Welcome to Pantelism Blog – a brief explanation:

 

Pantelism holds to the theological proposition that Israel’s eschatological redemption was fulfilled through the prophesied AD30-70 Cross-Parousia event. Pantelism understands the fullness of Israel’s redemption as being the catalyst for the world’s reconciliation; thus Pantelism is prêteristic in scope, seeing all eschatological prophecy as now complete, and inclusionistic in scope relative to the breath of its resultant reconciliation.

 

Although inclusive in approach with regards to God’s grace embracing all humanity, Pantelism also holds to the exclusive nature of much of Scripture with regards to the call of God’s elect. In fact, in contradistinction to both Universalism and Partialism, Pantelism differs greatly from their basic assumption that being saved is about one’s “eternal destiny”. BOTH Universalism [everybody goes to heaven] and Partialism [most go to hell] are geared around the SAME notion as in who does or does not get to heaven after death – Pantelism views this assumption as totally wrong-headed and NOT supported by Scripture, and thus comes to a different conclusion as to what being saved, salvation, eternal life and being born-again are all about. Pantelism most definitely believes that all humanity has been reconciled to God – but reconciliation and its outworking as per the scriptures, quite apart from what may transpire post mortem, is completely pertinent to this life.

 

In other words – election is to be understood NOT in terms of getting to heaven after death, and that to the exclusion of all else, no. The “elect” of the Bible are chosen to minister ON BEHALF OF all else. This redemption and reconciliation was the work of Christ THE elect first-fruit. The New Testament further records the “believers” of the early church “this generation” era as the elect first-fruit saints called in Christ to minister in His priestly call. Thus salvation was and is all about the call to priestly service, thus it is right to say that believers are saved to serve.

 

So… while it is correct to say that all men have been reconciled to God inclusively, BECAUSE OF Christ’s faithfulness, it is equally correct to say that only certain ones are called exclusively into God’s priestly service. Understanding election or non-election in these terms completely negates and makes rather moot the whole Universalist / Partialist contention.

Annihilation Anathema

When one understands “eternal destruction” in qualitative terms of the TOTALITY of devastation, then annihilation can rightly be understood biblically as referring solely to the “physical demise” of one’s being – nothing more and nothing less; that is – annihilation has absolutely NOTHING to do with mankind’s post-mortem condition. Such destruction in scriptural terms is relative to temporal and corporeal judgement and in most cases pertinent to God’s covenant people. This is seen either in terms of punishment for disobedience, or punishment befalling those who mistreated God’s covenant people. Thus when it comes to annihilation a “post-mortem” application is invariably read into the text – and yet there no texts of Scripture actually showing this to be the case.

It should further be noted that the New Testament writers when using the word “hell” [gehenna] do so to describe the fate of the lost only in the Gospels, and only in speaking to Jews, and thus only when addressing such people as are familiar with the topography of Jerusalem. James’ epistle may be the only exception to this, but even then his audience is also wholly “Jewish”.

“Annihilationism” as a doctrine fails to explain HOW it is ultimately any different from the “endless torment” dogma. Typically used, “annihilationism” fails just as miserably as “eternal conscious torment” to identify any purposeful meaning to life for the vast bulk of humanity, in that most do not or cannot come to a deeper or richer understanding of life as found in Christ. Both views ultimately and utterly being bereft of reason are as pointless as each other.

Example: a small child grows up struggling in a poor destitute dirt-swept village somewhere on the backside of the planet. She is ravaged with hunger and choked by thirst. Those around her are similarly plagued with pestilence, pain and starvation. Eventually this little one succumbs to the claws of death and dies. Then finally when Jesus returns from Heaven [assuming popular futurism] Jesus raises her up only to then set her ablaze, and with the most cavalier of waves from the royal hand dismisses her to a final oblivion…

What then was the point and purpose of such a pained and pathetic life and that of countless millions just like hers? The answer – NOTHING!! Her torturous and meaningless existence becomes nothing but an absurd tragedy starved of any purposeful value, save that of satisfying the whims and wants of some supposedly “angry God”. What a cruel hoax of a “gospel” if that is what you could call it – this is no good news at all. Fortunately however such is NOT the case at all for all are embraced by grace regardless of circumstance or knowledge for all are God’s children.

IF your own children whom you love have come to a place where they hold you in contempt and so reject you, will their rejection of you override your love and acceptance towards them? – how is it then that we could possibly conceive that we have more love and acceptance in our hearts than does God?

No More Enemies

 

IF as Pantelism contends – in the AD70 Parousia of Christ the LAST enemy to be destroyed was “death” [1Cor 15:26]; and IF along with “death” its paralyzing venom of “sin” duly empowered by the “law” likewise suffered demise [1Cor 15:56]; and further… IF God having reconciled all things in heaven and on earth to Himself through the blood of Christ’s cross [Col 1:20]; THEN regardless of what you or I or anybody else thinks or reasons – God has no more enemies.

 

Now even if in the ignorance or arrogance of some men’s feeble minds they consider themselves enemies of God, from HIS perspective they are not [Col 1:21], period. The logic is clear-cut – IF from the pantelist perspective “the last enemy” to be destroyed was death then consistency dictates that there can be NO MORE ENEMIES thereafter; therefore God has no more enemies, period! And so… IF God has made peace, and the Scriptures testify He has, THEN who are we to question His gracious will?

A Faithful Saying Worthy Of All Acceptance

 

1Tim 1:12-16 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners [Lk 19:10], of whom I am chief. However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life [Jn 17:3; 1Jn 5:13; Jn 20:31].

  

1Tim 4: 9-11 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance. For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.

 

Paul’s words to Timothy he says are worthy of acceptance by all, and that as such are words worthy of being repeated and proclaimed, that: God is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe. The apostle Luke further tells us that God accomplished His most gracious saving work on man’s behalf through Jesus Christ where Luke records the words of the Saviour: “for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost“. One can rightly ask – who is it that fits into this category of “that which was lost” and did Jesus fulfil his mission given by the Father in so seeking and saving these lost? Pantelism agrees with the answer that Jesus indeed did accomplish fully ALL of his saving mission.

 

Now some object that Paul’s “all men” above is a misreading and that it means and so should be read as “all KINDS of men…” – this however is nothing but an unbiblical attempt to circumvent what the text clearly states; this is done for nothing more than the desire to adhere to positional bias in stead of sticking with the text. That said – IF one uses their same logic consistently it simply reads as God being the Saviour of all kinds of men, especially the kind who believe. Thus consistency makes this unfounded and errant claim a non issue.