Pantelism, is a recent term in Christian eschatology that refers to what some see as an extension of Full Preterism. This view maintains that the Scriptures both prophetically and redemptively, were entirely fulfilled in the person and work of Christ and consummated at the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Accordingly, this consummation included not only Christ’s Second Coming, but the final judgment, the resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the reconciliation of all things. The unorthodox aspect of this view is that the reconciliation accomplished in 70 A.D was such that there no longer remains a lost condition in humanity and therefore no present need for conversion -- which reduces to a form of universalism where all are saved and one must simply realize what has been done for all humanity.

The term pantelism (from the Greek “all” and “fulfillment”) was apparently coined by Jonathan Seraiah, a preterist who has written against this view.^[1]^ Seraiah prefers the title pantelism (over Hyper- or Consistent Preterism) as a neutral term that does not presuppose that non-pantelist preterists are somehow “inconsistent.”

According to David Embury, a self-proclaimed pantelist,

"This fulfillment completed all Biblical eschatology, being demonstrated in Christ and His elect first-fruits saints end-of-the-age ministry, finding consummation in His prophesied Second Coming [Parousia] and Judgment upon the Old Covenant Mosaic world of the Law and Temple, circa AD70. "Christ's coming in power was never about "the-end-of-the-world" as we know it, viz., the end of the material time-space universe. Nor was it ever about the end of the "Christian-age" followed by the endless utopian bliss of Heaven. No, Christ's Coming, also known as 'the Parousia' was all about the ending of the Mosaic world of the Law for righteousness, followed by the ageless world of the Gospel of Grace – our present time Rev 14:6. ^[2]^


  1. ? C. Jonathan Seraiah, The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future (Canon Press, 1999). A critical review of this unorthodox position with a foreword by R. C. Sproul.
  2. ?