The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Hey Chad… :mrgreen:

How about this from ** earlier in the thread… **

Does that make sense?

Hi David.
It makes sense to me.

As for myself, I came to the same conclusion as you stated above, once I ‘became’ a full preterist. I guess I just thought that there were possibly ‘degree’s’ or different beliefs of universalist’s. Much like partial preterist’s can draw their line where ever their eschatological view dictates, universalists can see punishment / wrath in many different ways. Unitarian Universalists not withstanding, I guess I never realized there was a ‘typical’ belief for universalists, though it does seem most universalists do seem to believe in some sort of postmortem punishment. It also seems to me that most (I’ll use the term ‘evangelical’) universalists believe that everyone will ultimately end up at the throne of Christ, but there are a bunch of different ideas about what happens on the way there.

So basically it is an issue of terminology imposed by ideology?

Does that make sense?

So I guess my next question is (and it may be on your web page as I have not looked at all the material there) What is the history of Pantelism?

Well, Maintenance Man. I don’t think there really is a “recorded, written” history. Else, I would have seen it expanded upon in the Wiki and Theopedia sources:

Pantelism - Wiki
Pantelism - theopedia

Of course, Davo or someone else here, might know something the experts left out.

https://cdn.andertoons.com/img/toons/cartoon6383.png

Pretty recent. For about 10yrs I was a partial prêterist before realising it or even much hearing the term. In 1999 I came across a couple of innocuous little footnotes (p. 264, 531) in David Chilton’s partial prêt masterpiece ‘Days of Vengeance’ referring to a Max R. King and his “insightful and frustrating” work ‘The Spirit of Prophecy’. Chilton (at that time) considered King’s ideas as “heretical” but in subsequent years before his death came to embrace the view more fully. King refers to his own prêteristic approach as ‘Covenant Eschatology’.

Having my interests summarily intrigued I jumped online and found their website and started exploring/dialoguing etc. It started to gel for me and it wasn’t too long before I grasped the implications of ‘covenant eschatology’ (full prêterism) rather excitedly exclaiming “this changes everything!”… I haven’t looked back since. For me the simple but BIG revelation came when I grasped the reality that “end of the world/age” did NOT mean THE END OF our time-space universe but rather THE END OF the Mosaic world/age of OC Judaism – THAT for me changed everything, in particular HOW I was reading NT eschatology.

Subsequent to this I started noticing a number of inclusive conclusions latent within full prêterism when it was taken to its own logical conclusions, mainly the grace of God encompassing all regardless of “professed belief”. In 2002 I put together my own website ‘pantelism.com’ promoting my inclusive prêterism, having contended for the consistent inclusive nature of prêterism much to the irascibility of my fellow prêts who kept in derision labeling me a “universalist”.

So on prêterist sites I tend to be a dirty universalist and on universalist sites an annoying prêterist! :mrgreen:

As to the moniker “pantelism”… at the time one vocal Calvinist prêterist (Sam Frost) published a book where he refutes certain anti-full prêterist assertions and arguments made by a Jonathin C. Seraiah in his book, who in criticising full prêterism refers to it in rather pejorative terms as “a pantelist interpretation” – a Gk. term meaning “all is fulfilled”. I particularly liked to term as opposed to ‘prêterist’ and found its origin in Heb 7:25 (Lk 13:11) where pantelēs <παντελὲς> (pan = all + telos = consummated) is rendered “uttermost”. From my perspective I am applying “the uttermost” or “completely” as having encompassed ALL prophetic AND redemptive history; which I understand to be the outcome of a CONSISTENT prêterism… thus pantelism.

There has been over the years a handful of folk who in gravitating to the inclusive side of prêterism likewise loosely embraced the moniker as well, although there is no fixed creed to it as such. From my perspective pantelism per se is somewhat fluid and evolving.

Well, Thank you David! I believe you are treading new waters :smiley: :smiley:

For me the crux of the issue is perspective, and I’ve lately been working on a new perspective, or what I call ‘Lens’

I know a little about Chilton and DeMar, though I have gravitated towards the full preterist perspective, I admit I have some problems with Preston and Stevens, as well as some others who claim full preterism. Which is why I asked you about your inclusion posts.

I tend towards a covenant (fully realized) preterest view with an understanding that belief in Christ is still relevant today!

Which is why I found Pantelism interesting.

I did just receive Jonathin Seraiah’s book, ‘The End Of All Things’, and look forward to reading it though I am a little at odds with R C Sproul on quite a few points… Not sure where this will land but these folks are obviously partial preterist’s. Jonathin’s perspective may be a tad skewed… We’ll see :smiley:

I listened and studied quite a bit of his (R C Sproul) material when I studied Calvinism, and I think he truly believes what he says, but… :unamused:

No offence intended.

I am in agreement with the Idea of covenant eschatology, and I have a great expectation of God’s plan and love for us in the new covenant.

Keep up the good work, though many throw rubbish at you! :smiley: :smiley:

Chad

Thanks Chad! :slight_smile:

Yep I’m all for a “belief in Christ is still relevant today” view… I’ve just moved beyond ‘evangelicalism’ for my understanding in that; and prêterism aka ‘covenant eschatology’ led me in that direction. For mine I say pantelism is beyond both prêterism and universalism.

Seraiah’s book ‘The End Of All Things’ is the one Frost responds to. I haven’t read Seraiah’s s book. Both he and Sproul are partial prêts, or as full prêts would say “inconsistent” prêterists :wink:. And I must admit I still have Sproul’s ‘Last Days According to Jesus’ on my shelf from 1999 having only read the first 2 chapters. :astonished:

As for the mud-slinging… I’m in no way persecution-minded… lol, I tend to give as good as I get and I really don’t mind a bit of robust interaction, if you can believe that. :smiling_imp:

It is clear I’m saying… ALL are under the DOMAIN of God, i.e., He is sovereign OVER all, regardless of belief. What then are YOU saying, please explain?

So what “works” would you recommend “Christians” DO to ensure peace-of-mind that they will indeed “enter the kingdom” following the narrow scope your interpretation affords?

What seems “philosophically absurd” is that you could read such an excuse of an objection back into what I’ve said as a pretence to disagreeing with me… by all means disagree BUT don’t invent rubbish and then attribute such to me – that’s “absurd”. The likes of Psa 139:7-8; Jer 23:24 stand well with the point I made and NOWHERE dates-wise on the historical clock could any of it be less other than the passing of any said place, for example… a postmortem torturous “hades” BUT which in OT parlance basically meant the grave i.e., death.

I’d like to see if ANYONE ELSE would agree with your bold assertion that… “Psalm 139 and Jeremiah 23 as evidence of a universal kingdom is a huge stretch.” In terms of the sovereign reach of God “a huge stretch… REALLY??

QUESTION: “Have you stopped beating your wife lately… YES or NO?” – it’s a WRONG question reflecting a wrong-headed premise. The “goats” in question were Israel of the flesh (OC law righteousness). The sheep were Israel of the Spirit (NC grace)… Rom 2:29; Phil 3:3.

The EVERLASTING nature of the Parousaic “punishment” or “life” was QUALITATIVE i.e., the totality of destruction as per the ‘Roman-Jewish’ wars or the fullness life experienced “in Christ” – for a whole bunch of believers IN Jerusalem that also meant a miraculous escape right in the midst of the hostilities before the final overthrow and decimation of the Temple.

Like I said… EVERY knee will drop. And IF “those under the earth” isn’t a direct reference to the physically departed, i.e., “the dead” then I’d like to know to whom you ascribe such? IOW… there’s the scriptural evidence for it!

Nothing comes ‘immediately’ to mind but I’m sure Don K. Preston on youtube probably covers it somewhere.

Hey qaz,

Time to jump into the water yourself… There is mucho info about all this all over the internet, but to be honest, a dozen really good folks can tell you truth but if you do not want to look at it, to be honest, there is nothing to be gained. A paradigm shift has to happen. It is as simple as that.

Hope the best for you :smiley:

Chad

Hi qaz,

That is my point, that the preterist perspective is a process of study. It does not come easy but don’t let that shake your belief.

I would say that we should not question our beliefs, but question the things that would challenge our beliefs. If in fact, when you take a view, (in this case the preterist view), then you either believe it (it is your belief) consider it (you question it but it does not shake your belief until you are convinced through the HS that you will adopt it as a belief) or you consider it not to be regarded as to your belief system.

As to the text which you talked about, I found five different papers on the subject within about two minutes.

Here is Preston’s take on it.

There are a couple of different books of his he mentions in this article. Hope this helps.

Chad

Preston says:

I don’t get that. The NASB says: “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” - which is entirely consistent with the idea that this ‘seeing’ was literally and completely fulfilled in the very next chapter with the transfiguration.
I have to ask myself why Preston is so unbalanced in his determination not to see this as a perfectly reasonable POSSIBILITY. All I can deduce is that perhaps preterism will fail if Matt 16:28 can have an alternative interpretation and so he cannot allow himself to even consider that interpretation?

Me thinks he protesteth too much - and that in itself speaks volumes.

Hi pilgrim,

I guess the simple answer is that all the things it says will happen in Mat 16:27-28 did not happen at the account of the transfiguration. But there is a historical case that (concerning the Matthew 27-28 verse imagery) can be made in regards to the siege of Jerusalem and the destroying of the temple around 70AD. And the simplest of all answers is that Christ was going (in regard to the transfiguration), not coming back. A voice came down from heaven, but the Christ did not. :smiley:

Once again, matter of perspective. I tend to view it this way.

Thanks,

Chad

A very gracious reply Chad. Thank you and God bless you in 2016.

As for my view on preterism in general, I think Eaglesway summed it up well in post 447 here:

-and I think it is a really pessimistic view, what with the world being in such a terrible state but I love your Spirit and work for the Lord.

P.S. I’ve been curious for a while, who/what is your avatar?

Thanks pilgrim!

Hope you have a very, very good year! God Bless you and yours. I’m sure we will talk soon! :smiley:

Chad

Sorry Chad - just edited the above whilst you were replying (oops).

pilgrim, my avatar is ‘Red Will Danaher’ from the movie ‘The Quiet Man’.

My favorite movie of all time! I think it was 1952. John Wayne and John Ford at their best in my humble opinion. Thanks for asking!! I wondered how long it would take for someone to ask :smiley:

Best wishes,

Chad

pilgrim,

We are all in a sense preterists, in that preter means past, We all know of Christ whom was born of a virgin, lived, was crucified on a cross, died and was buried, and rose again, and ascended into heaven. All has happened.

I personally believe in a full preterist view, (and thus) an understanding that Christ did all that He set out to do is actually good news!!

I totally understand the hesitance of going down that road, but I have no problem with other views. To be honest, I’m not a very good debater, I’m a musician and a fixer of things, not a theologian. I have opinions, but know others do to!

I hope that helps.

Chad

For me, it is the Maltese Falcon.

I can recall all the main characters now :exclamation:

Thanx Randy!! :smiley:

Sure there was. It was the time folks would embrace **both ** John Calvin theologically and Arthur Schopenhauer philosophically. :laughing: