The Evangelical Universalist Forum

70 AD- calling you Davo

You’re a joke. Sure, Paidon and I have locked horns over various issues and yet despite seeing some things from slightly differing angles I like the fact that Paidion can THINK, and thinks for himself… could you learn from his example… hmmm?

So much for taking “a more contemplative way these days”, eh. It didn’t take much to bring you back to your true self ;

Guilty as charged… I do have to try harder at suffering fools. :laughing:

Getting back on topic, exactly how does one “try harder” in the Pantelistic world?

Does Scripture have anything to do with it?

I’m actually a bit more “neutral” here than Dave, regarding Pantelism and Full Pantelism.

If I can spend years in academia, listing to positions on theology, literature, psychology, and philosophy.
Hang around with folks folk the East and various Native American tribes - and partake in their ceremonies.
And be a lifelong member, of the Theosophical Society and listen to their lecturers - talk on bizarre things.

Then I can follow with interest, the views on Pantelism and Full Preterism - while still keeping my own viewpoint.

Which is just like Mary Baker Eddy, thought that her book - was a KEY to the scriptures. I take the Anglican saying of “Reason, Scripture, and Tradition”. But side with Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, that Sacred Tradition is a key - to understanding Holy Scripture. Just as the Wisdom Tradition, passed down over the centuries - keeps new age garbage, from getting in.

I still have my quirks, mind you. Like the tribulation and the Zombie Apocalypse . :wink:

Oh man, in addition to everything else, you’re also more neutral than me? Geez, I can’t win. :laughing: :laughing:

Another thought is that reconciliation in 2 Cor.5:19-20 is considered by Paul as an “ongoing process” (p.256 of TDNT, Vol.1). The “phrase ήν καταλλασσων in 2 C. 5:19 does not denote a concluded work: “He was present to reconcile the world to Himself”; when and where this work will be concluded is not brought under consideration in 2 C. 5:19-20. For this reason we should not draw from the fact that Paul thinks of the world as the object of reconciliation the deduction that reconciliation for him consists exclusively in the removal of the relationship of guilt between man and God, since the world as a whole is not a new creation etc. This would amount to saying that what Paul explicitly calls the ministry of reconciliation and the self-reconciliation of man forms no part of reconciliation. Paul does not say that the world is reconciled (καταλλαγεις). The reconciliation of the world is as little finished as the απoβoγή of the Jews. Both have begun in the cross of Christ, and both are in the course of fulfillment (–> 258). We can call the world reconciled in the Pauline sense only as we anticipate the execution of that which is present in the purpose of God and in the foundation” (p.257, Friedrich Buchsel, ed. Gerhard Kittel).

The best and most accurate quote your post above contains (since as per usual you have nothing sensible yourself to add) are MY words… :mrgreen:

And now for the Scriptural position, which opposes the Extreme Hyper Grace UU Pantelist position:

Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Col.1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

1 Jn.1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Eph.1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

1 Jn.1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

Pantelism agrees with St. Paul… wonderful :smiley:

Which imagination in your mind leads us back to my quote above by the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament & all the Scripture passages i posted that refute your Extreme Hyper Grace UltraU Pantelistic position on forgiveness of all mankind as a past accomplishment based on nothing they do even before they were conceived or born. But i’m sure all the drug pushers out there selling heroin to children will be happy to hear your gospel of Pantelism that they are forgiven while they continue to ply their trade & how you lean to the view that at the moment of death they’ll instantly enter the blessedness of God’s heavenly kingdom forever.

The problem with Sola Scriptural…if you throw out, the collective Orthodox - statistical norm viewpoints…You can make it fit any viewpoint. Whether Davo’s Pantelism…Theosophicist’s Anni Besant’s Esoteric Christianity…Mary Baker Eddy’s, idealistic Christian Science viewpoint…etc.

You can make a square 4 X 4 inch puzzle piece fit into a 1 inch circumference circular puzzle hole. But can you do it honestly, objectively and by the rules?

I would ask the question: What are the rules and who decides and agrees with them? If we don’t agree with:

The church fathers perspectives
The Reformers perspectives
The Historical Creed’s perspectives

Then anything goes. And you can argue your case and bring in '“evidence” - to back it up. So, just what are these “rules” - you are talking about?

For everyone’s benefit, here’s the Wiki article on Sola Scriptura at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

Let me quote a section - for reflection :smiley:

It should be noted, I give jurisprudence, to the Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Methodist positions.

[size=130]And now for the Scriptural Position (in context):[/size]

Verse 17 indicates that the ones who will “not have their trespasses counted against them” are the regenerated ones—a new creation—totally different from the way they were prior to their regeneration.
Paul states that the work of Christ (on our behalf) was for the purpose of “becoming the righteousness of God.” This is not merely a positional righteousness but is ACTUAL righteousness.

Verse 1 of chapter 8 tells us that when we “work together with Him” we will not be receiving the grace of God in vain. In other words, we will not blindly think God has accepted us by His grace, while allowing us to continue in sin. Rather we will be able to live righteous lives and overcome wrongdoing. We CANNOT live consistently righteous lives through self-effort alone, and God WILL NOT provide His enabling grace unilaterally. But when we coöperate with God’s enabling grace, we CAN become the righteousness of God.

No, there is NOTHING in the Scriptures which indicates that God will accept ANY unrepentant person in his unrepentant state—especially not forever. God will never give up on anyone until righteousness is his state of existence. God wants the best for every person who has ever lived, and He will never relinquish that goal until that is effected.

What does it say about a person’s perspective when ‘the Good News for all people’ upsets them?… just asking for a friend. :sunglasses:

Consider the cultish heretical insane position that Scripture teaches that Love Omnipotent is a Zombie.

Do you consider that an objective, honest by the rules interpretation of the Scriptures?

If not, why not? What rules of interpretation, objectivity & honesty lead you to your conclusion?

To use another example, does Scripture teach that all sins - past, present & future - of all humans, devils & demons - are already forgiven?

That is what i call an Extreme Hyper Grace viewpoint. As i said to davo:

Which imagination in your mind leads us back to my quote above by the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament & all the Scripture passages i posted that refute your Extreme Hyper Grace UltraU Pantelistic position on forgiveness of all mankind as a past accomplishment based on nothing they do even before they were conceived or born. But i’m sure all the drug pushers out there selling heroin to children will be happy to hear your gospel of Pantelism that they are forgiven while they continue to ply their trade & how you lean to the view that at the moment of death they’ll instantly enter the blessedness of God’s heavenly kingdom forever.

Yes, Origen. I don’t agree with hyper-grace. I’m more along the Orthodox lines, expressed by Primary Scriptura (i.e. Anglican and Methodist perspectives). And along church traditional as a whole.being a lens to view scripture (i.e. the Eastern Orthodox perspective).

But you can get Sola Scriptura, to say anything. And this is in accordance, with how this forum operates. In an academic style. There were many things in academic philosophy, theology, and literature courses - I didn’t agree with.

And many presentations, by lecturers at the Theosophical Society - I didn’t agree with.

But now I do listen and try to see, where they are coming from. In accordance with the academic style, that this forum attempts to be.

Do the Eastern Orthodox consider CI an option?

“The issue here is that all doctrines (no matter how obscure) affect our relationship with God in some way. If a Christian believes the Bible says the world will be completely destroyed tomorrow, he will act in certain ways he would not act if he believed the world was not going to end until long after death.”

“Our salvation is not, of course, based on our understanding of the events related to the first or second coming of Christ. Our salvation is based on what Christ did at His first coming and our faith in Him. Pantelism, however, is a teaching - growing in evangelical circles today - that can be called nothing other than heresy, and the ramifications of this teaching are not only dangerous for individuals but destructive to the Church of Jesus Christ.”

The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future, C. Jonathin Seraiah, 1999, p.15

amazon.com/End-All-Things-D … 1885767536