Amen to that - ever protecting the hearts of others from condemnation.

It is my understanding that the Calvinist (though I know that there are some here who understand better) position is very much like what Davo describes the "partialists" position being:


What I am meaning is that "generally speaking" the universal position is that "all" means all inclusively so, right across the board, no if or buts. Partialists argue against this position. What I'm saying is that in "some" NOT all, of the partialists argument in the light of preterism has some validity, i.e., there IS IMO "some" exclusiveness found in Paul.

BUT, having said that -- again, in the light the "fulfilled framework" I believe that THAT "exclusiveness" relates to the first-fruits and or Israel; depending on context. So I'm not challenging partialists exclusiveness per se BUT to whom they apply it. They apply their "exclusivity" to the destiny of "the chosen" of all time to a post death position [heaven as opposed to hell].

I'm saying that where there is "exclusivity" it relates to the first-fruit chosen IN THIS LIFE for the purpose of the outworking of redemption in that end of the ages period.

What I see is that though there was an elect, that they existed in a certain (past) time frame.

Amie

[davo]

What I see is that though there was an elect, that they existed in a certain (past) time frame.

Yes Amie. Election functioned according to God's redemptive purposes -- not so much in its reception [that was a given], but more importantly its administrational outworking.

If it could be said that there was/is any election post Parousia it would have to be simply this: everyone is elected. But technically speaking that is applying "election" beyond its proper meaning, HOWEVER -- THAT is exactly what all good ETers do; making election a synonym for heaven's exclusive, private and protected haven.

Good thoughts Rhonda :)

[Paige]

Amie asked:


Anyone know if Ward Fenley and gang are Calvinists?

This I can answer, lol. Yes, they are.

Paige

[Infinite Grace]

You see, if I had to define myself, I would take the moniker "Sovereign grace preterist." However, Calvinist Mike Bennett has taken that one because he didn't want to be called a Calvinist, I guess (he denied being one when I confronted him about some stuff).

I believe in God's sovereignty - which is a foundational belief of Calvinist. However, I disagree with most of the other points due to my infinite grace position.

[Truthseeker]

LOL, Dear Ones,

I agree with Calvin except for one point: God predestined ALL men to be saved. Not a select few.

A select few being predestined and all others burning in hell forever (created for that purpose) is the most wicked lie ever told against our loving Creator and Savior. Its no wonder that poor Servetus was slowly burned at the stake, considering that mindset.

Dear Sis Amie, your point is well taken. There is a time for sitting, and a time for standing up. Bless you--:) --rhonda

[Donone]

When I began to study ultimate reconciliation, as a preterist and one raised with a Calvinist perspective and hermenuetic, my interaction with the writings of Christian Universalists dealt obviously and primarily with the issue of everyone getting to heaven or being saved in the afterlife. Thank you for showing me some of the differences between your views and those of DeRose and Talbott and others writing on the subject. May I ask how you would answer the question of the ultimate disposition of a person who lives a very outwardly wicked, rebellious and destructive God hating life. Does Pantelism see in eschatology a limited duration place of correction?

Thanks

[Infinite Grace]

Don,
One of the difficulties in explaining "our" perspective is that ultimately there is no "our." Each of us borrows from one another, rejects one part of the other, etc. Sometimes we disagree, and later convince each other of our positions.

With that said, MY view on it is that everyone will "see" God post-mortem. Those of us who "knew Christ" will react in a certain way - perhaps with incredible joy, with a tinge of realization of guilt for ever doubting such an infinite grace. However, there will be others who have, though they never knew Christ, lived lives of love, mercy, grace (perhaps native peoples, so-called savages). They will realize that the "unknown god" they worshipped was in fact YWHW, and that YWHW, through His son, gave life to humanity.

Those who have done wickedly, as you describe it (e.g., Hitler), will, in my estimation, stand face to face with the holy, righteous, and just God of the universe. This YWHW, whom we have created in our own image (Morgan Freeman, George Burns, et al), will be seen in all his holiness, righteousness, and justice. The realization will be devastating. Can you imagine the horror in the realization that everything that they have heard about YWHW is true? Can you imagine the godly sorrow that will envelope their entire being, their soul? IMO, it will not be God doing the punishing, but the wicked punishing themselves for failing to realize. But as this godly sorrow works its "magic" these wicked will more and more see through the holiness, the righteousness, and the justice to see the mercy, the grace, and the love. They will realize that the SON who stands at YWHW's right hand was the one who bought their freedom, and they rejected him. Sorrow, but in spite of it, they will experience joy, they will experience love, they will experience mercy, they will experience grace, they will experience forgiveness. And those of us who knew Christ, who were enveloped in his love while we lived in this life will envelope our "enemies" with his love - the same love that brought us the realization of, that opened up eyes to see, the fact that GOD IS LOVE.

In some ways, my view mirrors Origen's view (and many biblical universalists since then) except that they saw "the fire" as God's wrath that will work to purge wicked humans, while I see "the fire" (not to be confused with "the lake of Fire, which was the destruction of Jerusalem) as the fact that "Our God is a consuming fire," and that his presence brings the purging.

I hope this all made sense. Remember, these views are MINE ALONE. If any of my compadres agree with me, that's fine - but please don't hold them responsible for MY VIEWS.

[Amie]

Either I would go with what Ed said, or it could be that the afterlife is a continuance of this life. It could be that there is a sort of self-imposed heaven or hell on the other side. If it is a continuance, then people could eventually become enlightened and could potentially stay in eternal darkness. That is a consideration of mine, though I lean strongly toward what Ed said because there is no potential for eternal darkness.

I think that any of these views though, are purely speculation based on how we see God. IE, "just", "merciful", "truth", "love", etc. My faith is in Him, I know He will be just, because He is. Now defining "justice" is open for personal interpretation.

Scripturally imo, there is only evidence that there is life after death for all. What happens when we actually cross over I'm not sure about.

Amie

[Paige]

I'm inclined to agree w/Ed and Amie. (I think they were agreeing :biglaugha: ) I feel that scripture does give us an indication that there is greater responsibilty for those who know over those who have never known. So, with that in mind, I can definitely see where individuals would have varying degrees of response when laid bare before God.

Paige

[Donone]

Ed, Amie, Paige,

Ed, that was eloquent. I recently did a little word study on the word "torment" and found a useful synomyn was "ordeal", which describes that experience you envision when we appear on His turf and His terms. It also would describe our own experience as believers, obviously when each of us has our errors and misconceptions about Him revealed and corrected. Thank God that "every knee shall bow".

Don

[davo]

May I ask how you would answer the question of the ultimate disposition of a person who lives a very outwardly wicked, rebellious and destructive God hating life.
G'day Donone,

From the biblical record I'm not convinced we can say with assurance much concerning what awaits as N.T. Wright phrases it, life after life after death. MY humanity reasons there needs to be some payback for those "I" consider bad eggs etc, BUT I'm inclined to err on the side of forgiveness and assume that God's mercy triumphs over judgment always.

I think the whole Hitler argument for example is way out of whack. Like it's ok to be repulsed, sickened, and angered by the temporary torture and extermination of six million Jews by an evil, unjust, and hateful Hitler, yet all the while whole heartily applaud, justify, and support the supposed eternal torture or annihilation of these very same Jews by our good, just, and loving God – so much for consistency.

Pantelism [as I'm presenting it] sees this whole rationale as totally inconsistent. For instance: Calvinistic folk will trumpet "we are saved by grace NOT by works" but then come out with crap like:


Even if we commit every atrocity in the book and speak every blasphemy imaginable every day of our lives and are filled with undiluted hate for Christ and for His church every day of our lives and die in all of our sins and unbelief, God promises us that we will be saved and have eternal life.
The odd thing with this entire argument is that the WHOLE premise is hypocritical, being based solely around WORKS!! Well if works cannot save, then quite obviously IF one's reasoning is consistent, THEN works likewise cannot condemn. They talk grace but in reality promote law, and a law based relationship with God is one of obligation and penalty for non compliance.

Yes God forgives, yet that does not necessarily negate "punishment" – but all of this is to be viewed as relative to this life, EVEN IF WE CAN'T SEE IT.

Though fully forgiven and redeemed, God still called Israel to repentance [Isa 44:22], but true to form, Israel in her stubborn wickedness went on to find "punishment" in the Parousia. This was the temporal outworking of their temporal actions i.e., actions and consequences in this life.

What God deemed adequate and just punishment was NOT swept aside. HOWEVER, forgiveness relates to sin or transgression, never to punishment. Jesus was announced as the one who would "save his people from their sins" [Mt 1:21], NOT from punishment. God's judgment is a two-sided coin – after the just consequences of their rebellious sin was experienced – AD70 ["you shall die in your sins"], God's equally just and merciful pardon [Rom 4:7-8; 2Cor 5:19b] wrought Israel's restoration [Rom 11:26-28]:

Psa 99:8 O LORD our God; You were to them God-Who-Forgives, though You took vengeance on their deeds.

Lam 3:31-32 For the Lord will not cast off forever. Though He causes grief, yet He will show compassion according to the multitude of His mercies.


Does Pantelism see in eschatology a limited duration place of correction?
In essence I would say YES – because eschatology is limited to an age, or more specifically, the end of an age – the old covenant age. There is no eschatology for the "age to come" – eschatology was always about "last things" and these were summed up in the Parousia. So the correction that took place, took place then – in this life; that much biblically speaking we do know.

Hope that helps.

[Infinite Grace]

Just to be clear, I have no disagreement with what Davo just said. My reference to Hitler was predicated on the frequent assertion by particularists that Hitler's life disproves God's grace.

Secondly, Amie's reference to afterlife being a continuation of this life (this is not her first time bringing it up) has made me think that perhaps that could be true. I have often thought that the "afterlife" might be a place where we re-live some moments of our lives, correcting our actions. However, that led me to think of the fact that our actions, whether "good" or "bad", are what has determined other people's actions (within a framework of their freewill) and then our subsequent actions. Kind of like the Back to the Future movies. When something was changed in the past, the new tangent was created that was entirely different than the original (Biff becoming wealthy, killing George, and marrying Lorraine instead of George becoming wealthy and subjugating Biff to a servantile status).

Also, the idea that forever and ever we just stand around in white robes and sing praise to God seems a bit blase' (no offense God). I mean, what about time to see our loved ones who have "gone on before?" You know "walking with Jesus?" And if I am walking with Jesus, what are the rest of you doing?

John McPherson over at PP (supersoulfighter) believes in reincarnation. His view is sort of a YWHW-induced karma (not trying to be facetious here, or to ridicule him at all, I am just trying to keep it non-technical), wherein those who have done well come back in a higher position, while those who did not do well come back to "try it again." All though, if memory serves me, those who did well (received Christ) actually got to stay in heaven (I think).

One other thing: have you ever tried to think back to your infancy? Can't remember much, can you? You certainly don't remember anything about before you were born. Why is that, do you think? I believe Origen believed in the pre-existence of the soul, similar to the Mormon doctrine. Possible. And so, with that in mind, do we come back via reincarnation?

As davo said, all speculation...just pure speculation.

[Amie]

Also, the idea that forever and ever we just stand around in white robes and sing praise to God seems a bit blase' (no offense God). I mean, what about time to see our loved ones who have "gone on before?" You know "walking with Jesus?" And if I am walking with Jesus, what are the rest of you doing?

Have you read Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven by Mark Twain? It's a funny short story and it touches on that. It is free online here: http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Mark_Twain/Captain_Stormfields_Visit_to_Heaven/

Amie

[ozark]

I think the scriptures tell us very little about the post mortem experience for two possible reasons. What Davo has said in the past is probably the most important. The most important questions for us now concern the here and now not the there after. It appears that is where God wants our focus. It is interesting that Old Covenant Israel seemed to have very little concern with life post mortem. Yet, there pagan neighbors seemed to be obsessed with it. Some say it was mainly through the influence of pagan thought that Israel and later the church got so heaven and hell focused. In fact, it seems that the pagans thought of hell first.

That is not to say there is no life post mortem. There is plenty of evidence there is in the scriptures. However, extreme focus on heaven can make us forget to love our brother on earth. It can make us forget the heart of heaven itself which is the presence of God not just escaping the fire.

The second reason the Bible is so silent on what heaven and what happens when we experience it could be that we simply could not comprehend it. I’ve have only studied Quantum Physics a tiny bit, but it seems it is simply impossible for a being to comprehend dimensions beyond his own existence. Each dimension beyond the previous dimension is infinitely greater than the previous dimension. For example, a three dimensional being would be infinite to a two dimensional being. I have read that scientists have proven mathematically the existence of ten dimensions of which we occupy only four. If the afterlife touches upon or is even beyond those dimensions God would have a heck of a time explaining things to us. I know this is pure speculation, but there are possibilities. Moreover, the finite things we are so concerned about here might fade into insignificance in the face of infinite love. Wanting a certain person to get their just rewards might become a non-issue. Having a greater reward because we "deserve it" might become a foolish thought. At least I hope so.

However, I do believe the kingdom of God is the last thing standing so to speak. If we have given little room for it in our lives, certainly the sense of loss must also be greater than what we could imagine in this life.

[Amie]

The most important questions for us now concern the here and now not the there after.

I am not sure that I would say the "most" important, but it is definately important as well. I agree with what you said, especially in terms of where we focus. Could IG allow those who are concerned about the hereafter to focus on the here-and-now by resolving that issue altogether?

Amie

[ozark]

Amie,

Yes, I would say that truth ultimately makes things better not worse, wouldn't you?

[Amie]

Amie,

Yes, I would say that truth ultimately makes things better not worse, wouldn't you?

I believe that, yep :)

Amie

[Mystic]

I guess I'm somewhat confused. If the world has been reconciled "Through Christ", although not all realizing it, can't they still enter heaven? I believe Satan has been rendered powerless and there never was a hell as I understood it growing up. But I've believed for about a year now, I'm new at this so I beg your patience, that although there are people who walk around in a "unforgiven state of mind" or "unrealized redemption", that it would not be until death that they would get to enjoy the blessing that they could of haved while living. Have I made a wrong turn somewhere?

[Lou]

Mystic, as for me this is an ongoing learning experience.

To me “heaven” has two meanings.

First it is the personal relationship we have with God without any religious restraints.


Second is what happens after physical death. And on this one I have to admit I have little understanding at this point.

[davo]

I guess I'm somewhat confused. If the world has been reconciled "Through Christ", although not all realizing it, can't they still enter heaven?G'day Mystic, thanks for your questions and WELCOME :)

There is in deed no barrier to heaven -- be that understood as beginning in this life as Lou has pointed out, as we come into relationship with God, or as we step through death's veil into that realm with God beyond this "material" world.



I believe Satan has been rendered powerless and there never was a hell as I understood it growing up. But I've believed for about a year now, I'm new at this so I beg your patience, that although there are people who walk around in a "unforgiven state of mind" or "unrealized redemption", that it would not be until death that they would get to enjoy the blessing that they could of haved while living. Have I made a wrong turn somewhere?I think you've got a good handle on it -- just because many don't realise the truth, doesn't negate it; it just negates the benefits of it in this life to the degree they are ignorant of it. Sharing this message IS the Good News :9_cool: .