Bedfellows or Bedlam
"Samuel
Frost has written an informative article [Universalism
and Preterism: Bedfellows or Bedlam?] on his understanding of
"universalism" as defined by Keith DeRose and its apparent reading of
certain scriptural texts, and subsequently his analysis of such. His article
has sprung out of a request to counter or at least challenge what some label
'PU' or Preterist Universalism. Others seeking to broaden their particular
angle on scripture have asked many questions around this area of a more
inclusive or comprehensive appreciation of God's grace. Most here advocating
such a position have been pejoratively labeled "Universalists". This
can be both simplistic and misleading in that we, who advocate from our
various positions on these things, are readily told WHAT we believe and then
told how wrong we are.
By way of clarification and in response to some of Sam's article I submit the
following:
Universalism per se is focused predominately on the "here-after"
whereas 'Pantelism' [my position] is more interested in the
"here-and-now", or as I write, in this life. Pantelism is
unapologetically inclusive and comprehensive in its view as to the reach and
scope of God's grace. Pantelism is universalistic it views the blight
of sin as universal, and likewise God's response to it. Now if someone needs to
call me a "Universalist" I can wear that, but as a Pantelist
this is less than accurate and leads to misleading assumptions and or
accusations. I believe that Mary the mother of Jesus is the most blessed of all
women, yet I am no more a Roman Catholic than Billy Graham is. So if some take
umbrage with my position please be specific to my position i.e., Pantelism.
Pantelism is both Preteristic and inclusionistic and views both eschatology and
the redemption-reconciliation as finalized in Christ's AD70 Parousia. It
readily agrees that not "every" ALL of Scripture is universal in
scope nor is "every" reference to WORLD global. Pantelism is a
developing and progressing base of Preteristic and inclusionistic thought that
seeks to follow a more consistent fulfilled hermeneutic.
Below is the crux of Sam's argument in defining to whom Paul's "all"
was referring:
Sam: But, we know that Moses was "alive" soulishly for to God
"all is alive." To be in the state of sleep was to be under the sting
of the Death; that is, Moses was soulishly alive, but alive in a state of
death/sleep. What Moses awaited for was to be made alive again by through
Christ.
Now, if "those who have been asleep and are still asleep" are those
who are being denied resurrection life by "some" of the Corinthians
is compared with those who are "fallen asleep in Christ" (15.18 the
verb here is aorist), then we have a definition of Paul's "all."
If those who have previously fallen asleep are being denied, but those who have
fallen asleep in Christ are not denied, then Paul is arguing that all that
is those who have fallen asleep and those who have fallen asleep in Christ will
be raised. Both groups will be "made alive in Christ" since both
groups have fallen asleep in Adam. In other words, falling asleep in Adam
does not discount a person from being raised in Christ, which, apparently, some
in
Context is everything. In my view, the "all" is balanced nicely
because the same "all" that were dying in Adam (sleeping) is the same
"all" that will be made alive in Christ.
Those who would participate in the resurrection are not only those who fell
asleep in Christ, but all those who hoped in Christ long, long ago. It was the
latter group that was being denied in
Those "others" then who were "soulishly alive, but alive in a
state of death/sleep" who hoped in Messiah and were therefore "in the
Christ" can be none other than historic old covenant Israel:
1Cor 10:1-4 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact,
brothers, that OUR forefathers were ALL under the cloud and that
THEY ALL passed through the sea. THEY were ALL baptized into
Moses in the cloud and in the sea. THEY ALL ate the same spiritual food
and drank the same spiritual drink for THEY drank from the spiritual rock
that accompanied THEM, and that rock was CHRIST.
In spite of the biblical fact that a whole generation dropped in the desert
through unbelief, ALL historic
Jesus was God's redemptive agent of and for
Though rebellious enemies of the gospel, historic
Romans 11:15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of
the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
Or to paraphrase it: "For if
And this is the crux of the matter
Those who seek to read Paul's "all Israel" as "the church
only" plainly ignore the context made clear in Rom 11:1, 28 and can
only do so by reading into the text this bifurcation and need to consider the
following: When Paul and others spoke in terms of NOT ALL Israel being
"Israel", "Jews" or "God's children" [Rom
2:28-29; 9:6, 8; Rev 3:9] they were delineating the fact that historic
Israel was not, and had not for some time, lived in accordance with her holy
vocation and calling as Yahweh's priests to the world, i.e., being Yahweh's light
to the Gentiles, as was their mandate as kingdom priests [Ex 19:5-6; Isaiah
42:1, 6; 43:10; 49:3-6; Zech 3:8]. It was THIS kingdom mandate of having
the authority as witnesses to Yahweh that was stripped of from old
covenant historic Israel and given through Christ to the nation
producing its fruits [[b]Mt 21:43-45[/b]] i.e., new covenant [true] Israel, aka
"the Israel of God" [[b]Gal 6:16[/b]]. Historic
Further then, in the context then of the first-fruit believers those who
Paul specifically speaks of as "in Christ" are those of
"faith", called as priests unto God, brethren of Christ those who
are saved to serve. Essentially then, "the world" has been
brought "in Christ" into
Sam: If all things are reconciled to Christ, then every man will be
made a member of the body of Christ. Let us continue to read Paul, however.
"And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds,
22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present
you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue
in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel
that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of
which I, Paul, became a minister." Does DeRose take this last verse to
refer to the same content of "the all things" in 1.15-20? "All
creation" and "under heaven" are two phrases Paul has already
used, but who would argue that the gospel was preached in Paul's day to the
Eskimos or the Chinese?
Certainly according to Scripture humanity IS reconciled to God THROUGH
Christ the fact that many don't realize it does not negate the reality of
it this is why Pantelism advocates evangelism. Now I can't and don't speak
for DeRose, so taking a fulfilled perspective we can see that this
creational language is age specific to the "world of Israel of that
day" a world that was "passing away" [1Jn 2:17].
We know that the gospel spread far and wide and that there was a
"foundation" for its reception in that as James says: For Moses
has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being
read in the synagogues every Sabbath. Act 15:21. This also helps
explain in part how it was that folk "from every nation under heaven"
[Act 2:5] responded so readily to the gospel.
Sam: Also, there appears to be a conditional "if" in verse
23. What would it matter "if" they didn't remain in the faith,
stable and steadfast? They are already reconciled.
Yes reconciled they were, yet should any stray from the faith having bowed or
returned to law observance, i.e., having "fallen from grace" [Gal
2:13], a constant issue that Paul wrestled with on behalf of those he
loved, then it mattered greatly as such would place one in the perilous
position of perishing in the 'end of the age' conflagration something not
just limited to within the walls of Jerusalem.
Now to some other related issues:
Certainly by its very nature much of Scripture IS Israel specific, this
however in no way negates its value for believers post Parousia in applying its
truths and principles beyond the first-fruits time frame, for this reason:
Israel was the redemptive microcosm for what God was outworking redemptively
on behalf of the whole creation macrocosm. God predestined-called-elected
historic Israel; out of Israel He chose a remnant; through this remnant came
the Christ [Messiah]; through Christ God called a remnant [the first-fruits];
through this remnant God delivered [saved] all Israel; and in redeemed
Israel the whole world obtained the reconciliation. Or putting it
another way:
Out of the world, God chose
.... Out of Israel God chose the Remnant.
........ Out of the Remnant God chose the Messiah.
........ In the Messiah God chose the Remnant.
.... In the Remnant God chose
In
So then, God's unilateral covenant with the Gentile Abram "that ALL
families of the earth would be blessed" [Gen 13:3] found
fruition in the Seed Christ, and thus through Christ's Body the first
fruits believers was ministered the redemptive plan and purpose of God for and
on behalf of ALL humanity. This is how that which had a fixed "this
generation" fulfillment, purpose and reality extended through the
Parousia to embrace all.
Paul states it this way using my Pantheistic paraphrase that I believe gives
Paul's intent:
Rom 8:18-23 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy to be compared with the glory, which shall be, revealed in us first-fruit
believers. For the earnest expectation of
This then touches on the issue of election. From the pantelistic perspective,
"election" had naught to do with future post mortem position,
but with the redemptive this life purpose of God. Paul indicates that
the issue of "works" whether good or bad hence "judgment"
was not the point with regards to election:
Rom 9:11
for the children not yet being born, nor having done
any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works but of Him who calls
The outworking of redemption by those elect would cost many their lives. The
rejection of the new covenant would likewise cost many their lives being
wiped out of the 'Book of Life' i.e., a covenantal euphemism for the literal
loss of life [Psa 69:28]. The cost was not only the temporal loss of
physical life in
To say then that Christ died for the elect ONLY with "the elect"
being viewed a special group to gain entrance into heaven upon physical death
is to have the whole redemptive scenario upside down. The first-fruit elect
were the ones losing their lives [Mk 8:35; John 15:13] "in
Christ" [and some quite literally] as they were laying down their lives on
behalf of their brethren natural and spiritual
Coming to "faith in Christ" is not and never was about the 'fire
insurance' of avoiding Hell or annihilation, but about coming into a life of
service with God. By responding affirmatively in faith and repentance to the
call of God, one enters into the priesthood of service, experiencing
conversion being saved to serve.
All who answered the call of God as evidenced in the Old Testament did
so, again, not to get to Heaven as that was not an issue, but to
minister on behalf of God's people. Through Christ's atoning sacrifice the
whole of humanity has been restored and now 'the people of God', or as Virgil
has said elsewhere humanity being
Some with a critical eye of judgment view Romans 9 as the touchstone of
election and reprobation with regards to existence beyond the grave, but miss
the mark in such as not appreciating that the new covenant heavenward call was
and is a call toward justice, mercy and humility [Mic
6:8], which ultimately is demonstrated by the axiom "love thy neighbor
"
in doing so we are loving God and experientially in life being loved by God,
and thus knowing His assurance of peace.
God's displeasure towards Esau as reflected by Paul in Romans was not that of a
rancid hatred, but needs to be seen and understood in the light of redemptive
history i.e., Esau was not the one chosen or elect for
such a high redemptive calling. When God "hates" Esau [Rom
9:13] it means to have no regard towards him in relation to the
outworking of the Divine redemptive plan. It does not mean: "therefore
he shall be eternally damned!!" This is why 'election' in its proper
context of redemption was [past tense] about purpose and NOT position
it was about service and NOT security i.e., gaining Heaven; it
was and is about "Immanuel!! God with us" Yahweh dwelling and
present with man, reunited with Him in the last Adam restoration.
So rejection or what some wrongly label "reprobation"
simply means NOT chosen for the higher redemptive purpose. Take the
account of the call of David in 1Sam 16:1-13. In particular, verse
7 where refusal or rejection clearly means nothing more than NOT
CALLED for that redemptive ministration.
1Sam 16:6-7 So it was, when they came, that he looked at Eliab and
said, "Surely the LORD's anointed is before Him!" But the LORD
said to Samuel, "Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature,
because I have refused [rejected] him. For the LORD does
not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD
looks at the heart."
This is the essence of Paul's election issue of Rom 9 whether helped
or hardened of the Lord had nothing to do with post death destinies, but
rather God's redemptive plan for man. That was the story of
Paul's various vessels [Rom 9:21-23; 2Tm 2:20-21] be they honorable OR
NOT, were of the same lump, all were of the one house [kingdom].
Israel, believing AND unbelieving, rebellious OR faithful were all-together no
less the covenanted people of God faith obtained the blessings and
promises and faithlessness certainly led to temporal judgment and forfeiture of
blessing [consequences of actions] yet such as these were still experienced in
this life. So the scope of redemption as it applied to Israel WAS comprehensive,
yet "faith" enabled one to be useful in the redeeming reconciling
hand of God something the first-fruit saints came into, and so found
salvation.
So we find that scripturally speaking "rejection" by God was NOT
about post death retributive judgment through damnation or obliteration;
it was simply non-election to the greater redemptive purposes of God
nothing more and nothing less. This notion that election is about exclusion
from Heaven has NO biblical warrant, at least no one here has produced any
scriptural evidence of such. Ultimately, "election" was for the
benefit and inclusion of others, NOT their exclusion. And that benefit was
and is the covenantal relationship with God in life this life, i.e., eternal
life. It is this LIFE that is grasped by faith in Christ and so
finds the salvation of life that is distinct from the redemption-reconciliation
that encompasses all.
Any divine calling and empowering subsequent to the Parousia was and is for the
maintaining and testimony of this grand reality, in worship
and witness. This truly is what a "fulfilled paradigm" is all
about. Folk can banter back and forth on the platform of supposed
"orthodoxy" quibbling over the virtues of Calvinism or Arminianism
for example, while the train of spiritual seekers is passing them by.
I think that it is possible that Calvin erred in dragging redemptive election
past the Parousia, and that Luther erred in dragging "justification"
i.e., salvific vindication past this life in making it the means
of escaping a supposed post death calamity and thus a passport into heaven. Yes
there is a "righteousness of faith" for the believer but
that again is in relation to one's standing in the call of God for service
[2Pet 1:10], one's standing in the new covenant in this life, NOT in
getting to Heaven.
It is time for folk of the "fulfilled" framework to stop ignoring this
and start re-examining their so-called consistency as it relates to the fulfillment
of redemption if THAT is what we claim Christ's Parousia was truly all
about.
We who live post Parousia are the "offspring" of that generation
i.e., we live in the endless age of righteousness that of which they were at
that time awaiting. We who believe today are like those who believed then we
are God's priests to His world. The pre Parousia priesthood "Body of
Christ" played a part in securing redemption the post Parousia
priesthood is all about proclaiming-demonstrating that job done, which
is; humanity HAS been reconciled, now "COME!!" and walk in the
fruits of it doing so decisively in faith IS salvation, which is;
finding, experiencing, and sharing the presence of God in this life.
This is Pantelism.
I could say more, but this will suffice for present and let Sam have the last
word, well nearly :)
Sam: It is a weak person that seeks to write off everything and everyone
that disagrees with him. That's easy. Love is hard.
Others, like myself
have attempted to wrestle with this question, and have
come out with two very different answers. I applaud the wrestling.
Bravo Sam!!
as of 10-2005