Then TomL won’t be here to refute the imaginative twisting of the Scriptures in the Pantelist responses.
CARM would also offer Davo a much larger audience to see his views.
Davo is free to go to CARM, is he not? I’ve seen his posts on other forums besides this one BTW, though none where his views were seriously challenged as they would be on CARM. Isn’t it time he put them to a - real - test? To prove all things:
New American Standard Bible
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
King James Bible
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Berean Study Bible
2 Mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. 3 Beloved, although I made every effort to write you about the salvation we share, I felt it necessary to write and urge you to contend earnestly for the faith entrusted once for all to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in among you unnoticed—ungodly ones who were designated long ago for condemnation. They turn the grace of our God into a license for immorality, and they deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ
For those interested… this video presentation HERE is the direction the likes of pantelism is tracking — beyond one-dimensional simplistic questions, exploring rather the 3D concepts of inclusion and grace.
Is that like davo’s obsessions with Pantelism & Paidon?
From everything i see & know Pantelism is error, but TomL seems to be much more informed on the topic & has already done the legwork. Give me a few months & i may be where he is at now. I never even heard of Pantelism till recently, while davo has had his own website about it for years, has been posting on various forums re the topic since at least about 15 years ago, & believing in it for who knows how long. So are you suggesting a novice should engage in “battle” with an expert?
And why would davo want to remain lurking in the shadows & debate a lessor opponent? BTW, he hasn’t even responded to several of my posts here on the topic, as i already mentioned earlier. Furthermore, in my mind, it is still to be determined how dangerous of a heresy Pantelism & Full Preterism are & therefore how much (or if) i am interested in “battling” them. If davo would answer the questions posed, it might help in that regard. Non answers to simple queries tend to raise & confirm suspicions.
I would ENCOURAGE Davo and others, embracing “non-orthodox” positions here…To answer any and all questions, in a straightforward manner. Like folks do, at the Calvinist site - Got Questions.
Much of my background, has been in academia. And I have taken philosophy, theology and literature courses - in the past. I find it interesting, where folks present what I call “non-orthodox” positions. Just as I find it interesting, when lecturers at the Theosophical Society - present non-orthodox positions. It’s not that I will jump off the orthodox bandwagon and come on board. But I’m a bit more open-minded - on hearing them.
Now if a “die-hart” Theosophicist, took a position on Christianity - it would be an esoteric one. Which I would pose a hypothetical question. I’m reading a book, found on Amazon entitled Kinding the Native Spirit: Sacred Practices for Everyday Life. Now the book talks about “Shape Shifting” and “Astral Travel”. Which I believe all these things, were possible by Adam and Eve - before the fall. Now if they are REAL and IF I could DO THEM…Is this PERMISSIBLE, by an ORTHODOX Christian? What about a “non-Orthodox” Christian, taking a forum position here?
Folks here might think it “strange”, when I talk about the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse
This was posted in another thread & my response unanswered:
We are all saved? Saved from what?
Sin, disease, death, pain, guilt, sorrows, torments, unbelief, mental illness, hatred of God, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, serial killing, corruption, war, stubbornness?
Scripture makes it clear that salvation is conditional on faith (Rom. 10:9-10,13; Acts 2:38; 11:14; 16:31; Mk.16:16; Jn.3:18; etc).
Isa.45:22"Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. 23 "I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. 24 "They will say of Me, ‘Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.’ Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame
How does this fit in with your view of Revelation:
What Scripture gives you the idea that the torments of the “High priest and Co.” have ended & they are “duly reconciled” to God:
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Rev.20:10, KJV)
Rev.20:10 reveals the devil (whom you equate with the “High priest and Co.”) is cast into the lake of fire. Wouldn’t that kill a mortal man like the High Priest? Then, after his death, he is tormented in the lake of fire, which would be after death punishment. This continues EIS the “ages of the ages”, or, since you don’t seem to like literal translations & interpretations, i take it your preference is KJV “for ever and ever”. IOW ECT.
BTW, the contextual references to Satan & the devil don’t seem to be speaking of a human “High Priest”:
Rev.20:2 He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.
Rev. 20:7 When the thousand years are complete, Satan will be released from his prison,
Unless you think, like some Pantelists, apparently, that the millennium (1000 years) lasted only about 40 years (c. 30-70 A.D.), which comes about 960 years short of a full enchilada.
The pantelist position is that the ‘lake of fire’ is the same as Jesus’ “gehenna” — something even Paidion agrees with. The pantelist view goes one step further understanding Jesus’ “gehenna” to be in fact a reference to the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem. So… whatever the identity of the devil/beast/false prophet, IF they be human figures as I intimate in that quote above then their demise in Jerusalem’s fall, i.e., their death, then beyond that they shall be reconciled, for… “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.” I’m inclined to believe Paul’s words here, but that’s me.
IF the devil be a literal spirit being then destruction would be in order, i.e., cessation of existence. The new covenant world about to come in its fullness was NOT in any way shape or form to be under any spirit subjection… at least NOT according to the writer of Hebrews…
<μέλλω> mellō = about to
It is indeed the pantelist position that John’s 1000yrs reflects the coverage of that 40yr period and is duly understood as “figurative language” as reflected in Paidion’s words here, to which again I agree…
"]Davo, the book of Revelation consists of a vision that someone named “John” experienced. It is full of figurative language and there are hundreds of different interpretations.
Along these very lines both futurist position of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism likewise agree with the “figurative language” interpretation.
We are missing a few questions. In what way is something considered Orthodox - in Christianity?
Rather than looking at the views Origen or Davo expresses, which are taking opposite sides. I see what WIKI has to say:
I mean, folks can look at me and say I’m NOT orthodox. Even though I follow the Nicene Creed, the ACNA beliefs, and Eastern Anglo-Catholic orientations.
Why?
Well, I practice Buddhist Mindfulness and Yoga. Or taking part in healing ceremonies, of Native Americans, Japanese Johrei / Sukyo Mahikari and German Burno Groening.
Or I am a member, of the Theosophical Society. Where I can abide, by their 3 general objects.
Or I talk about the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse - rather than something like Left Behind series viewpoint.
And If I’m right, on the last point…I am performing a great service - for humanity.
We do have parallels, in the Theosophical Society. Where historical folks like Annie Besant, promotes what I call Esoteric Christianity. Or folks like Mary Baker Eddy, promote an Idealistic brand (i.e. all is mental - no matter. And the Theosophical equivalent, of Mary Baker Eddy - is Joel Goldsmith) . Assuming you (or folks like Mary Baker Eddy or Annie Besant) - are right. I wonder what God must be thinking?
I gave them Holy Scripture, but only a FEW got it?
Or is God thinking?
I tried to make my message, as clear as possible - for ALL of humanity to understand. But look at the fights, between the different church branches and theologians. HOW can my brilliant theologians, like Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther - have totally different perspectives?
So you like Paul’s words (according to your own interpretation of them), but reject John’s in Revelation:
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (lit. ages of the ages, Rev.20:10, KJV)
BTW those who are being tormented aren’t destroyed as in annihilated or killed. Which, again, leaves you rejecting the Scripture quoted above. And if those torments began in 70 AD and continue “forever and ever” (or “into the ages of the ages”), can God have become “all in all” in 70 AD & could all prophecy have been fulfilled as per your Pantelistic theology?
DaveB asks a question below in another thread which is more pertinent to be dealt with here in this pantelist thread. But first just by way of clarification… like other eschatological views prêterism has its variants — Pantelism being one of them. The main difference between these two fulfilled views is… pantelism views Israel’s prophesied redemption in Christ to be the catalyst for humanity’s reconciliation to God and thus all the blessings to flow because of that.
Again, pantelism takes an inclusiveprêteristic position. I use ‘inclusive’ as opposed to ‘universal’ BECAUSE there are many aspects of universalism far removed from the pantelist rationale. Universalism is in fact much closer to its nemesis of Infernalism, or if one prefers… Particularism, as in both these positions believe in the EXACT same postmortem experience and nature of “hell” for any ascribed as destined there — the ONLY real difference being the degree of the suffering endured therein, i.e., limited or unlimited.
As a pantelist the 1st resurrection was germane to the firstfruit saints of the AD30-70 NT era, culminating in the 2nd or general resurrection of AD70, being inclusive of all Israel prior to that; and then in consequence the rest of departed humanity. The only “physical resurrection” per sé that counted was Jesus’ which assured the redemption and reconciliation of all — the restoration of man.
Pantelism doesn’t so much go for this so-called physical/spiritual divide when it comes to ‘resurrection’ (which biblically speaking was actually something promised to Israel), understanding such to be speaking of COVENANT realities and thus specifically and primarily referring to Israel’s ‘covenant renewal’.
Pantelism sees this 1st resurrection ALREADY in operation here…
This death to life that NOW IS was the beginnings of Israel’s covenant renewal, i.e., resurrection, starting in Jesus’ ministry then and there — the first resurrection.
Then what followed in the AD70 Parousia was the general or 2nd resurrection, as per…
The “resurrection of the dead” was two-fold and did not necessitate physical death. Firstly… the resurrection of Jn 5:25 was of the firstfruits harvest occurring in that generation — thus their “coming to life” was a coming up out from among the dead, that is… what constituted the body of old covenant Israel (Moses), of which Jesus “would be the first to rise from the dead” as per Acts 26:23. Pantelism understands resurrection here described as covenantal in focus and nature as Jesus was not in factthe first to rise from the dead — if by resurrection is meant the attaining of a new or revived fleshly-physical abode or mode of existence, for Scripture is replete with this phenomenon already… 1Kgs 17:17-23; 2Kgs 4:17-37; 2Kgs 13:21; Mt 27:52-53; Lk 7:11-17; Lk 8:40-42, 49-55; Jn 11:38-44, so for Paul, this cannot have been the essence of what “resurrection” was, in view here.
Thus the resurrection of John 5 was not a “spiritual” resurrection followed then by a “bodily” resurrection, no. Rather, it was the “firstfruits” resurrection (1st) being followed by a “whole harvest” resurrection (2nd). Resurrection was all about COVENANT change — or as Paul said… “we shall all be changed” — the AD70 DoJ was the final death knell of that old covenant world.
The “life” Jn 5:29 is the affirmative comparison to its negative opposite “condemnation” aka judgment. Those of “faith” would be spared the dire consequence of AD70 — calling on the name of the Lord they would be saved (Rom 10:13) and not be put to shame (Rom 10:11) such as condemnation would bring, hence…
Continuing to walk according to the passing old covenant would lead to “death” — quite literally as it turned out for some in the DoJ; yet also metaphorically speaking comparatively… walking according to the burgeoning new covenant was the pathway of “life” into the coming new age “wherein righteousness dwells” 2Pet 3:13.
davo said: “Continuing to walk according to the passing old covenant would lead to “death” — quite literally as it turned out for some in the DoJ; yet also metaphorically speaking comparatively… walking according to the burgeoning new covenant was the pathway of “life” into the coming new age “wherein righteousness dwells” 2Pet 3:13.”
Thanks for that extended post above, davo. It helped me to sharpen up a couple of thoughts and questions.
Do you (and by ‘you’ I am not pointing at you in particular; I’m referring to FP’s and Pantelists in general) have any grounds on which to base a hope for life after death?
Why is belief in physical resurrection ‘archaic’??
Does righteousness dwell now in this age, if in fact we are in the ‘coming new age?’
Is the Church now the ‘body of Christ’?
What does it mean, if anything, to ‘be a Christian’?
Thanks. What bothers me and maybe some others is a conceptual thing: what is the ‘bridge’ from AD70 into the new age?
Do you (and by ‘you’ I am not pointing at you in particular; I’m referring to FP’s and Pantelists in general) have any grounds on which to base a hope for life after death?
Why is belief in physical resurrection ‘archaic’??
Does righteousness dwell now in this age, if in fact we are in the ‘coming new age?’
Is the Church now the ‘body of Christ’?
What does it mean, if anything, to ‘be a Christian’?
I’m not a FP but I did play a Doctor on TV once, so let me take a stab.
FP believe people are judged by Christ at death. That’s how they interpret the day of judgment
FP believe physical death is natural and not caused by “the fall” or “sin” . They dismiss the physical body and embrace a spiritual or angelic existence.
I’m not sure but i think they believe evil just continues indefinitely so i’m not sure how they view righteousness in this age
I think most FP believe there is no need for churches,Pastors,the Lord’s supper or “body of Christ” on earth after 70AD.
- rather than something like Left Behind series viewpoint.
