|
– Bedfellows or Bedlam –
a considered response
In his
article
Universalism and Preterism: Bedfellows or
Bedlam? Samuel Frost critiques "universalism" as he finds
defined in the work of Keith DeRose, and his apparent reading of certain
scriptural proof texts; Frost subsequently gives his analysis of such.
Frost's article partially sprung out of requests and or concerns raised
by some to counter or at least challenge what several alarmist
preterists label 'PU' or preterist-universalism. Within this context of
surrounding discussions others seeking to broaden their appreciation of
Scripture have asked many questions around this area of the more
inclusive and comprehensive nature of God's grace. Most advocating this
particular position have been summarily and pejoratively labelled by
these concerned preterists as "universalists". This branding however is
both simplistic and misleading in that "we" who advocate from our
various positions this inclusiveness are unnecessarily misrepresented,
readily being told WHAT we believe and then how wrong we are in those
beliefs.
One
vocal preterist defines universalism, and by deliberate extension
Pantelism, accordingly:
All
Universalists teach this doctrine:
Even if we commit every atrocity and speak every blasphemy imaginable
every day of our lives and are filled with undiluted hate for Christ and
for His church every day of our lives and die in all of our sins and
unbelief, God promises us that we will be saved and have eternal life.
That doctrine is _not an implication_ of Universalism. That IS
Universalism.
Yes, Universalists believe that Jesus is Lord, but they also teach that
we will be saved if we worship Mohammed, Buddha, Satan and the demons.
There is no conceivable way that Universalism can be tolerated in the
body of Christ. It is pure poison. Universalism doesn't merely have bad
implications. It is in-your-face, explicitly anti-Gospel. [David
Green]
I don't know Green's "universalist" source, but this could not be
further from the truth with regards to pantelism. With the exception of
Christ's sole Lordship,
Pantelism affirms none of the above
and by way of clarification and in response to some of Samuel Frost's
article I submit the following:
Universalism per se is focused predominately on the "here-after" i.e.,
who gets to Heaven, whereas Pantelism is more interested in the
"here-and-now", or as I often write – in this life i.e.,
beginning heaven today. Pantelism is inclusive and comprehensive in its
view as to the reach, scope and encompassment of God's grace. Pantelism
is unapologetically universalistic – it views the blight of sin
as universal, and likewise God's response to it. Now if someone has a
need to label Pantelism "universalist" then so be it, but this is less
than accurate and can lead to misleading assumptions and or accusations;
a non related example might be – one can believe that Mary the mother of
Jesus is the most blessed of all women without being a Roman Catholic.
So those taking umbrage with Pantelism need to be specific in their
objections to pantelism, and not use miscued and misguided
attacks on universalism as thinking they are accomplishing some feat;
there are significant differences. An example of these detractors
ineptness could be likened to a 'futurist' who persistently raises
objections to 'full preterism' against a 'partial preterist' – as you
can imagine someone is not getting the full picture.
Pantelism is both prêteristic and inclusionistic and views both
eschatology and the redemption-reconciliation as finalised in Christ's
AD70 Parousia. Some preterists refer to realised eschatology –
pantelism concurs and further argues for prêteristic consistency in
advocating realised redemption.
Pantelism is a developing and progressing base of prêteristic and
inclusionistic thought that seeks to follow a more consistent
fulfilled hermeneutic. Unlike the general thrust of universalism,
pantelism readily agrees that NOT "every" ALL of Scripture is universal
in scope nor is "every" reference to WORLD global.
Below
is the crux of Frost's argument in defining to whom Paul's "all"
was referring:
Frost: 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 Corinth thought that it did. From this perspective, "all" is not
defining "every single human being," but the group that was being denied
("those who have fallen asleep" – perfect tense) and the group that was
being affirmed ("those who have fallen asleep in Christ" – aorist
tense). Paul is saying that all (both groups) will be raised
in Christ without entertaining every individual.
…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
Corinth. Rather, then, than proving universalism, this verse proves that
only those who hoped in Christ, along with those who fell asleep
in Christ, will be made alive. [bold text mine]
This
is exactly what pantelism is advocating – "all those who hoped
in Christ long, long ago" who were "soulishly alive, but alive in
a state of death/sleep" having hoped in the Messiah, and were
therefore "in the Christ" can be none other than historic Israel of
the old covenant – IN TOTO:
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 of 'the chosen'
dropped and died in the wilderness of unbelief, ALL historic Israel
inclusively so, were redeemed and therefore in Christ. The
inclusiveness of Israel and her redemption cannot be whittled down
without doing great violence and injustice to the faithfulness of God.
That "some" did not see it DID NOT negate it:
Rom
3:3-4a
For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the
faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not!
Jesus
was God's redemptive agent of and for His people Israel. Jesus
was THEIR Messiah, thus ALL Israel, from God's perspective, were
in Christ. Israel was God's chosen "vine" [Isa 5:7]
– Jesus prophetically, redemptively and eschatologically was "the
true vine" [Jn 15:1]; therefore Jesus was True Israel,
fulfilling in himself Israel's divine mandate [Isa 49:3]. Jesus
was THE ELECT [Messiah] of the elect [Israel] [Isa
49:8-9]. Jesus WAS Israel's redeeming Messiah [Mt 1:21; Lk 1:68],
thus ALL Israel was IN Christ, and in the Parousia ALL were
delivered from the "ungodliness of Jacob" having finally had
their "sins taken away" and so ALL Israel was set free [Rom
11:26-27]. It was to ALL Israel that the prophetic promise was made
of a new covenant [Jer 31:31-34], and this redemptive promise of
restoration WAS the "hope of Israel" i.e., her resurrection
[Eze 37:1-14; Act 23:6; 24:15; 26:6-8]. It was THIS promise that
Yahweh would make good through the remnant elect on behalf of the
greater whole. The first-fruit believers of the AD30-70 transitional
period were the ones separated and dedicated [sanctified] by and to God
as the first-fruits offering of the greater gathering harvest of
all Israel at "the fullness of the times" Eph 1:10.
Though
rebellious enemies of the gospel, historic Israel were nonetheless elect
and beloved on account of God's promises to the patriarchs, and
ultimately in the mercy of God, accepted and redeemed:
Rom
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 Israel's temporal hardening brings the
reconciling of the world, what will Israel's acceptance by God be
but resurrection life?"
And
this is the crux of the matter – the fulfillment of Israel's
redemption brought about the world's reconciliation. And "world" in
this context clearly DOES extend beyond the limits and borders of
historic Israel. Paul's "all Israel" is corporately inclusive and
so likewise Paul's "the world". Thus by virtue of Israel's
redemption we have all humanity in Christ, or as Paul states: "…God
was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, NOT imputing
their trespasses to them…" 2Cor 5:19.
Those
who seek to read Paul's "all Israel" as "the church only" plainly ignore
the context made clear in Rom 10:1; 11:1, 14, 28 and can only do so by
reading into the text this bifurcation and could do well 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; Isa
42:1, 6; 43:10; 49:3-6; Zech 3:8]. It was THIS kingdom mandate – the
authority as witnesses to Yahweh, that was stripped from old
covenant historic Israel and given through Christ to the nation
producing its fruits [Mt 21:43-45] i.e., new covenant or true
Israel, also known as "the Israel of God" [Gal 6:16]; none
other than the 'Body of Christ' – the branches of the Vine. Historic
Israel through her self-centred and self-righteous exclusiveness
abdicated her God-given role as God's redemptive handiwork in the earth
– it was THIS mandate and THIS role that those "this generation"
first-fruit saints of faith inherited, in other words – THEY
received and entered into the inheritance of kingdom rule and life [Rom
5:17].
Further, in the context then of the first-fruit believers those
who Paul specifically speaks of as "in Christ" were those
of faith, called as priests unto God, brethren of Christ – those
who are saved to serve.
Essentially then, "the world" has been brought into Israel "in Christ" [Eph
2:11-13]; "believers" are His priesthood [1Pet 2:9-10] to
minister within Israel i.e., to "the world" His blessing and Presence –
thus the 'fellowship of followers' are as the New Jerusalem in the new
creation in this ageless age of righteousness [2Pet 3:13]. Active
faith then is the key to THE CALL, not the key to Heaven –
"getting to heaven" was never the issue, but coming into the covenant
call of priestly service.
Frost: 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? [bold text mine]
Certainly according to Scripture humanity has been reconciled TO God
THROUGH Christ – the fact that many don't realise this does not
negate the reality of it – this is why Pantelism advocates evangelism –
sharing the full gospel of forgiveness for all.
The
above passages quoted need to be seen for what they are – a building up
in grandeur of the work of God in Christ. This passage is not pitting
one against another, or fostering some "either-or" argument, but rather
a "both-and" or ALL case is in view – building from the bottom up in
greatness – and yet encompassed all. Verse 15 has the
pre-eminent One over all creation; verse 16 generically has all
things visible and invisible; verse 17 envelops this; verse 18
then moves higher up declaring His headship over the Church and His
excellence as the firstborn from the dead, i.e., old covenant
Israel [Act 26:23]; verse 19 reaches the peak of
magnificence where, in Christ, dwells ALL the fullness of God, even
bodily [2:9]. And ALL this for what purpose:
Col
1:20
…that by Him [through Christ] to reconcile all
things to Himself [the Father], by Him [through
Christ], whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made
peace through the blood of His cross.
God's
purpose in Christ was to bring peace, redemptive peace between Himself
and His chosen Israel; this in turn wrought His reconciling peace to the
world – and this peace He accomplished in Christ AND ministered through
the first-fruit saints:
Isa
53:11
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied:
by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall
bear their iniquities.
Verse
21 and following then digresses further to the audience of the
epistle specific.
Thus
not speaking for DeRose' universalism as per Frost's understanding,
pantelism in taking a fulfilled perspective sees this creational
language as age specific to the world of Israel's 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:
Act
15:21
“For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him
in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
This
helps explain in part how it was that folk "from every nation under
heaven" [Act 2:5] responded so readily to the gospel.
Frost: 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. [bold text
mine]
Yes
reconciled they were, yet should any stray from the faith bowing or
returning to law observance for righteousness, i.e., having "fallen
from grace" [Gal 2:13, 18] – a constant issue that Paul
wrestled with on behalf of those he loved; then it mattered greatly, as
such could potentially place one in the perilous position of perishing
in that 'end of the age' conflagration of Israel's fall – not something
simply limited to within Jerusalem's walls alone.
It is
interesting how those preterists advocating a limited world for
example mostly gloss over the "world" of Jn 3:16-17 and
readily interpret it globally – so much for consistency to
"their" prescribed method. Yet such from a pantelistic framework fits
readily with "Israel" – "he came unto his own" [Jn 1:11]
etc. This is not to deny a broader "global" application of such
verses as Jn 3:16 or even Rom 3:23 etc, but if one is
going to argue for limitations on ALL and WORLD then there needs to be
some semblance of consistency. To argue "context" without actually
dealing with its wider implications i.e., how that impinges on its
historical contextual setting is no answer.
So as
it can be seen, the case raised against universalism carries not weight
of conflict with pantelism – quite to the contrary; there is more
contradiction and inconsistency within the prêteristic landscape where
realised redemption is ignored. There IS continuity and
contrast between Paul's ALL and John's WORLD, but not
conflict or contradiction. Acknowledging the contextual setting of the
first-fruit saints and their exclusive ministry in this,
helps to understand the "limited nature" of some of what Paul and
others wrote. That limitation was about redemptive purpose in
life, NOT reprobate position post mortem. Theirs was the bringing
together of the great redemptive climax of the microcosmic story
of
Yahweh
and Israel, which was the focal point of the greater
reconciliatory macrocosmic story of the Creator and his world;
in toto, the restoration of man.
[DISCUSS
HERE]
David G. Embury
© Copyright 2006à
Email:
contact@pantelism.com
|
