Jeff,

Glorification is complete.
It is finished, as the Christ said.

You are looking through a view of personal salvation as opposed to a covenant view of what God had done through Israel/Christ and thus the church for the reconciliation of His creation.

You are looking to the future, and I am simply looking to the cross as the ultimate reconciler.

2 Cor 11:3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ.

Halleluiah

Thanks!

Chad

But Jeff… you deliberately keep avoiding by deflection from what I’ve actully asked, continuously, i.e., for “scriptural” evidence to your contention THAT… “Hades still exists to punish the unbelieving wicked dead, but this punishment certainly does not pay any price toward their justification. All are already justified in Christ.” I am NOT challenging your notion that “that humanity is in Christ” so you can stop giving that answer.

And in reading your article this is the closest I came to finding anything remotely touching what you’ve said above…

Well this is all nice and dandy BUT apart from this assertion of yours that such is true there is given NO scriptural evidence to prove such is true. I have to therefore conclude Jeff that your position is in error scripturally speaking as you will not/cannot show otherwise.

Again… consider the logic: IF Christ Himself bore the penalty for SIN at Calvary (when we were yet enemies) how do you then find yet MORE sin that Jesus didn’t suffer for (apparently) that the justified in hades postmortem STILL has to suffer themselves to rectify (thus who really needs Jesus’ sacrifice) for themselves??? LIKE I said… your theory, and THAT’S all it’s proving to be, denudes the Cross of its power. (Can you NOT see the FAULT in your logic Jeff?)

And yet as Paul would say “what saith the Scripture…”

[/list:u][/list:u]
Again Jeff there seems to be daylight and lots of it between what you say the scripture says and what the Scriptures ACTUALLY say.

@davo

I am trying to understand your objections, but the fault in the logic still seems to be yours.

Here is my simple logic.

1. Scripture proves that the cross paid for the sins and justified all mankind, Romans 5:12-21. Do you disagree that God loves all mankind?
2. Scripture proves that people are still punished after the cross, Acts 5:1-11. Do you disagree that God loved and saved Anaias and Sapphira?
3. Scripture proves that the wicked dead are still detained in Hades after the cross, Revelation 20:5, 13. Do you agree that Hades will be emptied?
4. Conclusion God loves all mankind, before and after the cross whether dead or alive, or rewarded or temporarily punished.

This statement seems to be the error in your logic. I have already said that the penalties given to the unbelieving do nothing to justify them before the Lord. Only the cross accomplished that. Punishment and discipline do not serve the purpose of justification. Until you let go of that I am not sure you will see my point or acknowledge the Scriptures I am highlighting.

I am a father of four children myself. I am not the best parent, but I sought to discipline my children in love for their own benefit. I tried to make a point of telling them that they were forgiven by the Lord even if I didn’t properly demonstrate it and to my best ability they were forgiven by me even before I served their punishment. Punishment was not given to justify them to me. It was given to teach them. Hebrews 12:7-11.

So many universalists acknowledge these points. Talbott’s book, the Inescapable Love of God was my favorite on the subject of the nature of God’s discipline of the unbelieving after death. The points made are that eternal punishment would be unjust, but temporal discipline could and would only serve a loving purpose if God determined it.

@maintenanceman

Will there be a time in the future when my back pain is permanently removed and I no longer sin?

And WHERE Jeff does THIS say such applies “postmortem” – which is your argument – the one you won’t/can’t substantiate.

Yeah… AND BEFORE the parousia; the parousia is past, thus so is hades! Ergo… no ongoing loving torture being “ministered” to the justified by Jesus.

http://old.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/headbash.gif http://old.wargamer.com/forums/smiley/headshot.gif… lol Jeff, NOWHERE have I said nor intimated anything like punishment and discipline serve the purpose of justification. Sorry Jeff but I have to call you on this… you are just making this stuff up, maybe to pad out your posts I don’t know, BUT this is far from reality.

Yes… when you are physically dead.

Is this tied by any way to Nero playing the fiddle - while Rome burned?

This “could” involve postmortem BUT it does necessitate it… remember, according to Mt 16:27-28 the gain or loss of rewards at the parousia didn’t require physical death – “some standing here” were to be alive and “remaining” (1Thess 4:15) i.e., surviving through this historical/covenantal EVENT. WHAT such rewards looked like and HOW such rewarding transpired we simple are not told. However John does refer “to him that overcomes will I grant…” etc, which appears more relational than tangible in terms of “reward” – which IF that was the case would be in-line with Jesus’ previous definitive definition of “eternal life” being NOT quantitative endless existence BUT qualitative relational LIFE, as per Jn 17:3; 10:10b et al; IOW… blessedness of life in the here and now.

But that aside and to be clear… from the pantelist perspective there was great “loss” in the fires of AD70, which by the way weren’t restricted to the Jewish Capitol, but the 1Cor 3:15 passage refers specifically to “believers” i.e., the justified and there was/is NO ‘hades’ then or thereafter for them to be in torments in – the notion is simply false.

As a pantelist “the lake of fire” doesn’t exist. John’s ‘the lake of fire’ equates to Jesus’ ‘Gehenna’ i.e., the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem. This was Israel’s (Jerusalem’s) “second death” aka “lake of fire” – the first death being Nebuchadnezzar’s 587BC rout and ruination of the same.

Remember John’s ‘Revelation’ was “symbolic” – it was “signified” (Rev 1:1) – by way of signs <ἐσήμανεν esēmanen> (symbol i.e., picture-words) of “things which must shortly take place.”

As I understand it the contrast is indeed between “the sheep” (faithful) and “the goats” (unfaithful) Israel, being demonstrated in those who did and those who didn’t escape the perilous times of Jerusalem’s fall (this of course included broader Palestine and beyond in terms of Roman clamp down on Jewish insurrectionists, of which early Jewish believers were considered of a similar mold, i.e., not confessing “Caesar is Lord” but “Jesus is Lord”).

What do you conclude is (was) the difference in experience, and what informs your thoughts on this?

I am enjoying this interchange!

Thanks guys !!!

Ok fair enough… so then on what biblical grounds do you extrapolate such, i.e., what texts of scripture justify this for you?

Yeah ok… BUT how have you come to set just those parameters alone? I can see the likes of “corrective punishment” in terms of THIS LIFE as they are plain in scripture, BUT beyond… again what’s your textual evidence?

As I understand it… texts that are “interpreted” along ECT lines in fact refer to Gehenna aka Jesus’ prophetic judgments relative to the AD70 DoJ. I agree 100% with “annihilation” IF and I repeat IF annihilation refers and relates purely to the physicality of man’s existence, no more no less, and as such has NO bearing beyond the physical realm… “do X and LIVE or do Y and DIE”.

IMO ‘the doctrine’ of “annihilationism” as typically understood is as biblically bereft as “infernalism” – and BOTH share the same base belief of a torturous hades postmortem; the ONLY difference after this is an one’s end destiny. BOTH IMO are as corrupt as the other.

Questions for Dave and Gaz:

Why do we have to look at the eternal option as ETC? Why not the Joshua Ryan Butler exile approach? He supports his view with scripture
See (in the The Mercy of Hell? A Review of The Skeletons in God’s Closet (Part 1))

More on this in the interview Facing the Skeletons in God’s Closet and the Hope of Holy War; Joshua Ryan Butler in The Skeletons in God’s Closet: The Mercy of Hell, the Surprise of Judgment.

Why does annihilation need to be painful? Suppose God becomes all-in-all and and folks experience God’s love, according to the Eastern Orthodox view of states of being. Maybe folks experience God’s love and bliss - before ceasing to exist. Much like taking a drug and feeling good - but having an overdose (i.e. similar to the “artificial” reality in the Matrix movies).

Well I DON’T. I reject Catholicism’s ‘Dantēs’ Inferno’ which the reformers kept for their own machinations.

In biblical times, and THAT’S the context of my supposition, annihilation was only as painful as to the means physical death was inflicted, e.g., lopping one’s head off with a sword… relatively painless; crucifixion or stoning… gruesomely painful.

Before I answer your next questions… can you PLEASE deal with mine (as I asked) and give some textual evidence for WHY you believe as you do? Not philosophical argument but scriptural texts?

NO.

Those “outside” were specific to that era in terms of the ones called or not called relative to ministering in the outworking to fullness of God’s redemptive plan… basically those clinging to the OC mode of law-righteousness.

As a pantelist I understand…
“The Church” is NOT the “the Kingdom” – the “church” constitutes the priestly-servants OF the Kingdom.

The ‘KINGDOM’ is the DOMAIN of God – is there any place beyond the reach of God’s sovereign reign? (Psa 139:7-8; Jer 23:24)

The ‘CITY / TEMPLE’ is the SPIRITUAL HUB of the kingdom – wherein the priests of God dwell. (Rev 5:9-10; 22:2)

The ‘COVENANT’ is the LANGUAGE of the kingdom – that which communicates best the Divine intents of the kingdom i.e., ‘love God by loving thy neighbour’. (Mk 12:33; Rom 13:8-10; Jas 2:8)

There are many non-citizens (non-believers) in His Kingdom – naturalised citizens (believers) are mandated to minister God’s message of reconciling grace through witness and worship and works to those lacking this knowledge. The essence of evangelism per se is about bringing those “outside” in terms of knowledge of grace “inside” where the true blessedness of citizenry in this life (Rom 5:17) is found. The essence then of the Gospel is NOT about the avoidance of some supposed postmortem calamity (which seems to be the goal of most infernalists and many universalists). No, the essence of the Gospel is about finding and coming into the blessed fullness of LIFE in Christ in this life (Jn 10:10).

Let me put it similarly…
In all probability there would be many people in the US who reject or “don’t believe in Obama” either apathetically or more contentiously, but their non-belief or rejection in no way stops Obama being THEIR ‘president’… the same rings true with some people’s attitude towards God and the FACT that HE remains by virtue of Creator/created, THEIR God.

Likewise, there are many “non-citizens” in the US living under the same relative peace therein as regular citizens. There are however benefits to “citizenship” not known by “non-citizens”. (I know that’s a less than perfect example given most ‘illegals’ would probably jump at the chance of ‘full membership’ but I’m sure you can see my point.)

Again… the CHURCH is NOT the KINGDOM, but rather the SPIRITUAL HUB of the DOMAIN of God. Remember… “the kingdom” i.e., the right to rule/serve therein, was “taken from” the “congregation in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38) and given to a new people who would accomplish what the former in faithlessness relinquished (Mt 21:43).

So… from my perspective the whole “who’s in or who’s out” had/has NOTHING to do with positions in postmortem paradise (heaven), but EVERYTHING to do with WHO has been called into SERVICE of God and as such is proactive as opposed to reactive. Jesus said… “many are called, but few are chosen” – NOT for position in heaven in the hereafter BUT for purpose in service in the here and now.

What makes you think your “unrepentant sinners” wouldn’t immediately drop in a heartbeat to the knee in awe-inspired reverence at the brightness of His majesty and presence? Any latent doubt or chaos on behalf of so-called ‘unbelievers’ would evaporate in a flash, IMO.

Hi David,

Nice post.

You said,
“What makes you think your “unrepentant sinners” wouldn’t immediately drop in a heartbeat to the knee in awe-inspired reverence at the brightness of His majesty and presence? Any latent doubt or chaos on behalf of so-called ‘unbelievers’ would evaporate in a flash, IMO.”

I am in agreement there. I have kind of thought along those lines for a while.

I do have a question, could you possibly explain what a pantelist believes regarding the difference between inclusion as opposed to the idea of universalism. You’ve posted that idea before and I would like to hear how you explain it. I have a feeling you were touching on it above, but I might be mistaken.

Thanks
Chad

Hey Chad…

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!

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

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

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…

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!

Chad