Talk:Preterism
Previous discussion archived at Talk:Preterism/Archive 1 & Talk:Preterism/Archive 2
A helpful (perhaps) summary
On this one issue in dispute, it is helpful to recap from my perspective the comprimise that has been taken. First, if I were solely authoring this article I would have said "most view full preterism as heresy." When collaborating with Mike, I didn't even suggest this, knowing right off that it would only cause issues, though I believe accurate. So I comprimised and suggested many. Mike agreed with that - Mike being very reasonable and forthright on this issue IMHO. A dispute arose at that time with an anon poster - Mike and I were batting back and forth how this could be resolved when Kalos joined the discussion and suggested something even stronger than I was advocating. I let Kalos know that while I thought he was accurate, it would only cause an edit war - Mike, Kalos, and I then worked on an additional comprimise from my position - and that was adding the qualifier "though not universallly" in order to satisfy the objection and yet remain accurate. This position is the result of comprimise on my side, and the desire of us three (one orthodox preterist, and two full preterists) in collaboration working dispassionately with the facts.
Dee Dee Warren 17:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That last entry is me Dee Dee
I am not logged in, that last entry is me -
Dee Dee Warren 17:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A head appears round the door
Dee Dee asked me to pop in here and see how things were going. For those of you who don't know me, I was involved briefly in trying to encourage discussion and compromise on this article a while back - something that seems to be happening admirably here now.
To the person protesting about "many" - remember that this sentence is not saying that Full Pretanism is heresy - just that it is often considered so by people other than its proponents. It leaves open the possibility that they could be wrong in this view - Wikipedia not being the place to decide that question. To the others, remember that all articles are a work in progress, and try to be open to changes (even though I'm aware of how hard you have worked to make this well written compromise version).
It's difficult for me, as a person with no knowledge of Christian theology, to say which word is most appropriate. All I can do is ask both sides: if I were to discuss this with all Christian theologians in the world, what number would be likely to describe this belief as "heresy"? Remember this is not asking whether it is heresy.
This is probably one of the most polite discussions on any controversial subject in the encyclopaedia - I think you are all doing a great job. -- sannse (talk) 20:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey Sannse
An objective answer to your question is nearly every theologically conservative Christian theologian would view this as heresy. This really is not even debatable that they would view it as so, and you are absolutely right, that does not mean they are right. The issue is the reality of the fact of belief, not the validity of the content of belief. This article in no way says that it IS heresy, and that is what I think the misunderstanding here. It is not even close to being debatable that most theologians would find this heretical, and this is no surprise, but obvious - it contradicts every eucemenical and almost every noneucemenical Creed and confession of the Church for the past two thousand years and deals with at least two foundational Christian beliefs. A belief system that does so can expect to be called heresy - maybe after a hundred years it won't be considered so but it certainly is now. That is all the article is intending to communicate.
We have to be able here to make the distinction between accurate reporting of facts of belief and judgments upon the truth value of beliefs. The Wiki is NPOV - there is no judgment upon the truth value of this dominant belief that it is heresy. That common belief could be wrong, but it exists - there is no way around that.
Dee Dee Warren 20:59, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
I've been away...
Hey all, I've been away for a few days, but am back now (although I may be gone again for a while during the holidays). I fully support the compromise suggested by Mike and agreed to by Dee Dee and myself. To the anonymous editors... if we had the ability to ask every Christian in the world (or every theologian if you think it would help you at all) whether or not they believed Full Preterism to be heresy, what do you honestly think we would find? Do you really think that less than 50% would say no? (I am using this percentage simply to make a point, because it would certainly by much higher than this IMO.) Is 50% not appropriately described by the word "many"? Remember that "many" is not "most". (I personally think "most" would be more accurate for this article, but like Dee Dee I think that "many" is a good compromise.) Remember, I am a Full Preterist! You are doing yourself and full preterism a disservice by being unwilling to work collaboratively and from a neutral point of view. If no defence of the use of "some" is attempted in 24 hours then I'm reverting this. --kalos 15:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kalos and Mike
Thank you Kalos and Mike - this is a wonderful experiment where us three, who without a doubt would be tigers in a debate in defending our respective views, can come together to put together a NPOV article. I think all three of us have shown that we can put aside our strong views (I assuming that you two are as zealous as I am in our positions) in order to factually represent the state of things as they are,rather than the state of things as we believe them, want them, or are activists for them to be. That is what our personal sites, or the advocacy sites we support, are for.
Dee Dee Warren 17:20, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
I'm taking a break, as I am sick of the biased terms "hyper-preterism" and "orthodox preterism" instead of the FACTUAL labels (as are used in the SECTIONS!) "Full Preterism" and "Partial Preterism"
What with the repeated quoting of sources that use the misnomer Hymenaeans [*] , or even the pejorative term HYPER-preterists and the biased label ORTHODOX preterists (forgetting that so-called "orthodoxy" is by definition what is commonly believed by publicly-visible and -vocal "Christendom", which at one time included the belief that the Pope-at-that-time was "The Antichrist") I am going to take a break from this discussion.
I must say I am please that at least the Full Preterist side rarely uses the term "consistent", which would be just as biased. But perhaps in a few weeks the use of the label "orthodox" - completely inconsistent with the SECTIONAL LABELLING of "PARTIAL"! - will be halted, and the need to name-call (i.e. heretic etc.) will also disappear. I am speaking, of course, in terms of what appears in the article contents - whatever self-label one chooses to use within this "Talk" page is totally up to the inidividual.
[*] Why "misnomer"? Read Paul's condemnation (2 Timothy 2:16-18) IN CONTEXT; the NATURE of resurrection was not mentioned as the issue at all - for by Paul's silence it may be presumed he was not denying WHAT was being proclaimed. At issue only was the TIMING! For if both HE and Hymenaeus were speaking of the same thing - i.e. a PHYSICAL resurrection - then Paul the brilliant logician would not have to resort to name-calling... Couldn't he have just said to his readers "Hey, look at our ordinary bodies" as obvious PROOF that the (physical) resurrection had not yet occurred!?
If that does not make sense to you, then consider this analogy: A Jew who in 50BC said "Messiah has already come" woudl be clearly incorrect; would it be logical to say their error would be identical to a Jew who chooses to express the EXACT SAME WORDS but 100 years later, in 50AD, where the circumstances are different after certain events have transpired to make the formerly-incorrect statement now a truthful one (in his opinion of course)!? Feel free to disagree with Full Preterists' concept of the resurrection's NATURE, but do not use the "Hymenaean" label so inappropriately in order to get implicit support from the long-dead Paul - for he would likely (in my opinion of course) be horrified at how anachronistic and illogical that type of argument is!
Good luck to you all of you my brothers and sisters, and remember "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things CHARITY". I hope to see more charity in the near future. In Christ For Truth, Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 17:33, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey Terry
The article does use the descriptives you described. I reject such descriptives in my personal conversations generally speaking (and you accorded me that right). You argued something about the Timothy passage here, and honestly Terry this is not the place for that. I think you are dead wrong about that passage, but that is not the purpose of the Wiki. The purpose of the Wiki is to factually state that there are many who also think you are dead wrong about that passage. Now all of us who think so may be wrong to think so, but the FACT is that we do. I agree in essentials unity - thus my personal position that since your view denies essentials, there can be no theological unity. However, the Wiki is not about that debate, it is about the facts of the positions. It is not to argue our conclusions. There is a link in the article to my article (see sites criticial of preterism) that deals with your argument. You may read it if you like, but I am not going to argue here on the Wiki Biblical interpretation. I will soon have another article up on this subject on my personal site, if you give me your email address I will let you know when it is published. However, in crafting a NPOV article we can discuss this dispassionately. We do not need, nor should we, argue our theological positions, but discuss how we can accurately represent to the uninformed reader our theological positions.
Dee Dee Warren 18:47, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Ooop Darren
I think I thought your name was Terry do to the footnote in your signature. One more comment, in the article, the FACT that "many" consider your view heretical cannot be left out. It is an important fact that many do think so - that does not mean they are right to do so, it simply means that they do. To leave that out would be to leave out an important fact. It would be disingenous to the extreme to have an article on preterism and not mention that as it is front and center of numerous conversations on this issue and is a primary concern of full preterists to overcome. No one can deny that. As for the truth value of the content of that belief, that is not a concern for the Wiki. The belief is stated, ie that it is heretical, it is stated why, and then the fact that the full preterists dispute that belief and why is noted. If you think we should add something brief about your counterargument on the nature of the rez not being mentioned by Paul vis a vis Hymenaeaus, then I am more than open to consider that. However, one cannot silence the view of many (and like Kalos I agree it is most) Christian that such a view is heretical simmply because you do not like it. I don't like a lot of things. I don't like that your view exists - however, it would be dishonest of me in an article on preterism to try and exclude any mention of full preterism because I don't like it. Whether I like it or not, it exists, and an educational article is to do just that, educate, not censor distasteful facts.
Dee Dee Warren 18:55, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Darren one last thing
I see you edited the descriptive of my very own site. I will not argue with you in the spirit of compromise, however, if you go to my site, you will see that it is not a mere quibble over words that I labeled it "orthodox" - but anyways, it is nothing worth arguing over in a Wiki. If it makes you more satisfied with that descriptive I will try to rework it to something better or leave it as you have it. It is somewhat inappropriate to use in a descriptive a label that the site itself rejects.
Dee Dee Warren 19:00, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
it won't let me edit my last entry - strange
Anyways Darren, I edited my site descriptive and left it more general so as to satisfy your complaint and my personal rejection of the term "partial preterist" in my own personal ministry - I think this satisfies both concerns and keeps the article terminology consistent, which I agree with you is to be desired.
Dee Dee Warren 19:03, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
Kalos?
I don't think there is a substantive argument forthcoming. Me reverting the change though is likely not a good idea. I don't mind giving until after the holiday to see, perhaps folks are away.
Dee Dee Warren 10:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
- I've jumped in an restored the sentence - it appears to me to be a well argued and carefully constructed compromise -- sannse (talk) 17:21, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've also archived a big chunk of the previous discussion - see the link above -- sannse (talk) 17:33, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thank you Sannse
Thank you Sannse - I appreciate you seeing that it was a comprimise position to try to satisfy both competing interests. Also thanks a lot for the archive, this page loads up much faster now.
(don't have my password) This is Dee Dee
Dee Dee Warren 18:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks Sannse. Sorry I was delayed Dee Dee. We had a smowstorm hit and I lost power for a day. All better now, though. Happy holidays. --kalos 02:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Kalos
I figured Kalos you got busy with Christmas preparations - no one is online as much as me!
Dee Dee Warren 15:38, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
Another Anon Editor Strikes Again
It's too bad the anon editor who switched "many" to "some" doesn't identify himself or herself. We might be able to have a decent conversation about historical objectivity. As a truth-seeker, I'm changing it back to reflect reality. When full preterism becomes the dominant eschatology, the anon editor and his or her cohorts can change it to fit the facts, if I haven't already beat them to it.
Mike Beidler 01:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Added Categories (Minor)
I added the categories (Christianity, Eschatology) as a minor edit.
--Justin.eiler 22:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
History of Preterism
Would it be possible to have an addition to the article that explains the history of the Preterist school of thought? Such a history would, I believe, contribute greatly to understanding Preterism--at least for slow learners like me.
--Justin.eiler 05:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
hey Justin
Hey Justin, DDW here - that would be a good idea for the future. I know that Mike and I were planning on adding an author list, but just have not done it yet and perhaps fleshing out our respective sections with some more Scripture references. I just have been incredibly busy (yes, I am finally removing the evil frames from the PreteristList site).
Great! (And DEATH to the evil frames! :lol: )
--Justin.eiler 05:13, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Check it out now! A good friend did some cool java script for me
Possible edit....
I see some new edits made that seem like they are adverts for "transmilleniallism" - and I am not so sure this belongs in a preterist article. We are not going into amillennial or postmillenialism here. IMHO it seems a bit much - placing the reference in the "proponents of" links section is fine, and perhaps when we balance out an authors section, but the two text additions to the article seem out of place to me.
~~ Dee Dee
Any thoughts on the above guys???
I am not sure I even have a place for an opinion - it's in "your" section so to speak, but then I need to balance it out with discussion on postmill amill etc and I think we are geting far afield of this topic.
Dee Dee Warren 00:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Anon editor strikes again
It amazes me when an anon editor changes something that was decided by an Admin without coming to the discussion page - something that has been changed and reverted multiple times.
Dee Dee Warren 03:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
Appeal to the editors
I want to make an appeal to the editors of this article for fairness. You are letting Wiki become the butt of jokes, not only on Slashdot, but in religious circles as well. The links in the section labeled "Critics of Preterism" are all pages written by "partial preterists" attacking "full preterism." There are ZERO critics of "partial preterism" in this article. If that is fairness in your opinion, then you have a pretyt warped view of what fairness is. Furthermore, you are letting ONE whacky individual (specifically "Dee Dee Warren" dictate the tone of this article.
Keep up the warped definitions...people will really start respecting this forum...
- Perhaps you could suggest some suitable links criticising partial preterism? Please try to keep things civil here, calling other contributors "whacky" is not acceptable. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 00:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also want to make it clear that the change made to the preteristlist.com link was not acceptable. Whatever disputes go on outside of Wikipedia, it is not acceptable to continue them here. Diverting a valid link to a parody site is not a useful edit. -- sannse (talk) 17:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Critics of Preterism
>>The links in the section labeled "Critics of Preterism" are all pages written by "partial preterists" attacking "full preterism." There are ZERO critics of "partial preterism" in this article. >>
This is untrue. The link to thingstocome.org attacks both types of preterism. Further, no one is suggesting that more links cannnot be added. That category was part of this article long before my involvement, and I was the one who added the link that criticized both.
Dee Dee Warren 19:12, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
More anon editing from proponents of a particular website
I reverted two edits both dealing with PlanetPreterist. One was a blatant advertisement in the middle of the article. Second was listing said site in two places in links references, the additional reference was in "proponents" of "partial preterism" which said site is not - it does have some participation by partial preterists, which was already stated in its accurate listing as a proponent of full preterism.
Dee Dee Warren 18:26, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Another vandalism
Yet another vandalism of website url by changing a letter. Additionally, an addition of a website which is not a proponent of "partial preterism" - simply because there are partial preterist participants doesn't make the site itself a proponent, the site zealously promotes "full preterism." However, I noted several other sites that I would support that were also listed twice, so I deleted those also so that each site is just listed under one section but added to the descriptions to make it more clear. This is fair to everyone.
Dee Dee Warren 18:20, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) Dee Dee Warren 02:26, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Removal of link
This link: http://courses.coker.edu/dtrotter/contra/preterism/ was removed with an edit summary that there were no "partial preterist" articles located there. Articles are not the only way to advocate for "partial preterism" - this site has a very extensive and free MP3 download of tapes (hours worth) explaining and defending "partial preterism" so the site qualifies.
More anonymous changes
A great deal of the archive here was the working out of a comprimise between competing views, a neutral point of view, and both sides giving and taking. An anonymous editor with no interaction here goes back and puts back in advocacy language; makes inconsistent changes; and destroys the spirit of comprimise.
On another note - we need to get working on a select list of authors.
Dee Dee Warren 09:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Still kicking around?
It's so wonderful to see that our friend "Dee Dee Warren" is still running Wikipedia with an iron fist. Nothing goes on here without her nod of approval. And it's also wonderful to see that her buddy "sannse", masquerading as a wikipedia "editor" is fully behind her, supporting her biased editorial changes at every turn.>>>
Of course anyone reading the discussion participation and the latest edits can see this is without base. The portions changed were a collaborative effort between myself and two full preterists and done through extensive reasoning and conversation which took place here, which the hit and run anonymous editors do not participate in. Further the changes made were not NPOV.
Other changes have been made by others, such as the reversal of the order of listings at the bottom of the page which although I preferred to remain as was - I did not dispute for that is the spirit of give and take. If it was important enough to someone else to change, then I am not going to dispute it since it was not that important to the point of the article.
Everything that was edited by anonymous was written by a full preterist not me.
Dee Dee Warren 15:49, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Max King
There is an addition of works of Max King in the body of the article. We were planning on doing ann author and book list where that would more appropriately go. Rather than just adding Max in the body when no other author really is (except Russell and I have the same thoughts with that) - why not develop the full preterist book list? I am not going to edit out that addition because it is nothing to battle over, but when the list is developed it should go there.
Dee Dee Warren 22:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Re: Max King
Glad we got your approval dear. Should we thank you?
No need
No need to thank me.
Dee Dee Warren 13:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Scofield Reference Bible - WIKI entry is too brief
WIKI entry for Scofield Bible is very thin, and doesn't even hint at any controversy about its source, doctrines, etc. So I put something in the TALK section.
Dispensationalists (whether they know it or not) rely heavily on the Scofield Reference Bible, and thus behind that the notes and translation of John Nelson Darby. The Darby translation is more accurate in places than the KJV, and yet Darby's (and thus Scofield's) conclusions were less in line with the Darby (for example, consistently translating MELLO as "about to...", etc.) than with the KJV ("world" for all 3 Greek words, etc.)
Anyway, whoever has time and the applicable information, please update those Wiki entries - see what I put in the "TALK" section for the Scofield Bible... so many deceived due to ignorance :sad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scofield_Reference_Bible
My last edits
I removed an editorializing comment and updated some information.
I am also considering, wishing to discuss, reversing the order back to the way that it originally was. It is factually true and stated in the article that partial preterism is the oldest known form, and full preterism is relatively recent. As such I do not believe that listing full preterism first is logical or accurate.
I had earlier assented to the change but as I just recently looked at the article with a fresh look, it was unnatural.
Additionally the list of links is getting ridiculously long. If representatives from both sides could agree to a limit, such as five each, seven each, it seems like it would be more streamlined. I could scour my list of critics and list every single one, but what would that accomplish? Also if we limit the links, I think a published author list and recommended books would fit in nicely.
Dee Dee Warren 03:19, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
My revert
The prior editor, none of whom seem to wish to post in the discussion section, deleted some portions of the article asking "for fair and unbiased descriptions of terms." In that removal, he removed "classical preterism" from some portions. I did not add that, and would not fight for it to remain. Where it was placed it could conceivably be viewed as biased as a reciprocal designation was not given for full preterism. So I actually agree with that edit. "Classical" is given in the one place where the alternate names are given.
However, it is an unbiased historical fact that partial preterism is the older of the two views, so I put that back in. It is not biased or inaccurate to state a fact.
Books
I started the subcategory for books, we need to start adding them. I didn't want to start with just the ones I advocate lest I be accused of stacking the deck. I await the other position's submission first. Also, I did the change I earlier mentioned - partial preterism is both older and more common and thus makes sense to list it first.
Dee Dee Warren 06:08, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Classical dispute???
The edit is not mine, but it is a bit frustrating that the person who wants to add "classical" and the person who opposes it saying "we have already discussed this before" AFAIC have NOT discussed it. Both of the posters are anonymous - in truth the phrase "classical" is correct. "Partial preterism" far outdates "Full preterism" and that label is used in the scholarly community.
The two parties should discuss why it should be deleted. I think I commented before that it appears in the more detailed description so that should cover it for instance - "Other labels for Partial Preterism include Classical Preterism and Moderate Preterism."
That should satisfy the person who wishes classical to be included no? I find myself agreeing with the edit in that if we add another label at that point to "partial preterism" (which term I accepted for my part as a concession) then why shouldn't the "full preterists" get to add additional labels there. I think leaving it out there is correct, but I sure wish those two who are doing so, especially saying that "we have discussed this before" when those two to my knowledge have NOT discussed it, should discuss it.
Dee Dee Warren 17:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Preterism article response
As a visitor to wikipedia (sent by one I asked about preterism) I was impressed with the discussion in this page. I would like to add my 10 cents worth if I may.
I approve wholeheartedly of the attempt to provide a NPOV (I guess that means neutral point of view) on the issue and, sadly I have to agree that in most churches preterism (of every stripe) seems to be a minority viewpoint. So to say that many consider preterism a heresy is just accurate. That even includes some who would consider it a heresy just because they never heard the term before.
I note the consideration given to the idea that "partial" preterism is an older view than the "full" preterist view. Now I am not sure whether I am out of line here but it seems the move away from the older three terms, "premillenialism," "postmillenialism" and "amillenialism" makes it difficult for an accurate assessment as to the support from older writers. The preterist authors I have read (mostly from the Reformed and Presbyterian Publishing company's writers) would tend, it seems, to be partial preterists. Which may indicate no more than the publishing company's preference. I believe systematic theologians of the Reformed (including Puritans of Presbyterian, Anglican, and other persuasions) would feel more comfortable with partial preterism. I acknowledge that *may* be my bias.
I find it fascinating that, while you have succeeded, to a very large extent, in providing a neutral point of view in your articles, critics of preterism have failed to deal fairly with your hermeneutic. It takes honesty to acknowledge your viewpoint does not accord with many in Christendom at large and it seems to me that, where the writer is honest enough to admit this, an honest attempt to deal fairly with Scripture should be listened to. I don't think any of us has gotten past the "now I see through a glass darkly" point (no matter what part of eschatology we imagine it refers to).
Finally, thank you to all three of you for your collaboration - my only complaint is directed to Dee Dee: compromise is not spelled comprimise :)
H. Phillips email:tuhituhi@charter.net - October 22, 2005
Thank you H.as I am sure you have seen through these pages I am an outspoken advocate against full preterism - but there is a time and a place. I have my own site to say what I will. When I first came here (go back and look at some of the older article versions) were simply propoganda pieces for full preterism. I confess and repent that my first edit was to fire a bazooka back, but thought better of it and that is how Mike and I came into collaberation which I think has been fruitful.
Dee Dee Warren 02:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Transmillennialism & Pantelism are NOT Preterists
First by the fact neither of these groups want to take on the term "preterists" or "preterism", and secondly by the expressed fact that by their own admission they are NOT preterists (see FAQ of Transmillennialism, under the heading: 11. Is there a difference between Transmillennialism and preterism?, the answer is immediately "Yes"... http://www.presence.tv/cms/faqview.php#q11), Thus I submit that Transmillennialism & Pantelism should have their own entry into Wikipedia, and as they desire, not be associated with Preterism. And I suggest the continued removal of any mention of Transmillennialism & Pantelism (& their founders & proponents), as it is not an accurate representation of the definition of preterism to include these groups.
oops
That is a misspelling I often make. I agree with you on that transmillennium issue and the level of attention that some editors have wanted to give it here. Max King and progeny are not the face of full preterism today. Sure his site deserves a mention but the almost blatantly advertising is inappropriate.
However with pantelism - that is not a different group (I don't know if you know the history of the name) but rather Pastor Chori's attempt to keep the historical meaning to preterism and use a term that the full preterists will accept since Hymenaeanism went over like a lead balloon. I know several full preterists who happily go by pantelist, and isn't there a full preterist site called pantelism.com? Thus I would think that is a legitimate alternate name as it is used by one of the few book-length critiques and it is intentionally non-perjorative.
Dee Dee Warren 02:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Pantelists vs Preterists
I'm not sure Transmillennialism even deserves a mention here, since if you read the FAQ I posted, that group clearly wants nothing to do with preterists, so be it then. Plus, Max King actually has his own entry in wikipedia - how vain (probably some over zealous fan of Max put it together, but still). so, I would continue to delete any mention of Transmillennialism & Max King from the preterism entry. As for pantelism, most preterists DON'T use the term pantelism, and as of late that term is being assumed by the universalists within preterism. As a matter of fact, the site you mention is a universalist site. We are more than happy for them to NOT be called preterists. Again, I think it inappropriate to list Transmillennialism & pantelism on the preterist page, just as it would be inappropriate to list presbyterians on a baptist page entry. ;-)
Okay
Hey I don't have a dog in that fight. I refuse to use pantelism because it is not my intent to be non-perjorative since I think perjoratively of the subject. I just wanted to clarify where the term came from. You won't get a fight from me in removing it. The same for King and crowd. Copyrighting or trademarking a theological term, whether or not one was the first to coin it, is downright assisine. At least King invented his. So I gave my thoughts, but I won't contest your edits. Some others might, but I choose my battles and neither of those that I want to get all Xena about.
Dee Dee (not on my regular computer and don't have my password)
Last edit
User Virgil Valduva removed this quote:
Christian critics of full preterism point to the Apostle Paul's condemnation of the perverse doctrine of Hymaneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18), which they regard as an analagous to full preterism.
which he said implies full preterists are not Christians. In that the paragraphs states "Christian critics" he is correct that it is not NPOV even though I personally stronly agree with the statement and would consider myself one of those Christian critics - but that is not NPOV for Wiki. However that statement does belong in the piece, omitting the word "Christian" and simply stating
Critics of full preterism point to the Apostle Paul's condemnation of the perverse doctrine of Hymaneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2:17-18), which they regard as an analagous to full preterism.
And moving it to the place where the opposition is discussed not in the place where full preterism is explained.
- I removed the word "perverse" since it makes quite a biased statement. Besides that, the statement is fine, although the "critics" is you and a handfull of other people. That sentence should technically be moved to the article on Partial Preterism since you are critiquing from a partial preterist perspective. It would also be helpful to list who/what and where critics are pointing to Hymenaeus and Philetus rather than making a blanket statement. --Virgil Vaduva 15:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
The Living Presence Links
It appears that someone with a personal grudge against Living Presence keeps removing the links to their website from the 'Proponents of Full Preterism section. That links has been here for years, and the organization is most certainly a Preterist organization. Since this is an article on Preterism, ambiguities can be decided by the user, rather than editorial bias. Also, the founder of Living Presence having his own wikipedia page has nothing to do with this article. --Virgil Vaduva 15:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
For you FYI just so that you know, I do not think it was I who did that. I likely did edit the references to Transmillennialism.
NPOV once again
First, it is factually untrue that the persons who hold such a position are:
1. Partial Preterists (I know numerous historicists and futurists who do as well so to say this is only from a partial preterist perspective is factually untrue)
2 That such a foundation is me and few other people. That is false. Whole denominations and other Christian organizations have made official proclamations and my site alone lists numerous (hardly a few) others who state the exact same thing.
The word "perverse" does not violate the NPOV because it is not saying that anything IS perverse, but that certain people think it is. That is a factual recitation of an opinion. However, where the word perverse was placed did not make it clear that the reliance was on Paul's opinion and not those of others, thus I moved the word to make it clear that it was the "opinion"of the Apostle.
ADDED: Lists of those "critics" are made in the reference links. My site alone lists numerous ones, and even the hyperpreterist site PreteristArchive ran by Todd Dennis lists numerous people who do. Those links are on the bottom.
Dee Dee Warren 16:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mrs. Dee Dee, you are truly amazing. I suppose I can post without offense to you that "some" believe Partial preterists are "idiots" and that would be acceptable to you? I rolled back your change. The word "perverse" does not belong in the body of this article or in an encryclopedia. --Virgil Vaduva 21:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since that is not a theological issue, no it would not be acceptable. If the article were on the beliefs of the intellectual capabilities of certain groups it would be acceptable. That isn't too difficult to comprehend. The word is in the Bible, actually the word in the Bible is worse, so it is accurately reporting what the Bible says. I think you need to grasp a better understanding of Neutral Point of View policy. It means that facts are reported without taking sides. It is a fact that Paul condemned certain ancient teachers as perverse. It is a fact that many today believe those same teachings exist. Neither of those are opinions. It would be an opinion if the article actually took sides, which it does not. I will review the sentence, and may likely re-insert it. If you would like admin intervention please ask for it, or ask me and I will. Dee Dee Warren
I went back to the sentence
First the original edit was not mine, nor do I know who did it. I re-read the sentence and though perverse (more accurately gangrenous which is the Bible says Paul thought) is proper. However, the word "condemnation" is sufficient as far as I am concerned. If the original editor that added perverse wishes to come and defend their edit, I will gladly hear their arguments and am open to change my mind, but for me thus far "condemnation" is sufficient and is not worth fighting over as the spirit of Wikipedia is compromise and Neutral Point of View. Adding or taking away of that word does not IMHO add or detract from the factuality of the piece, thus you will not have an edit war with me over that particular issue. I know how to choose my battles, and this is not one worth fighting.
And Mssr. Valduva, the issue is not whether you or I take offense. The issue is whether the issue under examination is being factually reported. For example, let's say that I was 500 pounds (I am not BTW) - it might offend me it someone called me morbidly obese, but that doesn't change the fact that I would be. Facts are not politically correct or offenseless. Your beliefs are equally offensive to me but I don't think I have touched the section where a proponent of your view (Mike) explained it and co-laboured with me. My and your offense is patently irrelevant.
Dee Dee Warren 22:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- You are absolutely correct, my offense is patently irellevant to you, that's quite apparent. The goal of Wikipedia is however to provide a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which is "absolute and non-negotiable." Describing an opposing point of view as "perverse" is most certainly a point of view which is not neutral, nor is it without bias. I am glad we could agree on something... --Virgil Vaduva 15:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Virgil your offense is patently irrelevant to the article. Whether or not it is to me is not and should not be an issue here so I would appreciate things being kept on a non-personal level. Even though I don't care about the edit, you have completely failed to grasp the point. It is a fact that Paul described the doctrine of H&P as perverse. That is not the same as the Wiki calling it perverse. Do you understand the difference? To change the fact about history because it may not favor one's current position is historical revisionism not neutrality. I am attempting to make sure we come to an understanding about this, not for this edit, as I have said it is not my dog in the race, but in anticipation of any future issues. I look forward to your response. Dee Dee Warren
Anon grudge strikes again
Perhaps the user who keeps removing the link to presence.tv will explain himself and the purpose of his/her changes. As far as I am concerned is borderline vandalism. --Virgil Vaduva 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Anon as an aside
Anon, I am not terribly familiar with the TM crowd or least not any recent developments. I do know that many in the full pret crowd distance themselves from the King flavor of full pret, just as many are distancing themselves from other factions (tendencies towards universalism etc) Are they no longer claiming to be Christian (my personal opinion on the subject in general is well known) but I had not heard that before. I would be interested in more information. We don't need necessarily to divert the preterism talk page, but I would welcome an email at preteristsite@gmail.com or an entry on my user talk page if you would be interested in explaining to me. If not, I understand, I just would like to be well-informed. I do think you are correct though that it would be more productive for an actual adherent to that belief to come and speak for that movement if they wished to. I know one was here earlier because the article got littered with what seemed to be little more than advertisments for TM. Dee Dee Warren
Transmillennialists NOT Preterist
Suppose there was a group listed in a Christian directory. And suppose they had been "listed for years" (as Mr. Vaduva claims for the Transmillennialists in this entry), but suppose at some point the group no longer identifies itself with Christians. Would it be accurate for it to continue to be listed in the Christian directory? Obviously not, thus in the same manner, it is completely inaccurate and inappropriate to list the Transmillennialists under the Preterist entry. Besides, if they have issues with this, let them come make the case for themselves. Mr. Vaduva doesn't speak for the Transmillennialists does he?
- I restored the link...your arguments are totally assinine. I also have suspicions of who you are based on your IP address. Does the fact that you got kicked off their website and other preterist websites have something to do with your willingness to remove their link from Wikipedia? --Virgil Vaduva 20:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- I removed it again and will again and again. The argument is logical, yet you are not, thus the reason you have resorted to name calling and trying to make this about "grudges" when I've clearly laid out why the Transmils do not belong in this section. If anything, perhaps they should be listed as opponents of full preterism. And perhaps your close family connections with the founders of the Transmils is the reason you think you should be the one to defend them -- but I'm not interested in your emotionally driven motivations -- they simply don't belong in this listing. They already have their own listing anyway. Be rational for once.
Let's see, according to this very article, Preterism is a variant of Christian eschatology which deals with the position of past-fulfilment of the Last Days (or End Times) prophecies in varying degrees
Wikipedia is not a place to play out your old grudges and "nuanced" views of Christianity, nor is it a place to judge other people. Living Presence is most certainly an organization that teaches that eschatology is "past-fulfilled." That's what the bottom line of this is. If Living Presence is not a preterist organization, then what are they? Partial Preterists? Futurists? Historicists? Dispensationalists perhaps? Which one is it? They believe prophecy has been fulfilled (in the past) thus they are preterists. You may not like their leadership or other "nuances" of what they teach, but you are hardly qualified to make that judgment, nor is this the place to throw your temper tantrums.
And why did you not answer my question regarding your relationship with them? Were you, or were you not kicked off their website?
--Virgil Vaduva 02:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Mr. Vaduva, this has nothing to do with grudges, it has to do with accuracy. The Transmils have specifically disassociated themselves from preterists and preterism, thus they do not belong under this listing. If this were merely a listing on "Eschatology", then they would be appropriately subheaded, but not under preterism. You see everything as personal, and emotionally driven. You specifically try to divert real issues to pretend issues. You use emotive words like "grudge" & temper tantrum". Let's stick to the facts Mr. Vaduva. I already gave you the link wherein the Transmils specifically stated they are not preterists. You know very well they have even penned articles stating that "preterism is dead". Your continued childish behavior is a poor reflection on the preterist community. Your family ties to the Transmils make YOU less than objective about this matter. Please cease & desist, and return to pretending you own copyrights to the terms preterist & preterism.
- Transmils clearly state they AREN'T PRETERISTS as I quote them again, "King's Transmillennialism (tm) emerged in the late 1990s as an alternative to dispensational premillennialism, amillennialism, and preterism." -- source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_King in this very Wikipedia database. If something is an ALTERNATIVE, it means its not the same. I drive a car as an alternative to riding a horse. A car is NOT a horse. Transmils are NOT Preterists. How much more evidence does Mr. Vaduva need until he stops his inaccurate, illogical behavior?
--
And you continue to hide behind an anonymous mask. Why don't you register with your real name so we can carry out this conversation in the open? Perhaps Living Presence has dissociated itself from you or your friends. I certainly have a great relationship with them and am fully aware of their solid preterist foundation. Again, you ignore my question regarding your banishment from participation on their website, which raises serious questions about your objectivity. --Virgil Vaduva 03:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
== A question for Virgil ==
Do TMs explicitly deny that they are "preterist" - if so, it seems they would not want to be on this page but on a page of their own. And bringing up stuff outside of this article is not relevant. Someone could have the biggest grudge in the world, be banned from a zillion sites, and still be right about the point. Debate the point not the person - that AFAICS is the Wiki-way.
Dee Dee Warren 03:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- we could get into a long conversation and argument over this. The folks at Living Presence are most certainly preterists. The anon user quotes them out of context to promote whatever strange agenda he has. The best source for information is from the mouth of Tim King himself. I did an interview with Tim a while back where he answers some of these sticky questions quite clearly:
http://planetpreterist.com/news-1912.html
Tim King: So you ask, am I a preterist? The only way I can answer this is to say that my theology is preterist, believing that the restoration of all things, Acts 3:21, is past. In THAT sense, yes, I hold to a preterist view of Scripture and, therefore, preterism and Transmillennialism are not at all incompatible. But I would also like to add that the Transmillennial view is a developing worldview…not just a theological position.
Of course Living Presence wants to be listed here for reference. Max King, the founder, is considered the modern father of Preterism and his book "The Cross and the Parousia" is almost a second Bible to many Preterists. It is ludicrous for anyone to claim that Living Presence is not a Preterist group.
--Virgil Vaduva 04:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- And again I quote from the Transmils, 11. Is there a difference between Transmillennialism and preterism?
Yes. Preterism is essentially a subset of Reformed Postmillennialism. Full Preterism as a term was not in common use until the early-90s when a handful of Reformed Presbyterians started using the term.
Due to a shift toward Christian triumphalism among preterists, as well as their inability to answer the question, "What now after A.D. 70?" Presence decided to create an alternative that could carry the fulfilled view beyond the previous sectarian Restoration or Reformed worlds. In the early '70s, Max King coined the phrase Covenant Eschatology as a field of theological inquiry. Today, Transmillennialism integrates Covenant Eschatology into all areas of integrated living.''
Now, ask King if Transmil is a "subset of Reformed Postmillennialism"? He will certainly say no. He even says there is a difference between the Transmils and preterists, THUS AGAIN, THEY DON'T BELONG UNDER THIS TOPIC. Also his claim that preterism was not a common term until the 1990s is completely false, plus YOURS (& King's claim) that Max King is the "father of modern preterism" is false. This very quote by King bears that out, as he clearly claims Max King started his views in the 1970s yet claiming preterism grew out of the 1990s. Now, LOGICALLY how could King be the "father" of a group he says he has nothing to do with???? Plus, the only "bible" preterists have is THE BIBLE, you can keep worshipping men all you want Mr. Vaduva, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! Your continued desire to make this about me (since you clearly know who I am), is reason enough to suspect you are too closely related to the Transmils to be objective. Plus, simply because they may "desire" to be listed here doesn't make it appropriate anymore than say the Mormon's desire to be listed as "Christian" would be appropriate. If Max King has a problem with what is going on here, let him come and say so himself.
A Note on DeeDee Warren
This one-trick pony has joined our discussion, I see. It's unfortunate that DeeDee can't see the forest for the trees yet. It speaks to her spiritual and intellectual limitations. To continue to harp on the "heretical" nature of Full Preterism really adds nothing to the debate concerning its Scriptural legitimacy.
All she's really stated, in essence, is that "orthodox" Christianity (i.e. creedal Churchianity) rejects Full Preterism out of hand, due to the unfortunate ramifications thereof (i.e. that Churchianity itself has no Biblical legitimacy and does NOT exist by divine fiat). Since many of us as Full Preterists reject the spurious "authority" of the institutionalized "church" of the last 18 or 19 centuries, Ms. Warren would be well-advised to take this fact into account, rather than singing the dirge she loves so well (but has lots its sheen for most everyone else, due to its being way past its expiry date).
Grow up, DeeDee. And if you're going to attempt to post anything remotely resembling a credible effort to refute Full Preterism online - try using your REAL name. I use mine as a Planet Preterist columnist.
John McPherson
- Hello John, as you know we have some things in common and some things not. As DeeDee & both you and I have things in common & some not. I hope unlike the tactic you have seen Mr. Vaduva take (which is to personalize), we could remain on the facts. I appreciate your attention. God bless
Thank you for the references
I will take a look at that information you supplied anon and Virgil. John, if you wish to get personal do it on your own site. I will not engage you with that here which I also understand is inappropriate to Wiki rules. As far as the TM issue, I am not knowledgeable enough on this TM controversy but am reading with interest.