Pantelism

[stephenpatrick]

Good morning.

Last night I was reading a few threads over at Death is Defeated and for the first time heard of something called Pantelism. What is it? From reading comments from one member who said he was a pantelist I sensed borderline universalism. Am I wrong or what am I missing?

An example from the thread . . .
Cynthia: Are you saying everyone is saved, but some don't know it?

NO. I'm saying everyone is "reconciled" but most don't know it; this is different from salvation. Being "saved" i.e., "redemption" was something promised to and fulfilled for Israel. Because of this, "reconciliation" [which is different than redemption] then came to all mankind.

Am I saying God is at peace with "everyone" then YES – and THIS is reconciliation. Those post Parousia who come into the call of God "as I understand it" are "saved to serve". Israel was "saved" [redeemed] from "the sin" of covenant disobedience. Since the Cross-Parousia event we can be "saved" [delivered] from the toxicities of life and so transformed, as in…

Trying to get a clear answer to a few questions posed to the "pantelist" on this thread just wasn't happening, and towards the end of the thread I sensed frustration on most participating. They all bailed out except for one brave soul.

Any help on this subject?
Thanks.

[mellontes]

You said it! Trying to get a clear answer is very difficult.

DAVO, over at preterismdebate.ning.com is of the same persuasion...

As far as I can tell, the difference between them and "pure" Universalists is the Israel aspect...but I could be totally wrong just like I am about everything else...

[didymus]

Pantelism is based on the Greek word, pantos. It indicates, all, entirely, wholly, etc. In the negative it means, absolutely nothing, not at all.

The doctrine is that all things have been fulfilled since 70AD. That God's work is over, and there is nothing more for him to do, since he has accomplished all that he set out to do.

It is a form of universalism, eventhough they refuse to admit it.

One of it's major points is that "all" have been reconciled to God. However, they say that is different than salvation. Personally, I don't see the difference.

You might call this doctrine as extreme preterism.

As a preterist, I too believe that all things are fulfilled "in Christ," which is some thing many pantelists ignore. You simply can not be reconciled to God unless you are in Christ. Without Christ, you are dead in sins and trespasses. How can one be "reconciled" to God while they are still dead in trespasses and sins? I have yet to get a straight answer for that question.

Does this help you any?

Didy

[Once4all]

Cynthia (as quoted by Steve): I'm saying everyone is "reconciled" but most don't know it ... Am I saying God is at peace with "everyone" then YES – and THIS is reconciliation. ...

If this were true, then there was no need for Paul to appeal to people to be reconciled to God.

2 Corinthians 5:20 NASB
(20) Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Unless she is saying that this appeal for reconciliation took place only until the "second coming." But if the second coming was judgment on Israel, what is Paul's motivation for concentrating on reconciling Gentiles?

Or, if the second coming was the final destruction of the Old Covenant Law, that still has no bearing on Paul's mission to the Gentiles.

If everyone is reconciled, then that is a form of universalism, IMO.

I can see how discussions of this can be confusing.

[stephenpatrick]

Thanks Ted, Didy, and Bev.

Yea, that helped. Nice to see others spot it too.

Bev, actually Cynthia was the one who disagreed with the pantelist. My fault for not making that clear. Ted, it was DAVO.

The pantelist said that the hold overs from the Catholic Church still infect protestant churches, such as someone living a life of evil getting their just deserts post mortuem. Since Jesus reconciled all to God, he couldn't commit them to hell, yet he somehow couldn't even come out and say that clearly. (eternal torment or complete annihilation.) In other words, the evil man is somehow saved. Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

[stephenpatrick]

Good morning everyone.

This is going to be a mishmash of thoughts.

This morning I did a search on google about Pantelism and this forum came up. I do not remember writing this one since this was a few years ago. I have to honestly say that my beliefs (which continue to evolve after much study) have slowly headed in this direction without even knowing or remembering what Pantelism is. And right now at this time I'm okay with it. It doesn't offend or bother me.

If "the last enemy is done away--death," then God has no more enemies.

If "in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive."

Do I struggle with those who have lived a life of evil and then possibly go on to an eternity with God? Yes I do. I think our desire for justice is part of our nature. But trying to grasp the mercy of God I find myself woefully lacking. I think it's greater than anything we will ever comprehend.

I am no longer able to (as of this writing) attend my local church as my preterist and CC viewpoints continually conflict with current evangelical/Baptist/whatever system of futurism. And while I missed it at first I came to realize that was probably because it was something I've always done, more tradition than actually needing to. Friends from my last church have mentioned of the need to fellowship with other believers. If fellowship means discussing biblical issues then I would agree. Our 1st church there was always a lot of discussion with believers, much of it political, biblical, or about prophecy. But, not one time in 10 years after my last church or at any other church events would anybody bring up or talk about the bible or the message of the day or anything to do with the bible. When I would carefully bring the topic up, if one didn't agree with the current interpretation then you were a liberal or borderline heretic. I can talk sports, news and weather with anybody.

I don't believe in hell as currently defined by the church. I believe that to be a hold over from the Catholic church and a bit of Dante's Inferno mix. I don't for one minute believe that God sends those who don't believe or never had a chance to believe to an eternity of utter torment and pain. But I also do not believe in annihilation either.

Preterism convinced me that "all prophecies" were fulfilled within the generation and time frame of the apostles. I'm good with that. The Covenant Creation model says that the first Heaven and Earth (described in Genesis) passed away. Adam was the first covenant man. I'm good with that too.

As I said earlier, my biblical views evolve with study so I'm always open to hear different viewpoints. I try not to be too locked in so as not to learn from anyone.

[Once4all]

Aug 7, 2014 9:40:05 GMT -5 stephenpatrick said:

Good morning everyone.

This is going to be a mishmash of thoughts.

This morning I did a search on google about Pantelism and this forum came up. I do not remember writing this one since this was a few years ago. I have to honestly say that my beliefs (which continue to evolve after much study) have slowly headed in this direction without even knowing or remembering what Pantelism is. And right now at this time I'm okay with it. It doesn't offend or bother me.

If "the last enemy is done away--death," then God has no more enemies.

If "in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive."

Hi Steve!

I think people still need to be born again in Christ. If we are all born in Adam, then in order to be in Christ, we must be born again. There must be a transition of our "old man" from death to life.

Bev

[stephenpatrick]

Oct 25, 2014 13:53:00 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Aug 7, 2014 9:40:05 GMT -5 stephenpatrick said:

Good morning everyone.

This is going to be a mishmash of thoughts.

This morning I did a search on google about Pantelism and this forum came up. I do not remember writing this one since this was a few years ago. I have to honestly say that my beliefs (which continue to evolve after much study) have slowly headed in this direction without even knowing or remembering what Pantelism is. And right now at this time I'm okay with it. It doesn't offend or bother me.

If "the last enemy is done away--death," then God has no more enemies.

If "in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive."

Hi Steve!

I think people still need to be born again in Christ. If we are all born in Adam, then in order to be in Christ, we must be born again. There must be a transition of our "old man" from death to life.

Bev

Hi Bev.

Are we, today, since 70 AD, born in Adam? Does the "death of Adam" work in me today?
I don't believe it does. But I could be wrong.

Like I said in the previous post, I don't have all the t's crossed in my understanding of things nor am I locked in so as not to learn or change my views. Preterism was a major step for me and I am still, when reading the Bible, trying to always read as if the things being talked about were to the very people Jesus or the apostles were talking to, in their day, in that generation. Many, or most of those things applied only to them, not us. I'm not discounting moral or behavioral issues, but whether or not specific commands or doctrines have been handed down to us through the church with a wrong understanding because they are still living in a pre-70AD mindset. [example: I do not believe that I need to be saved from the wrath to come, since it happened already] There is much in Christianity today that builds many of it's doctrines and teaching on a coming judgement which preterists believe has already happened, so there is no need to revisit or apply those things to us today.

Does Adam's sin apply to us today? Did Adam's sin ever apply to us since original sin is a post 70AD Catholic teaching? Adam's sin brought death, not physical death but spiritual death. The relationship with God was severed. That was the death of Adam. That relationship has been restored through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Colossians 1:20 says, And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile "all" things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

If the last enemy to be defeated was death (death of Adam) then God has no more enemies.


PS

Hi Bev. How are you? I hope all is well with you and your husband. I remember he was not doing very well last time (a few years ago) we all were getting together on this forum. I hope he is better.

[Once4all]

Oct 27, 2014 12:35:04 GMT -5 stephenpatrick said:

Oct 25, 2014 13:53:00 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Hi Steve!

I think people still need to be born again in Christ. If we are all born in Adam, then in order to be in Christ, we must be born again. There must be a transition of our "old man" from death to life.

Bev

Hi Bev.

Are we, today, since 70 AD, born in Adam? Does the "death of Adam" work in me today?
I don't believe it does. But I could be wrong.

Like I said in the previous post, I don't have all the t's crossed in my understanding of things nor am I locked in so as not to learn or change my views. Preterism was a major step for me and I am still, when reading the Bible, trying to always read as if the things being talked about were to the very people Jesus or the apostles were talking to, in their day, in that generation. Many, or most of those things applied only to them, not us. I'm not discounting moral or behavioral issues, but whether or not specific commands or doctrines have been handed down to us through the church with a wrong understanding because they are still living in a pre-70AD mindset. [example: I do not believe that I need to be saved from the wrath to come, since it happened already] There is much in Christianity today that builds many of it's doctrines and teaching on a coming judgement which preterists believe has already happened, so there is no need to revisit or apply those things to us today.

Does Adam's sin apply to us today? Did Adam's sin ever apply to us since original sin is a post 70AD Catholic teaching? Adam's sin brought death, not physical death but spiritual death. The relationship with God was severed. That was the death of Adam. That relationship has been restored through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Colossians 1:20 says, And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile "all" things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

If the last enemy to be defeated was death (death of Adam) then God has no more enemies.


PS

Hi Bev. How are you? I hope all is well with you and your husband. I remember he was not doing very well last time (a few years ago) we all were getting together on this forum. I hope he is better.

I'm dong well, Steve. Well, except for my tailbone. I bruised it a couple of weeks ago and it is taking its sweet time at healing. Can't sit at the computer for very long. My husband is still struggling with his health. Any and all prayers said for him are greatly appreciated.

The pantelists and universalists (is that redundant?) rely heavily on that word "all." To repeat your quote of Colossians 1:20:

Colossians 1:20 says, And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

If universal reconciliation was true at the time of this writing of Colossians, why does he go on in verse 23 to give the condition of "if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard"?

If this and other conditions were only up to 70 A.D., let's call out those limiting verses so that we can examine and discuss them.

[stephenpatrick]

I'm dong well, Steve. Well, except for my tailbone. I bruised it a couple of weeks ago and it is taking its sweet time at healing. Can't sit at the computer for very long. My husband is still struggling with his health. Any and all prayers said for him are greatly appreciated.

The pantelists and universalists (is that redundant?) rely heavily on that word "all." To repeat your quote of Colossians 1:20:

Colossians 1:20 says, And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

If universal reconciliation was true at the time of this writing of Colossians, why does he go on in verse 23 to give the condition of "if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard"?

If this and other conditions were only up to 70 A.D., let's call out those limiting verses so that we can examine and discuss them.

Sorry to hear about the tailbone injury. We just don't heal as fast as we used to now that we're getting up there in age. I've got a few leftover injuries (my shoulders) from many, many years ago that give me grief everyday. I understand the pain.

Preterist's rely on the word "all" too, hopefully within context, so I don't let that bother me. If it really means "all", then I need to adjust my thinking for that possibility.

I firmly believe that those who remain in the faith would head the warnings of Jesus to flee Jerusalem before the coming wrath; war in Jerusalem. Those who don't would suffer the effects (death or slavery) of that war. Paul also uses the word "you" in that verse. Not "everybody for all time" but just "you", those to whom he was speaking at that particular time in history. Faith, according to James, is action, obeying the words of Jesus by following through. All were reconciled, but you need to continue in the faith at this particular time in history.

Notice the use of "you" in Colossians 1:5-6 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof you heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you as it is in all the world; and brings forth fruit, as it does also in you, since the day you heard it, and knew the grace of God in truth: ("you" in context isn't you or me, it's the people Paul is talking to)

I am certainly not an expert on pantelism nor will I ever be. I don't even know if I would call myself that. I still have questions and thoughts that bother me, especially on those who do not believe anything about God. What happens to them after death? From what I understand pantelism is more concerned with here and now, while we are alive.

[Randy]

My personal studies led me to Pantelism. This has fundamentally shifted my view of God, myself, the future, and every human being I come in contact with... for the better. Seeing the world from the perspective that everyone is born "in Christ" and everyone is loved by God has freed me to love and accept everyone regardless...no strings attached. I can honestly say that this view has brought more love and joy into my life (and the lives of those around me) than I ever could have imagined!

My research has found that Pantelism is very biblical. However, it does not agree with the Church Creeds or Orthodox Christianity, which is why people that hold this view are often labeled heretics or fringe. But what do you do when the creeds and Orthodoxy disagree with the text (as understood from a first century, Jewish perspective and kept in its proper context)? Well, if you are prepared to reject the creeds and the orthodox teachings of the church, then you have opened the door to Pantelism. If you limit your options to only those that agree with the creeds and orthodox Christianity, then you can't accept the Pantelist position.

Jesus, and EVERY New Testament writer placed the timing of the second coming of Christ (which includes the judgement and the resurrection) in THEIR lifetime. There is not one conflicting verse... However, Ireneaus (a very influential church father that lived in the 100's ad) totally DISAGREES with Jesus and the apostles by teaching that the timing of the second coming was still future (not in the lifetime of the apostles). Somebody is right and somebody is wrong. Who do you agree with, Jesus and the New Testament writers or Ireneaus?

In regard to the timing of the second coming, The Pantelist agrees with Jesus but the creeds and Orthodox Christianity disagree with Jesus and side with Ireneaus. Does anyone see a train coming? I do. Let me explain... If Jesus was wrong, then he is a false prophet. If Jesus is a false prophet, then you have no choice, but to flush the entire Christian faith down the toilet. Ironically, for 2000 years, the church has been teaching a view that makes Jesus a false prophet. Wow!

Critics will say that the early church fathers did not teach Pantelism. And I totally agree with them. The early church fathers did not teach it because almost all of them were influenced by the error of Ireneaus.

So if, the second coming of Christ occurred in the lifetime of the apostles (70 ad), then the Kingdom is here in its fullness, Jesus (the last adam) has come and he has replaced the first adam as the representative of the entire human race. We are not born as sinners (born in Adam) we are born in Christ... And there is no way to change that (even if you reject him) his grace still wins. Every human being on planet earth is accepted and loved by God. Their sins are not held against them because the are no laws that must be kept in order to be right with God (that was the old covenant and the old order prior to 70 ad). Jesus has done much more than the church has been giving him credit for. He has done it all. All prophecy has been fulfilled, and Gods redemptive plan for the human race has been fulfilled. You are free to love and accept yourself, and everyone on earth with no strings attached...God does. This is biblical, this is Pantelism, and it is bringing healing and joy to those who embrace it!

[Chris]

For those who lived in all cultures around the globe prior to the 70ad judgment, were they held in some sort of Sheol until the transaction of the crosses fulfillment transpired?

[AJ]

Oct 27, 2014 17:39:42 GMT -5 Once4all said:

Oct 27, 2014 12:35:04 GMT -5 stephenpatrick said:

Hi Bev.

Are we, today, since 70 AD, born in Adam? Does the "death of Adam" work in me today?
I don't believe it does. But I could be wrong.

Like I said in the previous post, I don't have all the t's crossed in my understanding of things nor am I locked in so as not to learn or change my views. Preterism was a major step for me and I am still, when reading the Bible, trying to always read as if the things being talked about were to the very people Jesus or the apostles were talking to, in their day, in that generation. Many, or most of those things applied only to them, not us. I'm not discounting moral or behavioral issues, but whether or not specific commands or doctrines have been handed down to us through the church with a wrong understanding because they are still living in a pre-70AD mindset. [example: I do not believe that I need to be saved from the wrath to come, since it happened already] There is much in Christianity today that builds many of it's doctrines and teaching on a coming judgement which preterists believe has already happened, so there is no need to revisit or apply those things to us today.

Does Adam's sin apply to us today? Did Adam's sin ever apply to us since original sin is a post 70AD Catholic teaching? Adam's sin brought death, not physical death but spiritual death. The relationship with God was severed. That was the death of Adam. That relationship has been restored through the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Colossians 1:20 says, And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile "all" things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

If the last enemy to be defeated was death (death of Adam) then God has no more enemies.


PS

Hi Bev. How are you? I hope all is well with you and your husband. I remember he was not doing very well last time (a few years ago) we all were getting together on this forum. I hope he is better.

I'm dong well, Steve. Well, except for my tailbone. I bruised it a couple of weeks ago and it is taking its sweet time at healing. Can't sit at the computer for very long. My husband is still struggling with his health. Any and all prayers said for him are greatly appreciated.

The pantelists and universalists (is that redundant?) rely heavily on that word "all." To repeat your quote of Colossians 1:20:

Colossians 1:20 says, And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

If universal reconciliation was true at the time of this writing of Colossians, why does he go on in verse 23 to give the condition of "if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard"?

If this and other conditions were only up to 70 A.D., let's call out those limiting verses so that we can examine and discuss them.

If Adam's sin brought only spiritual death, then was he created to die? Physical death didn't come thru original sin because he was created to die? Please explain.