Talk:Preterism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 be

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

Dee Dee Warren

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 of editors 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)

• Less politely, it's called vandalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 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.

Dee Dee Warren

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.

Dee Dee Warren

Cadwallader 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC) "it is an unbiased historical fact that partial preterism is the older of the two views, so I put that back in." I don't have an axe to grind here. Would you mind providing a citation for your claim that partial preterism has an older history than full preterism?Cadwallader 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Transmillennialists 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 (& 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.

Dee Dee Warren

• 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)

• If my understanding is correct, futurists, idealists and historicists would also make this criticism of full preterism, so it's in now way a criticism that is uniqiuely a feature of partial preterism. Beretta NZ 13:02, 7 December 2006 (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.

Dee Dee Warren

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 ture. 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

• • • 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 futurist, believing. In THAT sense, yes, I hold to a futurist view of Scripture and, therefore, . theÁÁéééé 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.

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.

Dee Dee Warren 01:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing my comments

Someone deleted a whole paragraph I wrote as follows:

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.

end quote - there is nothing incorrect in that paragraph, so please stop deleting my discussion points. Thank you.

Dee Dee Warren 13:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Integrity Breached

WARNING TO THE READER: The integrity of this entry has been breached, for not only are non-preterist sites listed as proponents of full preterism, there are now even sites ran by administrators whom no longer even call themselves Christian listed as proponents of full preterism. Unfortunately since these people have no integrity, you can no longer rely upon the sites referenced as accurately representing full preterism. You might be safer simply doing a google search. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=preterist+preterism -- God bless

Book Resources

I added resources for the Partial and Full variants of Preterism that are from my own personal library. If anything is missing, feel free to add important resources that aren't listed here.

Mike Beidler 19:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mike

Mike, thanks for taking on the task of the book resources. I think I may have a few to add - Brian Schwertley's for instance as it is available for free online which is always a good thing. I am also wondering as to the appropriateness of perhaps listing my Matthew 24 commentary which is book-length though not published (yet) in hard form. I say "yet" because I am planning on self-publishing it at some point in the future in a spiral ring hard form. If you would like to see what I am referring to for its appropriateness of inclusion: http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/warrenend.html

Dee Dee Warren

Books, placed multiple books from the same author under thata master author list, or somesuch. I was getting confused.--Tomtom9041 22:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And just to add fuel to the flames. I do not consider Saul,whom you call Paul, to be an accurate source on anything as I believe him to be either an agent of Rome, at the worst, or someone who takes advantages of situations.--Tomtom9041 22:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tomtom ... Not sure why you would consider Paul an agent of Rome, especially considering he was incarcerated by the Empire and eventually executed by his supposed ally. And what leads you to believe Paul takes advantages of situations? I'm not slamming your position; rather, I'd like to know where you're coming from. Also, do you consider yourself a preterist? --Mike Beidler 05:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike, Yes I do and I think that I have been for a while. I have done much of my own research, esp vis-a-vis the Essene-Nasarene movements and other Easter rites churches. Many of which believe that Paul was an ancient of Rome, see the invocation of his citizenship in Acts. I am starting to agree with much of the allusions in Bible conspiracy theory. Not espousing my views.--Tomtom9041 22:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal?

With the last edit? what was wrong with the link Mike added? (correction: Mike did not add the link - an anon did - but what was the problem with it>)

Dee Dee Warren 19:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

reverted edit

A piece cannot be changed because one does not like the historical fact, one must challenge, on an objective historical basis the fact. There is little to no dispute that partial preterism existed long before full preterism with the first systematic preterist being almost universally considered to be the partial preterist Alcazar with the next prominent one being Eusebius.

Dee Dee Warren 02:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Schools of Prophetic Interpretation

The Preterism article is fine. There are three primary schools of prophetic interpretation: (1) Preterism, (2) Historicism, and (3) Futurism. This article would be improved by references to articles on these other two systems. References in the article to Historicism is especially sparse.

[The Historicist school of prophetic interpretation results in a progressive and continuous fulfillment of prophecy. This continuous fulfillment starts in Daniel's time (circa 600 BC), continues through John the Revelator's time (circa 100 A.D.), on to the Second Coming of Jesus.]

re: Prophetic Schools of Interpretation

I would have no issue with that with one addition, I would consider idealism to be a major school as well. In fact I know there is a significant minority within preterism that hold to a preterist view of the Olivet Discourse and an idealist view of Revelation. Why don't you make those changes? (I don't know how to link to other articles embarassing to say). If I don't see you making them, maybe I will add those lines and someone who knows how to do the Wiki tech stuff can make them linkbacks to articles.

Dee Dee Warren 15:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited out the weblinks for certain books - persons can do web searches for them or we are going to have a "site war" since multiple sites, partial and full preterist have online books.

Dee Dee Warren 00:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Spammer hits again

I undid the changes made by 208.54.15.129. I don't want to get into the presence.tv argument again folks, so let's just stick to minor changes and discussions before we start removing each other's links again. Also the pharisees.org link added by the spammer is obviously not related to preterism...it seems to be a hate-site with a grudge against Ken Gentry...it doesn't belong on wikipedia.

Good edits Virgil. That particular spammer also tends to go into Paltalk rooms spamming that link as well. It doesn't have any substance to add to the discussion. I am pretty ignorant of the presence.tv issues and stay out of it. Dee Dee Warren 15:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Dee Dee

Dee Dee, we've had problems with the same user/website on Planet Preterist, with spam comments, blog entries and articles. --Virgil Vaduva 22:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The spammer hits again

Thanks Mike for catching that.

Dee Dee Warren 20:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Banning vandals

Virgil, I'm not sure how to go about requesting a ban on the pharisees.org vandal. I tried to use the Contact Wikipedia link, but whatever processes are there appear quite cumbersome. Maybe with a three-pronged approach we (you, I, and Dee Dee) can get the skinny on this process. --Mike Beidler 03:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Banning Vandals

I have found that unless they are daily being disruptive and doing great harm, personal vigilance and editing is the best way to handle. Otherwise one can contact an admin that has already been on this page such as Hu or Sahnse. Dee Dee Warren 11:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor...

Mike I don't know what to do about that anon editor. It appears from his talk page he has been a suspended vandal before.

Dee Dee Warren 11:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I reported to an Admin

Virgil and Mike, I reported the vandalism to an Admin.

Dee Dee Warren 20:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dee Dee

Thanks DD - I doubt they can do much about it. --Virgil Vaduva 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You could consider protecting it if you really want to. I went ahead and put up a request for you. It doesn't seem major enough for blocking or page protection, though. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think protecting it to Registered Users only would not be an unreasonable request considering the animosity often experienced here - granted we all have come a long way so far. --Virgil Vaduva 13:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to prevent this link from being posted anywhere on Wikipedia; I'm currently going through the process to make that happen. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon user

I am confused, granted I don't really much come to this article, I don't understand the reversion war and what is Anon's agenda, additionally what about the Simon Barcova Insurrection et al? where would or does this figure into things?--Tomtom9041 19:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

I had changed a statement from "a derogatory term" to "a term that is considered derogatory" to keep with the NPOV standards. The fact without question is that it is a term that is considered to be derogatory. Whether or not it is in fact derogatory is not without question, I know opponents of "full preterism" that do not use it to be derogatory in the least but feel it is simply accurate, and don't use it with any more derogatory intent than they use "hyper-calvinism." I also added statements to the effect of the fact of a dispute without taking sides in the dispute regarding proper terminology.

Dee Dee Warren

Using derrogatory labels

Dee Dee - I thought we were going to stay away from controversial labels - if we are going to continue to use the prefix "hyper" we should perhaps mention the "hypo" prefix as well. I went ahead and added it to the list of labels for partial preterism. I was hoping this whole label discussion was over, but apparently it is not. --Virgil Vaduva 20:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Virgil, this is a factual article. It is a fact that certain labels are used. As far as I can see, PlanetPreterist is the only site which uses the label you added. It is not a common label, as the use of hyperpreterist is. I don't mind having it catalogued. Facts are facts whether you or I like them, but I did edit it to note the factual issues. We don't suppress truly factual issues just because we don't like them. That rule applies to you and me and everyone else. Let me know what you think. The only reason I didn't include it to begin with is that it wasn't IMHO common enough to warrant inclusion. But it isn't something I would argue about. I do argue about keeping facts in. Whitewashing doesn't serve anyone. If you think "hypo" belongs there, despite its very rare use, it doesn't bother me though I think you should justify why it is well-used enough to warrent its inclusion. "Hyper" is used by major published authors. In fact one of the most prominent books against the view has it in its very title. I am speaking of the Mathison (editor) book.

Dee Dee Warren

Common labels

Dee Dee - factual or not, wikipedia articles are affected by the biases of those who write them, especially when both full and partial preterists contribute to this article. My problem is not necessarily with the term, but with the environment in which it is being used and how it predisposes readers of the article to view either side of this argument. Also, whether or not these prefixes are popular or not is not relevant. People use them on both sides in a derrogatory manner, so if you will refer to one, please mention the other as well - be factual.

I really hate to get into this whole thing with you. I want a gracious relationship with partial preterists and I am hoping that can be a mutual thing, but if we are resorting to the use of the hyper label, then to every hyper there is a hypo, and if you last edit indicates that hypo is an offensive prefix to you, how is it then then you do not find hyper to be offensive to me? --Virgil Vaduva 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Virgil, Wiki articles are about facts. It is a fact that hyper is used quite extensively. It is a fact that you and others might consider it deroggatory. Both facts are reported. That is what Wiki is for. This is not at all "us" using a label, though I do, and will continue to, use the hyper label. But this isn't about "us" but about facts. What I may or may not find offensive, (and to be honest, I don't find "hypo" offensive, I find it silly in a "I knew you are but what I am I" sense and note that it hasn't taken off in popularity and isn't used by even 1% of opposing authors, published or not) isn't the issue. I find Full Preterism itself offensive. If we are going to go by what I (or you) find offensive, we will be in big trouble. What we must go by is facts, which is what wiki articles are - they are not propoganda pieces for you, NOR are they propoganda pieces for me.

Virgil, also, it is YOUR site that is pretty much the only one that uses the "hypo" label. It is kinda hard for you to concede that it is intended to be reactionary and offensive, and then claim you want to avoid them. That label only exists because of your site. You invented it. I did not invent hyper, and I don't make any bones about my use of it.

When we say in an article what labels are used, we must be objective. Such and such is used, whether or not we like it. If the majority of people given that label would find it offensive, we note that as well. Our personal offense or not Virgil should have no place in a discussion about facts, except to the extent to report it as another fact, not to silence another POV - a POV with a large segment of adherents. Dee Dee Warren

Reverted Blatant Vandalism

Me and another editor (unknown to me) reverted blatant vandalism.

Dee Dee Warren 11:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Today edits: When we look at a website, simply because it may have articles from other points of view, does not make that site a "proponent" of those views. By that standard nearly every site could be under every category. I reprint Samuel Frost's response to me in full, does that make me a "proponent" of full preterism? Of course not. Yes the PretArchive carries a lot of varied material, but the owner would most closely align with promoting full preterism. He is not a "proponent" of partial preterism, but he does have partial preterist material. That is taken care of in the very good description of PretArchive in their section. The site and owner are also not active critics. And folks, I think we all know that giving one site the title, "The Internet's Only Unbiased Look at Preterism" is inappropriate for Wiki. Shall I entitle mine - "The Internet's Only Site Dedicated Fully to the Truth of Preterism"? No. That is self-serving. We can save our grand-standing for our own sites, not Wiki.

Also, and I don't know if Roderick objects, he can surely email me, but I deleted his entry since someone noted in all CAPS - THIS SITE IS NO LONGER AFFILIATED WITH THE PRETERIST MOVEMENT. Since this is the "preterism" article, it seemed then proper to remove it as not being a "proponent" - perhaps Roderick would like to be listed as a "critic"? That might be appropriate.

Dee Dee Warren 12:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

--Roderick-- Two points, yes I find the claim of "only unbiased" rather presumptuous especially in that I'm not certain anyone can truly be "unbiased" & for the fact that Todd's "bias" is his "preterist-idealism". The next point is that I posted that TKC is no longer affilated with the preterist movement because the "movement" has been subsumed by a type of real hyperism, postmodern/emergentism advocating "comprehensive reconciliation". The reason I posted that disclaimer is that I wanted to be consistent in light of my position of the Transmils being listed as "preterists" when they have expressly said they are not preterists. You may be right Dee Dee, TKC might be better listed as a critic of preterism as long as preterism is trending toward hyperism. I'll think about it. I may not want it listed at all.

Okay Roderick - I didn't know it was you who had made that edit. If I had known, I would have emailed you first, but I am glad you understand why I removed it. Thanks for emailing me to let me know you responded. I don't get to visit here that often, so I might not have seen it for a few weeks otherwise. I hope Todd also knows I didn't mean anything at all towards him, not that he made that edit, I have no idea who did, but none of the sites can have such superlative language. The existing description for the PretArchive I think is fair and good.

Dee Dee Warren 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A meek suggestion

Hi all. Might I make the following suggestion for a change. "Some Partial Preterists prefer to call their position Orthodox Preterism, thus contrasting their deference to the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils with what they perceive to be the Full Preterists' disregard for the same." I think this should be changed. One of the arguments against orthodox/partial preterism (which is what I refer to by the term "preterism") is that it merely *defers* to creeds. But to state this as a factual claim in a wiki seems a little biased. My suggestion would be as follows: "Some Partial Preterists prefer to call their position Orthodox Preterism, thus contrasting their agreement with the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils with what they perceive to be the Full Preterists' rejection for the same, thus making Full Preterism unorthodox, giving rise to the claim by some that full preterism is heretical."

Beretta NZ 22:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that wording is better and more NPOV. Except perhaps the last part because the "some" has an unclear referent. It seems like it is saying "some" of those who use the terminology "orthodox preterism," but I would daresay that everyone who using that term believe that full preterism is heretical, which is why those use that qualifier. I would suggest: ""Some Partial Preterists prefer to call their position Orthodox Preterism, thus contrasting their agreement with the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils with what they perceive to be the Full Preterists' rejection for the same, thus making Full Preterism unorthodox, giving rise to their claim that full preterism is heretical."

In order to balance that though, the full preterism section should likely be changed from: "Some Full Preterists prefer to call their position Consistent Preterism, reflecting their extension of Preterism to all biblical prophecy and suggesting an inconsistency in the Partial Preterist hermeneutic." To: "Some Full Preterists prefer to call their position Consistent Preterism, reflecting their extension of Preterism to all biblical prophecy and thus claim an inconsistency in the Partial Preterist hermeneutic."

All full preterists who are using "consistent preterims" intend fully by that terminology to state that partial preterism is inconsistent. Likewise all partial preterists who use the term "orthodox preterism" (like myself) fully intend by that terminology to that full preterism is unorthodox/heretical.

Yes, the word heretical does not please some, but the purpose of Wiki is to state facts on opinions dispassionately. I am equally not pleased by the charge of inconsistency, but that is also a fact that such is an opinion of those who use that terminology.

Dee Dee Warren 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. It's fair (and accurate) to change both parts I think.

Beretta NZ 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great, when I get back from the convention, perhaps we can make that edit? I really strive to keep the balance on both sides.

Dee Dee Warren 23:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Heretical, Orthodox, Inconsistent

I think it would be a lot easier to stay away from those labels on both sides of the argument. I do not wish to call partial preterism either "heretical" or "orthodox." Doing so would bias and taint the article for an independent reader that knows nothing about preterism. All those words carry preconceived baggage. You guys do whatever you want but I want to voice my public dislike for going down that route. Every so often we seem to be rehashing those same arguments and we seem to never be making much progress towards an actual development of the article. --Virgil Vaduva 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Virgil, the article has to faithfully represent facts, not what we are personally comfortable with. An unknowledgeable reader should be able to accurately get the facts of the opinoins of others. It is a fact that many consider my position inconsistent or that many (including myself) believe full preterism heretical. It would be unfair not to represent facts. I know when I read a wikipedia article I want to know the facts of whatever controversy might exist. I don't want them sanitized. Not for my view or anyone elses. Nice to see you BTW

Dee Dee Warren 01:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Dee Dee - which is why those labels are not facts vis-a-vis the partisan dialogue regarding this article; the only true fact really is the statement that "partial preterists call themselves orthodox preterists" or "full preterists call themselves consistent preterists." There is a subtle difference between each group labeling itself with a comfortable label and outsiders labeling insiders with some demeaning label. My concern is not with how you or I see this article but more with what happens when a total stranger stumbles across this article and reads the statement "full preterism IS heretical" or "partial preterism IS inconsistent" and makes decisions based on those supposed factual statements. Neither statement is factual; both are opinions. Do you see my point? --Virgil Vaduva 18:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Virgil, there ARE factual. It is a fact that many people think full preterism is heretical. This about facts of views. It doesn't say full preterism IS heretical or partial preterism IS inconsisent. It says SOME people THINK or HOLD that it (what it is) is such and such. That is a fact. A reader deserves to know that. It would be like (and I am not trying to compare anything to anything else, just using an example that is easy to see) a Mormon NOT telling others that although they believe they are Christian, MOST evangelicals believe they are not. If we have to spin the "bad press" so to speak, it is not honest. I want it to be honest that MOST full preterists believe my view is inconsistent, and I certainly want the fact that MANY consider full preterism to be heretical. It would be a propaganda piece if it did not. In fact, Samuel Frost just brought that out in his recent article saying to the effect of, "Why would anyone be surprised that we are considered heretical?" Samuel is spot on. In fact, when I briefly held to a full preterist view, I feel I was not sufficiently educated by the sites I read to tell me that the view is considered heretical by many - if the full preterists I read at that time were more forthcoming, you wouldn't be talking to me. That very fact was my motivation to start my site. But NPOV articles must state all the facts, not just the ones we like. Neither of us should shy from that. I don't. I fully accept the good, the bad, and the ugly opinions of my view.

I agree both are opinions, and they are stated as such. If someone has poor reading comprehension they are going to misunderstand a whole lot more than that, and many websites are referenced for people who want to be educated. I don't know if you track linkbacks to your site, but I get a lot of traffic for my site from this article, and I have never had anyone misunderstand those statements. Remember, the article was co-authoried with Mike Beidler, a full preterist. I believe this article is very honestly fair and a good reflection on the open candor of both sides. You will remember I willingly added "hypopreterism" to the article, and I do hope you noticed that I refrained from using Hymenaeanism - which you know I believe to be accurate, but that is a minority label, not suitable for a NPOV article. You also know (I hope) that in the spirit of Wiki and cooperation I use the labels here of "full preterism" and "partial preterism" which you know I personally reject.

Dee Dee Warren 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Full Preterism variants

I plan on officially joining the development of the Wikipedia Preterism page. I have been in discussion with Dee Dee Warren about this before actually posting. I clearly understand & agree with the NPOV & desire to stay true to that concept. As a starter to what I will propose, I want to quote a few influential preterists so that no one can claim what I propose is from bias, malice, or grudge.

There are an astonishingly large number of full prets who are following the exact same line of thinking [universalistic conclusions], based upon the chronological approach of seeing the consummation of the ages in ad70. It is a big mistake in my opinion, but I cannot help but grudgingly admire those who are so committed to consistency. I agree that grace is comprehensive in the New Covenant age, but that the only way to be found worthy to enter into that realm is in Christ (Luke 20:35). By founder and leaders of the movement I meant Max King and the contributors at planetpret and pantelism.com, which, though off the beaten path, is an influential website. There are also a large number of discussion boards which are walking the same path, as you might know. I am looking forward to Max King's book release, which should forever change the landscape. -- Todd Dennis source

Max [King] told me a few years ago that he had changed his position on the "all in all" to adopt a more universalist position. That may or may not be the case because he has not written anything that would suggest this. -- Sam Frost source

What I am proposing is that "traditional Full Preterism" is being/has been taken over by "Preterist Universalism", which was originally introduced into traditional Full Preterism by Tim King (Max King's son) as "Comprehensive Grace" & has been championed by folks such as Virgil Vaduva, even if via alternative labels. In response to the shift, Todd Dennis has introduced what he is calling "Preterist Idealism", indeed Todd now calls himself a "former full preterist".

I think it is important to relate this shift (as evidenced by Todd Dennis & Sam Frost, not just me) & the variants of full preterism. What is being passed off as full preterism today is NOT what many of us were advocating 10-15 years ago. It is not fair to Christians examining full preterism to let them think it has always been represented by the liberal & universalistic branch.

Roderick E 20:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggested to Roderick to insert some changes, and I would hopefully made some good edits. I have a few other edits to make discussed earlier with theonomy. The fact is that these groups are all claiming the title of full preterism, but I think a discussion of variants is helpful.

Dee Dee Warren 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Full Preterist Variants

This article will presuppose the reader is knowledgeable with the basic distinctions of "Full & Partial Preterism"

What is not commonly known to Christians who are recently adopting the Full Preterist view is that Full Preterism is experiencing a major focus shift within itself.

A very simple history of the Full Preterist view in modern times might go something like this:

^* Max King in the 1970s advocates "covenant eschatology"

^* David Chilton in the 1990s embraces Full Preterism, not long before he passes away (1997)

^* Tim King (son of Max) in the 1990s-2000+ advocates "comprehensive grace" (universalistic salvation)

^* In 2002-2006, major internal battle between Full Preterists over the issue of "preterist universalism".

^* In 2006 Todd Dennis introduces "Preterist Idealism"

^* In 2006, many Organic Developed Preterists part ways with the Preterist Universalists

The first problem comes in because the Preterist Universalists are not EXPLICIT (clear/open) about their universalistic leanings & sometimes even appear to deny it, yet any concerted reading of their materials would easily conclude univeralistic theology.

The second problem comes in because the Preterist Universalists tend to be more vocal & are propped up by many Preterists "leaders" who themselves are NOT Preterist Universalists, which confuses new preterists into thinking most preterists endorse universalistic conclusions.

The third problem comes in from Preterist Universalists' constant mixing & meshing the preterist message with the postmodern or "Emergent" message, almost to the point of making the preterist view a subset or a partner with those movements.

The fourth problem is that Preterist Idealism (by Todd Dennis) seems like a "retreatist" response to the growing universalism in the Full Preterist community. Rather than tackle the shift head on, Todd seems to have instead created another label as an alternative to Full Preterism, which merely causes more confusion. (indeed, Todd even calls himself a "former full preterist")

So, to overview the Schools of Full Preterist Thought, we might present it this way with its subsets:

Full Preterism

₁₎ Covenant Eschatology (Max King – Church of Christ brand)

_a) Transmillennialism (Tim King, Max’s son in distinction to growing preterist movement)

_b) Preterist Universalism (Virgil Vaduva & others applying hyper-Arminian & postmodern conclusions)

₂₎ Developed Full Preterism (David Chilton & other former partial-preterists developed from long history of preteristic theologians, typically Reformed/Calvinsitc)

_a) Preterist Idealism (Todd Dennis & others in retreatist response to Preterist Universalism)

So, in actuality the Developed Full Preterism is older because it hails from the long history of preteristic thought & remains truer to that development where as the other schools are fabricated, often out of reactionary conclusions.

Obviously this statement requires further modification & categorization.

Roderick E 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Preterism from a Historicist perspective

To be more complete, the section on criticisms needs a subsection from a historicist perspective. DFH 17:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Criticisms of Preterism from a Historicist perspective

Hehe...pretty soon this article should be renamed to "Criticism of Preterism" to better illustrate what it's becoming :) --Virgil Vaduva 04:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are certain variants of the traditionally, organic developed Full Preterism that may warrant criticism from all corners, but as the NPOV should be followed I'd rather just see us honestly present the traditional views & distinguish the recently emerging variants.

Roderick E 04:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Critics of preterism from [blank] perspective

I think that is unnecessary. What I think would be useful is to add parenthetical comments after a particular critic IF necessary. For instance, my site hosts criticisms from ALL perspectives, I don't care if they are futurist or historicist. Other sites do so as well. If there are particular sites that wanted to be noted as Historicist Critics then that should be added as a parenthetical comment.

And of course I am with Roderick and Theonomy - NPOV requires reporting all views in an accurate matter. The idea is educationn not indoctrination.

I do plan on making the edits that Theonomy and I discussed above, I just haven't had time. I also am awaiting feedback then on that "critics" comment I made above because having all those subcategories just doesn't reflect the reality of how sites are organized. In this, Virgil is correct. The main purpose is the article itself - not all of the resource sites and breaking them down into unnecessary minutea.

Dee Dee Warren 12:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Variants & stuff

Roderick, I do not wish to have any interaction with you whatsoever here or anywhere else, and I will oppose and reverse any changes you are making on this article should they be in the vein you proposed to reinvent Preterism to your liking, and don't bother replying; I have no interest in anything you have to say.

Dee Dee - I don't see your interaction with Theonomy anywhere here, maybe I am missing something. Can you summarize so I can get a grasp on what you are suggesting? As you well know me I am not unreasonable in accommodating any opinion that is presented respectfully and reasonably.

--Virgil Vaduva 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Virgil, I apologize, look above for "Beretta NZ" - I am so used to calling him by his TheologyWeb username of TheOnomy, thought I didn't even notice he was not using that screen name here. It is just a few entries above. I believe the NPOV would call for statements that are dispassionate and factual as to opinions claimed (without advocating that any opinion is the right one, just that they exist). I believe that is different from respectfully and reasonably. For instance, there are some opinions that by their very nature are going to be considered disrespectful and unreasonable to the person that disagrees with the opinion. So the question isn't as to the nature of the opinion, people can have any opinion they want, the KKK has an opinion on black people that is not respectful or reasonable, but if there were an article on the history of black people in America, their opinion would have to be documented, despite the fact that black people find their opinion disgusting (as do I). It just couldn't be documented as being true in its assertions, just true in its existence. My disgust for their opinion is not grounds for not factually reporting that their opinion exists if it is relevant to the article and has some reason for being a legitimate mention.

Let me explain what I mean by legitimate mention. I mean it has to be well known or normative enough to warrant mention. Let's say some guy calls himself a full preterist but believes that there was a rapture in the first century accomplished by purple Martians zapping Rome with a laser beam. Sure that guy's opinion exists but it is so fringe, it is not worthy of an encyclopedia mention. Now in fringer, I don't mean anything negative (despite the crazy example), I mean simply that it is off the radar of established views. This is where some of what Roderick is proposing may suffer - I have been giving this some thought - I do understand that there are variants within full preterism right now, but this is a pretty new development, and I think somewhat of a fringe issue within the larger issue of an encyclopedia entry (which is not intended to be an exhaustive treatise) on preterism as a whole. That is where my thoughts are going right now. It simply hasn't ripened to be an encyclopedia issue perhaps. Roderick you can tell me what you think about that, but honestly give that some thought. These are all things that are at most a year old in controversy. Todd's change is less than that, and he isn't even settled about what his view even means. Does that belong in an encyclopedia entry? I think I raise valid points.

Dee Dee Warren 01:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

FULL PRETERISM'S REINVENTION

This is a discussion page, & as such we have discussions about the content of the Preterism entry. Those who relinquish their participation in discussion/conversation should NOT arbitrarily think they can reverse changes to the entry. With that said, what I posted about the variants was just a summary of what transitions Full Preterism has gone through. By all means, disagree or agree but give some evidence rather than running off with a chip on your shoulder. As for evidences, I would like to bring some forward. First, I am NOT re-inventing Preterism to my liking. It is a matter of fact that 10-15 years ago, MOST preterist did NOT trend universalistic & most certainly were NOT toying around with postmodernism & Emergent Church. (See documentation from Todd Dennis & Sam Frost -- this has NOTHING to do with my "liking" -- it is FACT). If anything, it is Virgil Vaduva that has admitted he is trying to "re-invent" a"new kind of Preterism" -- See these quotes:

"...we are trying so hard to give it a new face and repaint it [preterism]". (Virgil Vaduva - source)

But on a serious note, I would say that emergent and preterism have a lot of things in common. (Virgil Vaduva - source)

we will put a new face on Preterism, whether our critics like it or not. We will drag them kicking and screaming, and confidently we will reassert that Preterism is about the Kingdom, not about being right on eschatology; (Virgil Vaduva - source)

We are the new proud and confident face of Preterism, so learn to live with us; it is not a demand, it is simply a fact. (Virgil Vaduva - source)

So, the reader can clearly see, by the statements from men like Todd Dennis, Sam Frost, & even from Virgil Vaduva that the "kind" of preterism Virgil Vaduva is espousing was & is NOT the kind that existed 10-15 years ago. If this encyclopedia entry does not reflect the radical, artificial revisionism that Vaduva has been implementing, then it will not be an accurate entry. Never mind his personal issues of not interacting with me -- Let him interact with the documented evidence.

Lastly, I agree with you Dee Dee, Todd's Pret-Idealism is too new & novel to mention just yet, nor was I really suggesting we do. I just wanted to present a summary of the "history" of modern full preterism. However, we must consider these other points if we're going to have an honest entry. The kind of preterism being promoted by Vaduva & company is NOT the same as advocated by most preterists & this entry should reflect that someway. How to do that is obviously up for discussion.

Roderick E 04:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Modifications to begin soon

As you can see, Mr. Vaduva continues to paint this as a personal issue even after I showed evidence that even Sam Frost & Todd Dennis acknowledge the shift in traditional full preterism. It is not just me trying to "reinvent" full preterism. And as I showed from the several quotes by Vaduva he actually has advocated "reinventing" full preterism to fit his depiction of it.

With that said, I think I am on solid ground to begin making some modifications to the actual wiki article on preterism to reflect this recent shift in full preterism.

I will consult with other respectful and reasonable accomadating contributors to this entry who will be able to have actual conversations about this entry & will begin modifications soon.

Roderick E 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

MODIFICATIONS:

(1)

After the paragraph about the Sub-variants, I added this paragraph:

Since the late 1990s, some advocates of Full Preterism have been progressively trending toward a more universalistic conclusion wherein all people are ultimately redeemed via an application of the New Covenant to all people regardless of their actual profession of Christian faith. This trend is being fervently resisted by traditional Full Preterists.

(2)

removed a blacklisted link to rulestheweb.com

(3)

re-added thekingdomcome.com link to the full preterist links, which I had removed in protest

Roderick E 20:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone has deleted my modified paragraph without any comment. I have gone through "respectful & reasonable" steps to discuss this in the TALK page. The revision was probably the work of the original ANON who has been plaguing this entry since day one -- an ANON not so ANON hailing from (via his IP Dayton OH). Let's not start a edit war. My edit was well within the scope of NPOV & should have been no offense to anyone. Roderick E 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

IT IS MR. VADUVA AGAIN

At the start of this wiki entry there was an on going edit war which Mr. Vaduva was constantly reversing edits & the admins had to be called in. Even at that time Mr. Vaduva, as is his custom accuses everyone of "attacking". Now, he is at it again. Reverting my one paragraph, non-biased edit calling it "vandalism". Mr. Vaduva didn't even create this entry, Dee Dee Warren & Mike did most of the work & I have been in ongoing discussions with Dee Dee Warren. Mr. Vaduva refuses to interact like a real person & instead continues to behave very immaturely. The only vandalism going on here is by Mr. Vadvua who just as he originally did, thinks he can dictate how something is said or done. I won't play his little game. I'll be appealing to the admins. Roderick E 02:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whining and Appealing to admins

To everyone else involved in editing this article, the modifications made my the user Roderick E are a leap of logic for any reasonable person and cannot communicate a neutral point of view on Wikipedia based on a negative generalization. The statement could have as well stated "Starting a few years ago, some Preterists believe the moon is made of green cheese." It is a slanderous and inaccurate statement that cannot be proven wrong, it is therefore unacceptable here on Wikipedia and any other edits along those lines will be reverted back to the original. There are "universalists" among all denominations and all flavors of the Christian religion, yet I do not see this individual editing any other articles on Wikipedia to illustrate this fact. In fact, from looking at his contributions to Wikipedia, it appears that the sole purpose for which he became a user was to edit this article in order to slander other people.

Any further changes along those lines will be reverted, and more whining like a little baby will not convince me or anyone here otherwise. I already stated my reasons for reverting changes, so appealing to admins will not get things his way. These changes are absolutely unreasonable and the article is just fine the way it has been for the past year because of the constructive changes Dee Dee Warren, Mike Beidler, myself and others have contributed towards it.

--Virgil Vaduva 04:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE TO VIRGIL (it seems lots of people are responding to him these days):

My paragraph contained no value judgments. It neither said the universalistic trend was good or bad. It simply stated that traditional Full Preterists opposed the trend. Even Vaduva states that there is a clash between "old timer" Full Preterists & the cool "new kind" of genX type Full Preterist he is promoting (source). There is no slander contained. The comparison between green cheese is hardly logical since there is no evidence that any full preterists have ever advocated those beliefs or not where there is TONS of evidence that not only has there been a dramatic shift in how full preterism is being presented but that it is a purposeful, designed shift.

The reason I prefer to appeal directly to the admins has nothing to do with "whining like a little baby", rather it has to do with having a clear history of the tactics of Mr. Vaduva as evidenced by his continual anon vadalism of this project from the start, his posing as other account users on Gene Cook's forum in attempt to defame people, his running vampire scripts against other websites, his threatening to sue other Christians over his bogus claim to own the trademark on the word Preterism.

• http://thekingdomcome.com/roderick/virgil_vaduva_does_it_again

Roderick E 04:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Large Group of Preterist Universalists?

I don't feel Roderick's latest entry is valid since I don't see a significant group/sect/segment of Preterists subscribing to Universalism. As with any doctrine there are going to be a handful of individuals with different flavors - but hardly make up any type of majority.

In addition, the paragraph doesn't add any vital information to Preterism rather, it comes off as more of a warning by a biased group of people. You'd never find such jargon in an Encylopedia.

What's next? A paragraph on how some Preterists are turning Arminian, or Old Earth, or Local Flood? The latest edit by Roderick just doesn't make the cut.

Kyle Peterson

Armothe 15:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be helpful to inform any readers that Kyle Peterson is a co-administrator of Mr. Vaduva's website so that you can see his reasoning for posting this. Again, my entry is well documented by even men who would not normally want to agree with my conclusions. There is no bias, it is a matter of fact that should be included.

Roderick E 16:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well documented? All you supplied is a quote or two from some people who think Tim King and Virgil Vaduva are Universalists (neither of whom have professed such). Perhaps you can publically provide a list of (self-professed) people that make up this Universal Preterist "trend" and let fellow authors decide whether its large enough to bother mentioning in the Wikipedia entry.

Armothe 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Kyle, even Vaduva states that there is a clash between "old timer" Full Preterists & the cool "new kind" of genX type Full Preterist he is promoting (source). There is no slander contained. Besides, what's the big deal? Don't you guys want Preterism to presented in this "new kind" of way you have been pushing for some time now? All I want to do is see an acknowledgement that you are having success with your campaign. It should be applauded by you guys, not cause you offense.

Roderick E 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Wikipedia article on Preterism is already becoming too complex without the addition of your unsubstantiated paragraph. Nor do I think this is the correct Wiki entry to document the details of Universalism or promote an agenda. Lastly, The generational differences you mention above are not specific to Preterism and aren't worth mentioning here.

Armothe 16:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I guess you've spoken. The matter is settled. Please Kyle, anytime anyone brings EVIDENCE to you guys (such as Samuel Frost's latest article) you just want to say people are being unfair (unsubstantiated) & you want to dismiss it as personal attack/agenda/misrepresentation/misunderstanding & you want to move on. It is your playbook. Really, the entry is NOT complex enough. I mean, look is the reader even told the origins of Preteristic thinking? Does it document any history of the "movement" & resurgence of preteristic thought in this century? I actually agree with Dee Dee Warren that in form, "partial preterism" existed before so-called "full preterism" thus those labels are confusing. It should be called "historic preterism" & "developed preterism" or something more accuate (p.s. calling it developed doesn't mean it has been accurately developed btw) But as is the manner of your postmodernisitic approach, you like to keep things vague & ambiguous. Plus YOU keep making this about people like Tim King & Virgil -- no where in the statements by Todd Dennis or Sam Frost do they claim those people are universalist. Can we talk about the issue & not your egotistical friend?

Roderick E 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually you bring up Tim King and Virgil Vaduva in your posts above titled: Comments on Full Preterist Variants by Roderick E 16:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC) FULL PRETERISM'S REINVENTION by Roderick E 04:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Fact remains - you have no evidence of such a trend in the Preterist circle; hence not worthy of being included in this article. The only thing you and your sources have managed to do is single out a whopping three people (none of whom are self-professed Universalists by-the-way) who are accused of being Universalists based on the opinion of two or three other people (Sam isn't even sure as noted below).

"Max [King] told me a few years ago that he had changed his position on the "all in all" to adopt a more universalist position. That may or may not be the case because he has not written anything that would suggest this."

Armothe 19:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Aren't you the same Kyle that gets upset whenever we actually have documented "lists" of things you guys propose & yet here you demand I provide a list? Plus my paragraph is NOT saying individuals are UNIVERSALIST -- that isn't the scope -- it is that in general, there has been a universlisTIC shift in Full Preterism. Are you going to deny that? I notice you didn't BOLD the part where Sam said Max TOLD him, so it isn't heresay.

The EVIDENCE about the universalisTIC trending of Full Preterism is all over the place, you just choose to ignore it.

Roderick E 19:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is the same Kyle that gets upset when Roderick hangs documented sin lists over the heads of people he disagrees with. The same Kyle that requires proof of a trend that isn't there. People (a considerable amount mind you) make up trends - and so far you've pointed out three people that may or may not have UniversalisTIC tendencies. I'm not going to disagree that people, even Preterists, have discussed UniversalisTIC doctrine, but the same groups of people discuss Old Earth Creationism, Deism, Trinitarianism and all sorts of other isms. I don't see paragraphs on those groups listed here. Unless someone can provide a substantial list of UniversalisTIC/PreterisTIC books, websites, materials by several people I won't support your assertion that there is a trend. Also, you should lookup Hearsay because thats exactly what you posted.

Armothe 21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope that as participants in the Wiki project you people understand that this is not the place to air out your dirty laundry. Right now that is exactly how this conversation looks and for the sake of Wikipedia I am asking you to please stop.

Frank Thomas 21:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No worries. My further interaction is not here on this talk page & with people like Virgil & Kyle who hate to be challenged. They know full well that the "new kind" of Full Preterism they are advocating is NOT what it was 10-15 years ago, they just get upset when someone points it out. I'll take this discussion to other places & other people.

Roderick E 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

rulestheweb.com

Roderick E please stop hotlinking to rulestheweb.com. It has been blacklisted for a reason. It has been a source of wiki spam for a very long time. Please ask before you stroll in and make such changes.

Frank Thomas 16:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank, I'm not linking to it. I am aware it is blacklisted & is the reason I deleted an instance I found of it in the links section. If you have found something I wrote with that link, then it has been vandalized. Thanks

Roderick E 16:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Massive cleanup of links and bibliography needed

The amount of links and books listed in the article, strongly resemble spam. The guidelines on External links should be followed here. There is no need for dozens of links to be given, a few informative ones (from the various POVs) should be included. A bibliography section is supposed to be about the sourcing of the text of the article. There is absolutely NO way that all of the books listed are actually used in that manner, and none except those actually used to create the text should be here at all...--Nilfanion (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If we take away some of the links, there will be a MAJOR revision war because feelings will be hurt if someone decides to remove a link to another's web site. It's probably best to leave it as is and not add any more. Charleca 11:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article though. All people involved here should read WP:NOT... Just because it is "your" website, doesn't mean it should be in this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I totaly agree with that. My opinion is that ALL links to websites should be removed unless they are used in a bibliographical sense. I know a few of the site "owners" would agree with me. Charleca 13:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also second Nilfanion regarding link spamming; the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to provide links back to supporters or dissenters of a POV. Unless the links have some sort of biographical relevance, give it the axe. And yes, that likely means all the websites I maintain as well. --Virgil Vaduva 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See, this will work out perfect. We could change my entry to read:

Since the late 1990s, some advocates of Full Preterism found mainly on PlanetPreterist.com have been progressively trending toward a more universalistic conclusion wherein all people are ultimately redeemed via an application of the New Covenant to all people regardless of their actual profession of Christian faith. This trend is being fervently resisted by traditional Full Preterists.

That way you can make sure your site is considered bibliographically relevant & will be uncut. YAY that makes everyone happy!!!

Roderick E 01:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that in order to defame Planet Preterist, its "owner", and/or its users? Charleca 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Defaming? If I made a statement that a person is human that would not be "defaming". The quote is completely factual & something that site & its users espouse on a daily basis. There is no defaming intended. I just would like them to actually say what they mean & mean what they say for once. It's not that they are offended by the content of the statement, they are offended by who has made it. -- They "hate" my guts & as Virgil pointed out want nothing to do with anything I say EVEN if it is true. I could just as well make a statement that the sky on earth is typically blue & they would oppose it just to oppose me. This is the extent of their seething hatred.

Roderick E 14:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment on weblinks

I agree the weblinks area is out of control. However, I am not so sure that throwing out the baby with the bathwater is appropriate. I read that policy link for Wiki (thank you, I didn't even know about that), and browsed through Wiki and it seems a great many articles have limited links given for background, not necessarily bibliographical information. And though this may sound somewhat self-promotional, I am trying to be realistic - there are major sites that are the primary ones in the various perspective, and I do think some links should remain. The ones I would would suggest are the two major "full preterist" sites - Planet Preterist and the Preterist Archive, and my site, the PreteristSite - ONLY because right now I am the only site with a lot of content exclusively on the topic coming strictly from a partial preterist view in opposition to full preterism. This is not contested by the two major full preterist sites, most notably shown by the fact that Todd Dennis, the owner of Preterist Archive, links to my site in his header bars as being the most reprsentative and comprehensive (outside of his own) for that perspective. Frankly I wish I had a competitor and I could put my attention elsewhere. However, I think my summary above is a realistic analysis of three links that should remain in a summary encyclopedia article.

Dee Dee Warren 14:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Now see, here is what I meant by false representation. I agree with Dee Dee about her site, but the other 2 sites, representing Full Preterism no longer represent what Full Preterism IS. For instance, Preterist Archive's owner (God love him) has publicly stated he is no longer a full preterist so I ask how does THAT represent Full Preterism? And Planet Preterist is the main site that is no longer advocating the Full Preterist position of 10-20 years ago, it now on a daily basis represents a trend toward universalistic notions. Please read the quotes by Virgil Vaduva himself wherein he clearly says he is trying to "reinvent" Full Preterism into a "new kind of...". So, as good as your suggestion sounds Dee Dee, on the Full Preterist side it would do exactly what I said the entire article is currently doing: ignoring the dramatic shift within Full Preterism. It would be like having an entry on the Mormons & never talking about Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet. I oppose this course of action. Remove all the links or modify the entry to contain bibliographical relevant references like the one I proposed. Roderick E 14:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Roderick E I think some more people here asked you to stop attacking individuals. What part of NPOV do you not get? One person (you) making edits on Wikipedia does not qualify as NPOV. If this article is in an urgent need to be edited as you are proposing here why is there no other user supporting those changes? The purpose of Wikipedia is to let the community (not you) decide how an article is developed. Before you continue please read more on how Wikipedia works and on the three key policies used by Wikipedia which are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. From reading the comments here on this page so far your proposed changes are failing all three points. They are not a neutral pov,they are not verifiable and they have not been published by a reliable source. Frank Thomas 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Frank, First off I don't know what your association is with all the people constructing this entry & it is apparent that you are either ignoring & not knowledgeable about the history of the Full Preterist movement. My proposed statement is no more personally attacking than calling you a human, it is just that the folks offended have a history you are either unaware of or ignoring. They just don't like the messenger of the statement so they reject the message & call it "personal attacking". The statement I propose meets ALL of the qualifications. (1) It has been stated by so-called leading authorities within the view (Max King & Todd Dennis) (2) It is verifiable even via the comments of the very people opposing it now. Even they claim they are attempting to make a "new kind of Full Preterism", thus it is not the same kind that has existed. (3) It has been published by leading preterists in the community -- It is not just ME trying to make changes here. When you & Kyle ask for books you may not realize but Kyle certainly does, the Full Preterist "movement" as even Dee Dee has pointed out is mainly an online community so the evidence/documentation must be compiled by things published online -- I provided that documentation. I submit the reason the few full preterists who have spoken up here lately don't want to see these kinds of statements is because they don't want their NON-NPOV "agenda" exposed, as I quoted them saying THEY are trying to change the traditional full preterist perspective & the say tough luck to anyone who doesn't go along with them. Now who is really trying to control what is represented here?

we will put a new face on Preterism, whether our critics like it or not. We will drag them kicking and screaming, and confidently we will reassert that Preterism is about the Kingdom, not about being right on eschatology; (Virgil Vaduva)

We are the new proud and confident face of Preterism, so learn to live with us; it is not a demand, it is simply a fact. (Virgil Vaduva)

68.248.147.4 18:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (Roderick E)

Ok now you are starting to piss me off. Please do not patronize me and imply that I am stupid or ignorant just because I disagree with you. I have been following the discussion here much longer than you and have not found a reason to participate until you came in guns blazing. It is clear that you have some hidden ideology that is driving you and after we ask you to read the goals of Wikipedia you proceed to give a lecture on the three principles guiding this project which you are not interested in. You don't get it do you. Frank Thomas 22:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Thomas, it is YOU who gave the lecture. You should go back & read all of the archives again. The only hidden ideology here is that some folk have been caught claiming to own the trademark to the term Preterism & have even threatened to sue Wikipedia if Wikipedia didn't let them define the term. Further, these same folks make statements like:

we will put a new face on Preterism, whether our critics like it or not. We will drag them kicking and screaming, and confidently we will reassert that Preterism is about the Kingdom, not about being right on eschatology; (Virgil Vaduva)

We are the new proud and confident face of Preterism, so learn to live with us; it is not a demand, it is simply a fact. (Virgil Vaduva)

Yes, Mr. Thomas, maybe you should have remained out of the discussion if you refuse to deal with the DOCUMENTED evidence. And if you knew anything about this issue you would know the history of how this got to this point. It is not a sudden "gun blazing" issue as you have tried to portray it. I have been in private interaction with Dee Dee Warren (the person most responsible for this entry) & "respectfully & reasonably" announced my interaction here, proposed edits for discussion which some people flat out refused to discuss thus should have no right to modify anything. And now you are getting "pissed off"? Why? Because you can't refute all the evidence to make it look like I'm here with a hidden ideology? Come on. Roderick E 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You really are not getting it. Wikipedia is a community. All are encouraged to participate in the discussion and edit content and I do not need your permission to participate and make edits here. The community decides what goes not you. Your attitude here so far fails to impress me and all contributors are opposed to your edits. Take a hint man! Frank Thomas 00:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Permission

After speaking with a brother whom I greatly respect & after seeing how what I propose will be blocked no matter what, not because it is untrue (as the documentation shows what I propose is valid), but simply because it is me & those receiving it have an insatiable disdain for anything I say no matter how factual -- I would like to delete all of my comments from this TALK PAGE, but also any responses to my comments as well. If no one objects (within 7 days), I'll take the silence as agreement & delete both my comments & their responses. I do this out of good faith of reconciliation. I do not retract the things I proposed as none were nonfactual, just that I want to remove the stumbling block so that progress can be made. I still think this entry on Preterism needs to discuss actual origins, development & current trends. Thank you. Roderick E 02:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think they need to stay. Charleca 15:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I will also object, the discussions should stay. Armothe 00:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I'll leave it as is & I standby everything I said. Roderick E 03:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Roderick:

I hope I did not insult you with my comments, it was not my intent. When the Wiki user earlier directed me to the weblinks guidelines, my jaw dropped upon - I was not aware of those guidelines, and I have been one of the people adding a lot of links and encouraging others to do so, which I did not know was wrong in Wiki's eyes. Now I do know. The reason I suggested the three sites that I did would not be to group them as advocates of such and such, but just "For further information on the issues discussed here see:" And the reasons I suggested the three I did is because I think they three pretty much cover the spectrum. While neither Todd nor Dennis personally uphold what you would consider the traditional full preterist view - Todd has an extensive archive of those who do, and offers very little commentary of his own, so someone wanting to read the traditional full preterists would have a resource to do so. PlanetPreterist has some traditional full preterist articles as well with others that would differ - I know you disagree with their new direction (and you know I disagree with all full preterists - direction or no - actually I think Todd is moving rapidly in the right direction and pray that I am interpreting him properly as moving closer to orthodoxy, though right now I would not consider him orthodox), but they are a very large site with a lot of resources. There is a reason I typically refer to both PreteristArchive and PlanetPreterist as the two prominent hyperpreterist sites on the Net (and I use "hyperpreterist" here instead of "full preterist" because I a quoting myself, and I don't use "full preterist" in my personal life due to my convictions, but I do use it here in the spirit of compromise with my other Wiki participants) - and there is a reason why even Todd recommends my site for the opposing preterist view.

I am not trying to promote myself here - I track the links the get from Wiki (I have a program that tracks where my hits come from) and I get about one hit from Wiki per month - this isn't something I am trying to keep for advertisement purposes, I get way more hits from PreteristArchive than I do from Wiki usually speaking, and my primary hits come from individual blogs), I just think the three sites are typical representatives.

Anyways, if it is decided ALL the links get removed, so be it. I do agree that the article as it stands is not in conformity with Wiki rules (and I apologize once again for being ignorant of those rules).

Dee Dee Warren 15:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Dee Dee, I've come to really appreciate your heart and honesty on those issues, and especially your reaction to the Wikipedia rules. I confess I was also unaware of some of those issues. I propose as a first step in the spirit of cooperation and in order to remove all links which are links to individual blogs, since Wikipedia is not a blog links repository and also remove all links that are not direct links to the root of a website. For example anything that does not link to www.blahsite.com should be removed, again there seem to be enough rules to suggest that deep-linking to minor reference pages should not be taking place. That could be a first step small towards cleaning up the links categories. Once that takes place we can take it to the next level which I assume it will be more difficult for all of us. --Virgil Vaduva 03:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Dee Dee, I wasn't offended in the slightest by what you said, nor have I been offended by things others have said, no matter how harsh. I think the documentation speaks for itself. One reason I have offered to remove all of my comments here is to remove the stumbling blocks. Even though what I said was factual & hopefully will be considered by "respectful & reasonable" people & they will make such changes to this entry. I understand your rationale for the Full Preterist links of Preterist Archive even though its owner says he is not even a full preterist the site contains the most information & Todd mostly leaves out editorial bias. As for the Planet Preterist link, I think it is NOT a good representation of traditional full preterism as I have shown from the quotes by Virgil Vaduva himself where he is trying to create a "new kind of preterism" but I don't deny the "large amount" (the same large amount Kyle was trying to deny) that agree with his dramatic reinvention of Full Preterism. That is the reason I think it important to reference that shift in the article, with no mention of Virgil or Planet Preterist as you see. I guess I have resolved that the traditional full preterists won't have voice here even though Mr. Frank Thomas said this is a community project where all are represented, instead for the full preterist position it is only the loudest & most emotionally driven that will be represented.

Thank you for all the time & effort you have put into this project Dee Dee & Mike. May God bless your endeavors. Roderick E 23:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Preterism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The notion that preterism equates to replacement theology is wrong. Many post-trib futurists who stand against the preterist doctrine also hold to replacement theology. Thus, to make preterism equivalent to replacement theology is not only wrong, but slanderous. Preterism may hold to a form of replacement theology, but not all those who hold to replacement theology hold to preterism. Acts238defender (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)