Wikipedia

Talk:Preterism/Archive 2

< Talk:Preterism
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Joint Proposed Article

Okay Mike (full preterist) and I have worked together on this piece and have come to an agreement that although the piece says some negative things about both of our positions, it accurately reflects the state of things how they are. Neither he or I will say that we got absolutely everything that we wanted – it is a compromise position in the spirit of the wiki. We struggled a bit with having to succinctly define the orthodox view of the resurrection so as not misdefine it nor to make it seem as if full preterists are denying something that they are not (ie they are not saying that death is the end). Also the definition part is a compromise. Both of us feel that our position bears the right to “preterism” but we recognize that there are divergent definitions out there, and popular use doesn’t support either of our positions – we would say then that the popular use is sloppy, but the Wiki readers would be most educated to understand how they are going to encounter this word, not how we would like to change the popular use to be more in conformity to what we think is right. Mike will add more observations as to his thoughts.

We both intend to be adding lists of books and authors to the reference section as well as supplementing both of our positions with a few more Scripture references. I do not believe there will be any controversy on those fronts and anticipate that such will just be added to the article with a note placed in discussion that it was done.


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. The term preterism is derived from the word preterite, or past perfect tense; it also has its roots in the Latin word præter, meaning "past." Adherents of Preterism are known as Preterists.

Preterist eschatology, however, is not monolithic. There are two major schools of Preterist thought: Partial Preterism and Full Preterism. These different schools of Preterism have been described in various ways. Some adherents of Partial Preterism call their own pposition orthodox preterism to designate its conformity to the historic, ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church (in contrast to Full Preterism). Other labels for Partial Preterism include classical preterism and moderate preterism. Adherents of Full Preterism prefer either full preterism or consistent preterism in an appeal to its claim that all biblical prophecy was fulfilled in the first century AD; as such, Full Preterists believe Partial Preterists are inconsistent in their method of biblical interpretation.

There are two additional minor schools of preterist thought, the first being a variation of Partial Preterism which places fulfillment of some eschatological passages in the first three centuries, culminating in the fall of Rome. A second variation of Preterism can be found in certain liberal schools of thought which hold that the the biblical record accurately reflects Jesus' and the Apostles' belief that all prophecy was to be fulfilled within their generation. However, according to this school, these prophecies never came to pass, thus proving the non-inspiration of the biblical text and the non-divinity of Jesus Christ.

Partial Preterism

Partial Preterism holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a "judgment-coming" of Christ were fulfilled at or about the year AD 70 when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices.

Most, but not all, Partial Preterists also believe the term Last Days refers not to the last days of planet Earth or the last days of humankind, but rather to the last days of the Mosaic covenant which God had exclusively with national Israel until the year AD 70. As God came in judgment upon various nations in the Old Testament, Christ also came in judgment against those in Israel who rejected him. The "last days," however, are to be distinguished from the "last day," which is considered still future and entails Jesus Christ's Second Coming, the Resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous dead physically from the grave in like-manner to Jesus' physical resurrection, the Final Judgment, and the creation of a New Heavens and a New Earth free from the curse of sin and death which was brought about by the fall of Adam. Partial Preterists believe that the new creation comes in redemptive progression as Christ reigns from His heavenly throne, subjugating his enemies, and will eventually culminate in the destruction of physical death, the "last enemy" (1 Cor 15:20-24).

Full Preterism

Full Preterism differs from Partial Preterism in that Full Preterists believe all prophecy was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead and Jesus' Second Coming. This view holds that Jesus' Second Coming is to be viewed not as a bodily return, but rather a "return" manifested by the physical destruction of Jerusalem by foreign armies in a manner similar to various Old Testament descriptions of God coming to destroy other nations in righteous judgment. Full Preterism also holds that the resurrection of the dead did not entail the raising of the bio-physical body, but rather the resurrection of the soul from the "place of the dead," known as Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek). As such, the righteous dead obtained a spiritual and substantial body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead were cast into the Lake of Fire. Some Full Preterists believe this judgment is ongoing and takes effect upon the death of each individual (see Heb. 9:27). The New Heavens and the New Earth are also equated with the consummation of the New Covenant in AD 70 and are to be viewed in the same manner by which a Christian is considered a "new creation" upon his or her conversion.

Influences of Preterism within Christian Thought

Partial Preterism is, by all measures, a minority view within American Christianity and meets with significant vocal opposition from the prevailing Dispensationalist (or Futurist) view. Partial Preterism, however, is generally recognized as falling within the pale of historic orthodoxy as it affirms all items of the eucemenical Creeds of the Church. Still, concerns are expressed by Dispensationalists that Partial Preterism logically leads to an acceptance of Full Preterism -- the concern of which is denied by Partial Preterists.

Full Preterism is viewed by many (but not all) as heretical. Many of those who would condemn this view claim to do so not only upon the historic creeds of the church (which would exclude this view), but also from biblical passages that they interpret to condemn a past view of the resurrection or the denial of a physical resurrection/transformation of the body, doctrines which many Christians (but not all) believe to be an essential doctrine of the faith.

Adherents of Full Preterism, however, dispute this assertion by claiming that any biblical condemnation of a past resurrection was written during a time in which the resurrection was yet future (i.e., pre-AD 70) as well as claiming different interpretations of other proffered biblical passages. Furthermore, Full Preterists reject the authority of the Creeds to condemn their view, stating that the Creeds were written by uninspired and fallible men and are simply in error on this point. A rapidly growing movement, there has been a strong push by Full Preterists for acceptance as another valid Christian view; however, to date, no major conservative denomination or group has officially accepted this view as normative.

Preterism vs. Futurism

Like most theological disputes, the divide between Preterism (both Partial and Full) and its opposite, Futurism, is over how certain passages of scripture should be interpreted. Futurists assert that Preterists have spiritualized prophecies they see as describing literal, visible events, whereas Preterists believe that Futurists do not take certain passages such as Matthew 16:23 literally enough and do not give sufficient weight to scriptures that seem to show that the first century Church believed that a major eschatological event would certainly take place in their lifetime. Many "time texts" in the New Testament indicate this, such as: Matt. 10:23, Matt. 16:28, Matt. 24:34, Matt. 26:64, to name a few. Full Preterists would assert that there are passages which also place the Second Coming and Resurrection at that time.

See also: prophetic futurism prophetic historicism

Proponents of Partial Preterism

Proponents of Full Preterism

Critics of Preterism

Category:Christian eschatology

Dee Dee Warren


I suggest you post this Dee Dee. You should remember though that there is no such thing as a finished version on Wikipedia so you can expect further edits to the article from other contributors. But this looks good (although I have no knowledge in this area as I've said before) -- sannse (talk) 22:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Okay I know Mike had wanted to post some comments as well but that would not affect the posting of the article that we both agreed upon.

Dee Dee Warren


New Intro

Hi Dee Dee,
I think your new intro is good. However, I worry that it was written with the current naming arguments too much in mind, and not so much with the aim of explaining the term and the various positions.
Partial Preterism is introduced, but only as a name, and with the note that it is named such in contrast to Full Preterism. We don't see what it does stand for, though. Full Preterism's position is explained, but the note that they belive PP's to be inconsistant is again confusing as you haven't stated their position.
Also, I'd change the line starting with "Adherents of Full Preterism prefer either Full Preterism or Consistent Preterism in an appeal to its claim...", as, again, this is describing the FP's as arguing for a name, instead of a position.

I think that it's good, but really the arguments on this Talk Page shouldn't make one think that the introduction is to be why the groups are named the way they are. Rather, the main focus shoud be about what the two groups believe, with a secondary emphasis on naming. I think this point is slightly brushed aside at the moment.
— Asbestos | Talk 00:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow

Hey Abestos - Mike and I both worked on that new intro, and I have to confess I don't follow..... eek! Can you maybe post a revision so I can get an idea what you mean? I read it again, and still don't see the defect...

Dee Dee Warren 03:21, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

That's One Small Step for Prets, One Giant Leap for Pret-Kind

Of course, writing the first stages of a Wiki entry on Preterism is nowhere near as sensational as putting a man on the moon ... but it could be more important. So much for humility, eh?

I want to publicly thank Dee Dee for her invaluable assistance in writing this entry. I am hoping that my Full Preterist brothers and sisters will understand what I've attempted to do in this (historic?) collaboration. One of the great things about working with Dee Dee on this is that we were able to put down the theological fists and step back a bit to objectively view our respective positions, regardless of the light in which we found them. There is nothing to fear in truth; indeed, there is everything to gain.

By no means, however, is this entry complete. Both Dee Dee and I have plans to make it better: some additional Scripture references (not too heavy though), a recommended reading list, and some expansions on the varied beliefs within Preterism. We will continue to e-mail each other with suggestions, and I would love to see others do the same without resorting to what I call a "Wiki-war." The best thing to do, if you want to add or change something, is post it here on the Discussion page, or e-mail us.

As a sidenote, I'm editing the latest entry to fix up some typos that squeaked through the collaborative process (changing "bio-physical" to something else), and to eliminate a repeated paragraph (Preterism within Christian Thought was posted twice).

If anyone wishes to dialogue with me regarding this entry, feel free to e-mail me at [email protected].

Mike Beidler 04:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Mike

This was an interesting project and I thank Mike for contacting me. In the midst of the rhetoric, there are always times and places to call a "truce" and work together on necessary projects in which our battles are not the interest. The Wiki is such a place. I am going to take a bit of a breather to see what comments or objections if any are raised to this piece - and then add some limited Scriptural citations. Perhaps some other orthodox pret that comes along might want to take that on. I would think the adding of Scripture to our respective "sections" should be pretty noncontroversial. My email address before it gets lost in the shuffle is [email protected] - I welcome non-combative emails on this Wiki, not to have personal theological debates over our position - which is exactly how Mike initially wrote me, it seems like ages ago.

Dee Dee Warren 14:54, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Some versus Many

I see that an anon poster has changed many to some. That is simply not accurate. Mike and I discussed this very issue and agreed as an objective review of the facts, that it is indeed many. If need be, I can produce reams of data that prove this point. The anon poster would be hard-pressed to post any nonfull pret person of note or credibility that does not view it as heretical. He would have precious few (I can think of two). Now, the anon might say most of my sources are partial pret. So? The sentence deals with the attitude of those who are not full pret. The largest apologetics ministry dealing with abherrant teachings in Christianity has dubbed it so. That is the Christian Research Institute and I can obtain their statement on it if need be. This is simply not an disputable point - it is many, it is not all.

I solicit the Admin's advice. It is hard to deal with an anon poster and I am not trying to start another war. I solicit Mike's input as well.

Dee Dee Warren 20:11, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

More

For the majority of Christendom, the strictest definition of heresy is departure from the eucemenical creeds - this is one point upon which MANY not some persons are agreed. This has been the case throughout Church heresy. IOW words, while some may expand out the definition of heresy to include other doctrines, most people who hold to the Creeds would agree at a minimum that departure from them would constitute heresy. Now before the red herring is thrown up that no, Protestants hold to Sola Scriptura, that is a truncated view of Sola Scriptura - which was never intended to mean Solo Scriptura - Protestants who believe the Creeds believe they are a shorthand summary of what is in the Bible so no one is denying the authority of the Bible - they believe that the Creeds accurately summarize the essentials of the Biblical faith, thus by definition denial of them is not merely creedally heterodox but Biblically. As another poster here said, it would have been surprising to him if it were not considered heretical. And the fact is that many consider it so. This is simmply not a point of reasonable dispute. It would be like me trying to claim "some think the partial preterist position is incorrect." That is ridiculous. In Christianity, MANY think the partial preterist position is incorrect. We cannot omit or lessen facts just because we don't like them if we are going to factually accurate. We certainly can record the strong defenses against the claims, but we must faithfully report the claims. And "some" is demonstrably inaccurate. I compromised by not insisting upon "most" - and settled in my own mind for "many" which was fair and still accurate. If I had my complete way it would be most.

Dee Dee Warren 11:51, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Some vs. Many

There may be a way to compromise here. Dee Dee has a point that the "many" really resides within circles that are familiar with preterism. However, as I believe the anon editor is saying, those circles are quite small.

Could we modify thus: "Many within Reformed circles view Full Preterism as heretical."

on some versus many

Hey Mike - I thought about that, but here is the issue - it only communicates what you are trying to say to those who know of this discussion. IOW it makes it seem like this "heresy" question is a uniquely reformed question not that this issue is more well known by Reformed persons - as if there is something in reformed doctrine that makes it so. There is not. I am not Reformed. And while there are quite a few Reformed folks who have made strong statements, I have quite a few from nonReformed folks. Personally I think what is up is most accurate for it carries the implied statement that "of nonadherents who have even heard of it" - obviously someone cannot have an opinion on somethikng they don't even know exists.

Here is the situation

Out of ALL of Christianity (those who have heard of the view, and those who haven't) some think it is heretical (but this is misleading, only some have heard of it to begin with)

Out of only the parts of Christianity who even have a clue about this issue, many think it is heretical.

Or how about we make it a disputed statement or word it without the direct quantifier.

Such as

Full preterism has been viewed as heretical, though not universally.

or something that doesn't quantify but makes it clear it is not absolute

I am not sure, by I think the Reformed suggestion muddies the issue. Most of my Christian circle think it is totally heretical and very few of them are Reformed.


Dee Dee Warren 16:57, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Some versus Many and the "heresy" paragraph

I am a full preterist and I strongly agree with Dee Dee that the sentence should read "many". In fact, a more informative, truthful, and neutral statement would be...

"Many, regardless of denomination or Christian background, view Full Preterism as heresy."


MY RESPONSE:
Kalo, I think that is stronger than is necessary for a Wiki. I think it is implied by the simple "many." Why I am opposed to a weakening of the facts, making the facts overly strong is only going to be a sore point in a collaborative article. While personally I agree with your statement, I don't think it is necessary to be that strong in a Wiki that will only cause edit wars, when an equally truthful statement would be preferable to all.
65.8.33.221 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


REPLY:
Dee Dee, you may be correct that this is unnecessary, but there are a number of people who incorrectly think this is primarily a reformed view. No matter what, it should definitely be "many" and not "some". --kalos 14:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


This statement does a better job at showing that those who regard Full Preterism as heresy are not limited to any particular group (which is simply the truth). Additionally, the rest of the paragraph should read...


MY RESPONSE: While I agree iwth you, the way it said "many" before implied that without needlessly causing disputes.
65.8.33.221 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


"While many of those who would condemn Full Preterism do so upon the historic creeds of the church (which would exclude this view), an even greater number do so from biblical passages that they interpret to condemn a past view of the Resurrection or the denial of a physical resurrection/transformation of the body, doctrines which many Christians (but not all) believe to be essential to the faith."


MY RESPONSE:
Hmmm, is it necessary to add that though?
65.8.33.221 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Notice that I removed the phrase "claim to". I am not sure that it should be out, but the statement seems both clearer and simpler without it. I also replaced one occurrance of the phrase "this view" with "Full Preterism, as "this view" was repeated in the same sentence. I believe that this statement of the basis by which people condemn Full Preterism is more informative. The current version does not communicate that there are a significant number of people who have little or no regard for the creeds (and because of this would not utilize them to condemn anything) but who still condemn Full Preterism based upon biblical considerations.


MY RESPONSE:
Hmm I would disagree with you there. I don't use the Creeds usually in my statements - however that is not because I don't have any regard for the Creeds, I do, I do so because my opponents have no regard for the Creeds so why waste my breath on something that the other side doesn't recognize? So I heartily disagree, the majoirty of those who do not use the Creeds is not because they have no regard for them, but because that is not the most effective way to go about it - and unfortunately due to a large ignorance of history in the average laity.
65.8.33.221 01:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


REPLY
Well, I understand what you are saying, but I just don't like that the current article makes it sound like the majority of Full Preterism's critics use both the creeds and the Bible itself. I am not sure that this is true. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, I don't know. I definitely believe that the phrase "claim to" is unnecessary and that we should avoid using "this view" twice in the same sentence. I would be happy with the article if it was reverted to the "many" version and these minor edits were made. At least for the time being. --kalos 14:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sorry

I was not logged in above. Sorry! It was me.

Dee Dee Warren 01:50, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Many etc

Mike, I have been trying to find a better way to word this. I think what we had was the best way to word it. Do you have any other suggestions? It is frustrating that the anon editor has not participated, and since he/she has not cared to, I am inclined to change it back unless we can hash out something else. I have started and stopped several times in trying to craft something which each time seems ackward, and seems obvious like we are trying walk around the elephant in the living room.

Dee Dee Warren 12:56, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

To Kalos

Kalos said: Well, I understand what you are saying, but I just don't like that the current article makes it sound like the majority of Full Preterism's critics use both the creeds and the Bible itself. I am not sure that this is true. Perhaps I am splitting hairs, I don't know. I definitely believe that the phrase "claim to" is unnecessary and that we should avoid using "this view" twice in the same sentence. I would be happy with the article if it was reverted to the "many" version and these minor edits were made. At least for the time being. --kalos 14:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

( ^ UGH, this non-breaking line had made this page virtually unreadable; hence my attempt to correct this HTMLannoyance :S Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 17:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE:

I have no problem with the stylistic issues you raised, that is fine (though the "claim to" was put in to keep with the NPOV of the Wiki). Also you are right that the current roster of full preterist critics do no rely so much upon the Creeds, but it is not because they don't respect their authority - it is because they want to avoid the distraction of having their opponents argue about the validity of the Creeds and have it turn into an argument over the place of tradition, authority, etc. I, like you, am pretty set on the "many" issue as I think it is accurate and no one is served by inaccuracy. In fact I think a sober-minded full preterist would see that their side may seem to be served in the short run but in the long run it only gives ammunition to those who will point to such things as evidence of a lack of forthrightness and spin-doctoring.

So my main concern is the "many" - I have no issue with "this view" being fixed - and the "claim to" was to make sure we keep NPOV.

Let's see what Mike has to say.

Kalo

You are right about the claim to. I was thinking of a different one.

Okay so I have no issue wiwth the "this view" redundancy fix.

I have no issue with the removal of "claim to"

I don't disagree with your insertion into the "many" paragraph on factual grounds. You are in fact correct. I am throwing up the cautionary flag that this WILL cause an edit war. You see already how the lesser statement of "many" did. I think if we three, two full prets, and myself agree upon the original many, since anon has not decided to join the conversation, we would have cause to switch it back and make those stylistic chagnes you suggested.

Dee Dee Warren 18:12, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)


Excellent!
I agree that the best thing to do is to change "some" to "many" and make those other two minor edits (removing "claim to" an changing "this view" to "Full Preterism"). Thanks Dee Dee. What do you think, Mike? --kalos 19:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mike?

I have not yet heard from Mike. Let's give it a bit, I know he is very busy.

Dee Dee Warren 11:24, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)


No Problem. --kalos 13:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I'm here! Just wrapped up this semester's last few projects/papers for my Masters ... two more semesters to go!
Anyhoo, I suggest: "Although Full Preterism is viewed as heretical by many, this condemnation is by no means universal."
I also agree that the second "this view" and "claim to" are unnecessary. Feel free to reedit.
Mike Beidler 08:39, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kalos

What do you think Kalos (sorry for dropping the S before)?

Dee Dee Warren 15:43, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)


No problem, Dee Dee. I am fine with what Mike suggested, but "by no means" is informal and for an encyclopedic entry is should probably be replaced with "not", in my opinion. --130.101.14.198 13:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kalos and MIke

Will one of you guys make the changes then? I would prefer it not be me. Also it appears that someone has went in and given a ton of information for the proponents of full preterism cites. I really don't think that is necessary and looks like an advertisement - over the top - for the various sites/ministries (you guys know I don't consider them ministries, but yourselves and the supporters would). Also, honestly, to just go in and do that for one side is inappropriate. If I were to go in and give descriptives for one, I would do so for all. This is not the place for us to be advertising "our side" in such a manner. What happens when I go in and give a descrption for my site? Everyone gets up in arms? This is shameless site plugging and inappropriate. It should be avoided by both sides. This is not our billboard.

Dee Dee Warren 23:09, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)


Hi Dee Dee,
I posted Mike's sentence with my minor edits. I do like it much better now. I don't know who posted the additional links, but I don't understand what is so upsetting about it. How do you know that the person who posted the links propagated "shameless site plugging" and was not simply trying to be informative? Even if this many links is bad wikiquette (I don't know if it is or isn't), don't forget Hanlon's Razor! So what do you want? Fewer Full Preterism links? More Partial Preterism links? I don't have a problem with either. BTW, I am 130.101.14.198 when my session expires. --kalos 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • I am the anonymous poster. I have never used Wiki up until this point, but when I saw the similar-named websites listed I thought it would be useful to add a few more well-known sites, and I included the name(s) of the individual(s) behind these and some earlier ones for clarification, not as promotion or "inappropriate shameless site plugging". --Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr)


See my response below. My colourful speak was taken much stronger than I intended. I apologize if you were unduly offended that was not my intent. Thank you for posting - some of it was indeed frustration at changes being made without anything posted in talk - thank you for posting again. I woulg suggest you abbreviate the John Anderson information, it does come across as an advertisment - the others, while I think just the links for all concerned are better, if you think the names are helpful in that manner, that is okay with me. I am going to delete the additional information on Tekton, JP has not been affiliated with the Christian bookshelf for nearly seven years now.

Dee Dee Warren 23:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

The reason is because many of the most current resources are coming from individuals whose names are known while their website and/or ministry name is not. Also many of the website "names" are similar - for example only differing with the ending .org or .com or .net, or they have 2 words but one site has "-" between the words while the other has no "-".


Okay, I still think that the names mean nothing to the average Wiki user, those for whom the names mean something already know of the sites. Listen, I am not saying this just for you guys, but the sites that I would promote as well.

Dee Dee Warren 23:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I personally think it would be useful to identify the name of the individual behind every one of the resources listed, wherever possible - including both partial and full preterists, as well as the contrary views that are linked. Again, like I said it is usually the author name that is what people first hear and remember, not the website URL or the name of the ministry. As an example, many people have heard of the radio host and author John MacArthur, but if they saw within a list of URLs a link to only "gty.org" with no clariying name that would not be helpful if a person wanted to investigate what he had to say about a certain theological topic.

I apologize if the impression I have caused is against the "spirit of Wiki"... Feel free everybody to tell me if I have gone against some 'clearly-laid out wiki-standards' - with a link where to look of course, and maybe examples in other topics that have shown why identifying the name behind the URL is such a bad idea. :) rand id terr

Nah, I don't think there are any clear standards on that, I am going from gut. I am very very new here and barely can keep my own postings straight, so I am no Wiki guru. Just my personal opinion o instinct. If everyone disagrees, okay, I will add some stuff to the sites I support (though I see you did some of that, thank you)

Dee Dee Warren 23:40, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

response

Hey Kalos, thanks for making the changes. Hanlon's Razor applies when there is a possibility of stupidity - I use the Razor quite often. Maybe it is just me but the links IMHO are supposed to be simple reference, not advertisements, but if you guys are fine with it, I will add the descriptives to the other side as well. Notice I wasn't saying one side should have them and not the other, I was saying both should not - this is an encyclopedia style article, you never see such things in an encyclopedia or even in books that have endnotes "for further reference." I can't speak obviously being quite a noob here myself, but I don't think, on a gut level, it is appropriate for a Wiki, which is why I didn't just rush in to put in taglines for the sites I would support. Up to you guys, I just find it very unnecessary - Wiki isn't to advertise anyone's sites. Listen, and I am saying this though I would derive DIRECT benefit from this, after all my site is listed. I am championing a position that denies my own site advertisement.

Dee Dee Warren 18:34, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


Hi again Dee Dee,
First off, I did misunderstand what you were saying. I thought that you were upset that there were so many links under the Full Preterism section, and not under the others. I didn't realize that you were upset about the descriptions (didn't read close enough). Sorry. I don't know whether I think descriptions are helpful or not, but I lean towards not. Still, making assumptions about why someone posts things is a bad idea. The poster has now explained why he or she added the descriptions, and I'll be giving the benefit of the doubt instead of assuming that the purpose was to advertise or do anything shamelessly. --kalos 21:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Hey Kalos, point taken - but that is the impression left when it is done for one site and not the other, and there was one specific entry I was referring to, that of John Anderson, which reads like an advertisement. But I am glad the Anon poster posted, things are much better when we can all hear what each other is saying. I apologize for any hasty generalizations. And no I don't have a problem with the number of links - if they are major sites (not some obscure ones) they should be listed. The fact is that there are a whole lot more full pret sites, so it would be silly for me to get upset about that. I didn't like it, so I did what I could - I started my own. But shame on us orthodox prets if we are not as prolific. Also, you don't know me or my mannerisms in person and I am a very colourful person both in words and manner. To me "shamelessly" is a common adjective that I use quite loosely and didn't realize the tremendous negative impact it would have here. I always have to remember that things don't always translate as well electronically.

Dee Dee Warren

Dee Dee Warren 23:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ooops not logged in

That last entry is me.

Dee Dee Warren 23:35, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Again...

Because my words got jumbled in up there, I did not intend to cause an uproar with "shameless" used above. It really was just for one entry, and I didn't look carefully enough to see that the same volume of infornation was not given for all. Apologies to all concerned - I wasn't trying to be a jerk or anything ~ seems I did pretty good without trying eh?

Dee Dee Warren 23:42, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)


No problem. --kalos 13:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Also no problem :) But I just wanted to make a quick comment re. "John Anderson" appearing like too much of a promotion. The way I see it, in a "For further examination, check out these resources..." type of section, it makes sense to mention a place where both sides (i.e. Partial and Full) have come together for 3 or 4 years, in a public forum, (including callers' questions and objections!), with much of it available in the archives, where the issue and has been debated and discussed topic-by-topic in great detail...
Perhaps removal of the reference to "producer of Preterist videos" might be necessary since that might imply promotion of those videos, and they sometimes lean on the "Full" side of things, but hey remember this link IS listed under Full - so I don't think it violates the principle of NPOV by somehow implying Full is the "correct" side simply by stating what I have posted. IMHO.


As a reminder, the text in question is...
"Voice of Reason" (http://www.LighthouseWorldMinistries.com/broadcast.htm) - a regular radio broadcast hosted by John Anderson (producer of numerous Preterist videos), with a wide variety of guests (mainly from within the Preterist community) representing both full and partial views, as well as the occasional debate with leading futurists (e.g. Thomas Ice, James Jordan).
In Christ for Truth, Darren Dirt rand id terr 17:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) <--PS: Why does four-tilde result in an anagram of my name???

This is Dee Dee (I don't have my account information here)

Anon (208 IP) who had stated that he was done participating earlier went in and reversed the changes that Kalos made without coming to discuss here. That is not appropriate in light of the conversation here, and in light of the admins advice to discuss things here first - Kalos do you wish to reverse the changes? I will do so if you like. I will wait a few days to see if Anon (208 IP) decides to re-enter the conversation.

Dee Dee Warren 16:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Dee Dee Warren)


Yes, I wish the changes to be reversed. It was much better before. It is silly that anon208 would simply say not everyone agreed when he (or she) was not willing to discuss it first and all who were did agree. Go for it, Dee Dee. --kalos 20:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

re. Additions to this "Talk" page

I was just wondering what you guys typically do: Do you just add it to the end and partially-quote what you are responding to?

Or do you respond in the related section, and after all your response make a quick mention at the bottom of what you have added to the discussion?

The reason I am asking is because I am used to using online forums where you can easily see what has been added since the last reading, and of course in the case of Wiki I can look at the "History" of the Talk page, which might not be necessary if there is a common way each of us are adding to this page.

Hope my verbose query makes sense. --Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr)


I try to respond in the section that I am responding to, unless there are already multiple sections of the same topic. --kalos 20:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

removal of Vine & Fig Tree?

Not sure why you thought it necessary to remove the "Vine & Fig Tree" preterist page, since it has an often-overlooked "Why Does it Matter?" section, as well as some responses to others in the Preterist community - in other words it helps to answer questions that may arise to a person investigating the issue of Preterism in general, and Partial vs. Full specifically. Could it be because the focus of the site is other theological issues? Or, I must ask - with tongue firmly planted in cheek! - is it because the page begins with the Webster's dictionary definition implying "Preterism" is "Full"? ;) --Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 18:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey Darren

Good to have a name. I removed Vine and Fig because they are a full preterist site. If you wish to add them under the full pret list, then please feel free. I didn't even notice the definition issue. With John, I still think that is a bit much in comparison to the other entries. Personally I think noting that he has a radio show briefly is fine - but this isn't a battle to die for IOW, you heard my opinion, whatever you decide isn't going to get a fight from me. I think though it opens the door for others to come in and put in really long descriptives for their favourite sites, and it just will be mini entries on sites, not really an encyclopedia article on preterism generally. But that is all you need to hear from me, I don't want to harp on a minor point.

Now, a more important issue is the recent change by Anon208 - without comment, and I think without justification. The comment was that "all did not agree." Well all that are participating in this collaboration by posting in this discussion thread have since the issue came up. Also one of your changes that definitely should not have been reverted is one of better grammar (would condemn, this view etc) and there should no zero controversy in that change. The "many" is the issue, and we three were in agreement with a comprimise statement.

Thoughts? I would like to change it back.

Dee Dee Warren 18:30, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Dee Dee Warren]

whoops got confused

My entry above I got confused - I meant Kalos' changes, not yours Darren - so part of my comments were directed to Kalos. Sorry about that confusion. I think all can follow what I meant though.

In other words, the links issue was towards you leaving it in your hands.

The "many" change issue was directed towards Kalos and Mike.

Dee Dee Warren 18:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Dee Dee Warren]

Darren and Kalos

Darren: I see I neglected your question - I kind of do both, respond in the original message and also respond in a separate one. The Wiki server is very slow for me for some reason lately so I have been just adding a response to the end.

Kalos: I will wait a bit to see if anyone else comments, and if not, I will change it back. Perhaps Mike has something to add.

Dee Dee Warren 21:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Dee Dee Warren]

responses to my queries

Thanks, Dee Dee I didn't realize I put Vine & Fig Tree under "Partial", to be honest he says outright he is still investigating so doesn't call himself either, but he attacks the ways Partials are attacking Fulls as ignoring Scripture etc. so that is why he may appear to actually *be* a Full. To me this is a good resource since it is the closest thing to an objective voice in the Preterist community - including some email exchanges re. the differences, rebuking some who have called for formal excommunication based on the Creeds, etc... Much to be learned by seeing what both sides say - in this case on a single site.

re. John Anderson - I thought the description was helpful not to say it is the greatest thing (or especially "this author's favorite") but rather to explain why it is so valuable. The reason I would suggest this resource over nearly all others is that his radio program has BOTH Partial and Full Preterists on regularly... And includes debates with Futurists (pre-trib, amill, etc.) and the programs are archived for at least the last 6 months or so.

re. posting in Talk:... - I've got a slow connection or something too, or at least the Wiki server is slow in responding, so I think from now on if I've got a few different things I'm going to respond to I'll just do this - add it to the end and paraphrase what I am responding to, unless of course my memory is shot. I am presuming, however, that most of us still click the "history" tab to see what is new since we last posted something... In the way I have just described, I guess I'll do that, but only once will be necessary then I can see what answers I need to provide, questions I need to ask, etc.

(apologies for my verbal diearea ;) ) Darren Dirt (Rand Id Terr) 17:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

continuing conversaton

Okay, Darren, again, nothing worth fighting over for me. We all realize that in a collabarative effort there has to be some give and take, so I will concede to your opinion on the descriptives for the links. I added a bit more descriptive to some of the links on my side.

As far as the "many" thing, Kalos, I will make that change tomorrow or on the weekend.

Dee Dee

I am making the change

Well no more comments so I am makign the change back to what Kalos had.

Dee Dee Warren 18:38, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

As a totally disinterested third party (I'm Jewish, it's all heresy to us!), I want to express my appreciation for the way the editors having been working through their disagreements to come up with an article that's informative, balanced, and interesting. Sure, sparks have flown occasionally (how can they possibly not on such a subject?), but the net result shows to me how well the Wiki concept can work. Keep it up! --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey JPGordan

Thanks for your comments :)

Dee Dee Warren 20:27, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Again an edit by an anonymous user

Again an anonymous user has made edits while we who are in the discussion have agreed. I have reverted them in two stages. One is removing a grammar problem that no reasonable person would have an issue with. The other is the true dispute. Kalos, perhaps you should make the changes next time, or Mike, since it is being painted as "my attack."

Dee Dee Warren 04:03, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)


So far I could count three full preterists who disagree with your recent changes. Stop pushing your ridiculous personal agenda on this forum. Maybe MANY people in your circles consider Full Preterists "heretics" - MANY people in the Greek Orthodox Church also consider Partial Preterists heretics. Should we list every denomination here who things Preterists are heretics? Why only label Full Preterists as heretics? Be consistent...

Comments on above

Actually I count two, without any support, but primarily anger. We with our respective influences, could, I am quite sure, round up numerous people to come and cheer for our side. I could get oodles of orthodox preterists here to come and say how right I am - that is not really productive or the point but to have a few representatives willing in a spirit of collaboration is the point. What good does it do if I find two friends to come and revert the changes so we can count numbers (no, that is NOT what I am saying is being done, I am pointing out that if there is not substantive and factual participation in the discussion, the numbers mean little - we could all get numbers, I could get ten "reverters" here today if that were the point) It is in fact untrue in the sense in which you are stating that eastern orthodox would consider partial preterism to be heresy - why are you not being upfront with the facts? I am pretty close with several eastern orthodox persons and my family heritage is eastern orthodox. The eastern orthodox consider themselves to be the one true church and ANYONE that is not a part of the eastern orthodox church is a schismatic. That does not mean that they consider them necessarily unsaved or heretics in the ultimate sense. Eastern Orthodox would make a TREMENDOUS distinction between their view of many doctrines that are not sanctioned by the eastern orthodox church as schismatic between those that deny one of the essentials of the faith as codified by the Creeds since the eastern orthodox is a confessional movement. Also it is untrue that MANY individual Eastern Orthodox would consider my view a heresy for it is untrue that MANY even know about it - the number that do would be very small. And if they had an issue they would consult with their priest and the above follows. ALL Protestants are schismatics. Not all Protestants are "heretics" in the ultimate sense. Please play upfront with the facts. You need to give support that it is NOT MANY who do consider full preterism a heresy that are not full preterists and are aware of the movement. I can think of two significant persons. That is all while I could list numerous others here who do. Your personal dislike of that opinion of others is not proof, nor should your personal dislike constitute the content of a Wiki. For someone to consider a fact, as an attack, without providing any substantive counter-facts is irrational. Furthermore, please sit back and consider that these are not MY changes - the wording in fact is from a full preterist. Another full preterist advocated even stronger language than I was willing to agree to. My chosen words would be "most" - IF I were pushing "my agenda." But as a positive note, at least the grammatical/style changes were left alone and we are down to only the many versus some issue.

Here is where I suggested before of making the statement without quantification though I cannot think of an artful way to do so. Or a way of wording that makes it clear that this view is not even well-known in the Church. One objection (perhaps valid) to the "many" issue is that it might lend the impression that out of a random church full of people, many there would even know what the view was and would consider it heresy. Most have never even heard of it - though I would suspect, without statistical proof, just an appeal to the obvious, that the average church-goer upon hearing that Christ is not returning etc would have an instinct that such would be considered heresy. However, that is not the "many" I am referring to. The "many" I am referring to are out of the group that is even aware of the view. It cannot at all be credibly argued that out of such group many do not view it as heresy. One denomination has issued an official anathema, multiple churches have disfellowshiped elders or are in that process. Books have been published denouncing this as hreresy. While books have been published on partial preterism stating the view is wrong - these major books do not denounce the view as heresy while many do view full preterism as heresy rather than error. The worlds largest countercult/apologetics group, the Christian Research Institute has issued a statement in 2004 from Andy Milliken at CRI (I have a copy of an earlier one which state that same thing):

"...CRI considers the preterist position to be one viable eschatological position among several, and is within the pale of orthodox Christianity, since it doesn't conflict with the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith...A distinction needs to be made, however, between the preterist (also called partial-preterist) and the full-preterist (also called 'hyper-preterist') views on eschatology. While preterists do assert that the majority of biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, full-preterists insist that even the Second Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection of believers have already occurred. This position is not part of the historic, orthodox Christian faith. (emphasis added)"

This is the most common position.

Dee Dee Warren 14:39, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Kalos, Mike? Any additions?

Dee Dee Warren 14:39, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

the 1999 CRI letter

the 1999 CRI letter

I have a copy of the CRI letter from 1999

"A vital distinction needs to be made, however, between the preterist [partial - addition mine for clarity] and "hyper-preterist" views pertainin to eschatology. While preterists do assert that the majority of biblical prophecy has already been fulfilled, "hyper-preterists" go so far as to insist that even the Second Advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and the resurrection has already occured. This position is no part of the historic, orthodox, Christian faith." [emphasis mine]

CRI is the largest group dealing with cults, apologetics, and abherrent doctrines in the Church. This has been their consistent position since even before I was exploring the issue. Of the persons and groups that are aware of this view, this as expressed above is the majority position.

Dee Dee Warren 15:43, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

== who is CRI and which Church says we are heretics? by 68.73.136.251 ==

MY RESPONSE:

CRI is the largest Christian group dealing with abherrant Christian doctrine, well-known and well-respected. I could quote others. You would evidently dismiss out of hand anyone I would produce as "haters."


68.73.136.251 says:

You have no shame in displaying your hatred of full preterist. Why don't you explain the fact that CRI is a Preterist-hating, partial-preterist outfit which pushes a partial-preterist agenda, just like you do? Why are you quoting an obscure group which probably has a handful of employees? Why don't we look at what the Catholic Church actually teaches on eschatology?

MY RESPONSE:

Those quotes from CRI predate any well-known employee of CRI adopting any position even remotely resembling preterism of any sort. In fact the President denies being a partial preterist (though the doctrine is the same as far as I am concerned). It is also outright false to say that CRI is a partial preterist organization. I could obtain an official statement of that if needed. Why is everyone who opposes your view a "hater"? Again more anger and attacks but no backed-up facts. CRI is hardly obscure, and the question in fact is "how do those who are not full preterists and are aware of the doctrine view it" - you are dismissing out of hand anyone who feels it is heretical, which in fact is the majority of those who are not full preterist and who are aware of it. That is simply a fact. Why should it be surprising to anyone that a group that denies several doctrines that the Church has held for millennia is viewed to be heretical? Why would you want to hide that fact? Like an onlooker said here earlier, it would be surprisingly if it were NOT commonly viewed as heretical. It really is just painfully obvious. That does not make the judgment RIGHT, but it does EXIST.

68.73.136.251 says:

The Catholic Church, the largest body of Christians on the planet, has REFUSED to take a position either way on the issue of Preterism. Preterism has never been labeled as "heresy" by the Church, the Pope or anyone else with authority in the Church. Furthermore, the Catholic Church recognizes the possibility of the Second Coming of Christ taking place in AD 70:

Notwithstanding Christ's express refusal to specify the time of the end (Mark, xiii, 32; Acts, i, 6 sq.), it was a common belief among early Christians that the end of the world was near. This seemed to have some support in certain sayings of Christ in reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, which are set down in the Gospels side by side with prophecies relating to the end (Matt., xxiv; Luke, xxi), and in certain passages of the Apostolic writings, which might, not unnaturally, have been so understood (but see II Thess., ii, 2 sqq., where St. Paul corrects this impression) -- The Catholic Encyclopedia

MY RESPONSE:

That conclusive statement is patently untrue - and I have to wonder how deliberate this is. Catholics accept the Apostle's Creed and all the eucemenical Creeds of the Church which expressly exclude your view. Why are you not forthright with that? That quote of yours does not support your contention - it supports the contention that there was still another coming that did not find its fulfillment in those passages which Paul corrects. It says in fact the opposite of what you want. It admits that there is support for a "coming" in the destruction of Jerusalem (ie partial preterism) and denies that such would be the only one. Of course the Catholic Church would support partial preterism, the first systematizer of partial preterism was a Catholic (Luis de Alcazar). The Catholic Church would indeed condemn as heresy this full preterist doctrine. The Catholic Church accepts the Athanasian Creed. Here is a pertinent quote from the Creed:

He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

This Creed goes so far to declare as damned anyone who would deny these things - something which I did not push for in the article. This quote is from the Catholic Encyclopedia as well (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm) so please stop misrepresenting Catholic doctrine here.

Further the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

The creeds and professions of faith and conciliar definitions do not leave it doubtful that the resurrection of the body is a dogma or an article of faith. We may appeal, for instance, to the Apostles' Creed, the so-called Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, the Creed of the Eleventh Council of Toledo, the Creed of Leo IX, subscribed by Bishop Peter and still in use at the consecration of bishops the profession of faith subscribed by Michael Palaeologus in the Second Council of Lyons, the Creed of Pius IV, and the Decree of the Fourth Lateran Council (c. "Firmiter") against the Albigenses. This article of faith is based on the belief of the Old Testament, on the teaching of the New Testament, and on Christian tradition.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12792a.htm

You will not do well to appeal to the Catholic Church in support.

68.73.136.251 says:

The Catholic Church, also recognizes the doctrine of Particular Judgment, which teaches that each individual is being judged at the time of his or her death. This is in full agreement with the Full Preterist position on judgment for example.

MY RESPONSE:

This is also a half-truth. A lot of people would affirm a particular judgment but that is NOT the final judgment. For instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia also says

The Roman Catechism thus explains why, besides the particular judgment of each individual, a general one should also be passed on the assembled world.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm

This is very clear. Again, you should not appeal to half-truths to support your position. The Catholic Church would wholeheartedly be in disagreement with you. Nearly any Christian can be said to affirm a particular judgment. I do. And I certainly do NOT affirm the full preteirst version. Let's be straight with the facts please.

68.73.136.251 says:

Let me further point out, that everyone posting in this forum is very likely a protestant Christian. According to the council of Trent, which took place between 1545 and 1563, the Church final answer to the Reformation was a condemnation of all the "truths of Reformation" as "pestilential heresy". This in turn makes everyone here a heretic in the eyes of the Church, so please, do not lecture full preterists on who is and who is not a heretic.

MY RESPONSE:

And that is completely irrelevant here. It is well known that both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches view themselves as the one true Church. They would still single out with particularity any denial of the basics contained in the Creeds. And this is a very bad red herring. Let me explain why. What 68.73.136.251 has done is to point out that allegedly Catholics would consider us all heretics (this is in fact untrue as Vatican II - a much later Catholic Council would clarify) because we ARE Protestants - that is irrelevant to the issue of full preterism in PARTICULAR. What 68 would have to do is see if we both would be considered heretics for our particular versions of preterism (not our Protestantism). And the answer is NO. Partial preterism would not be - it was first systematized by a Catholic. Full preterism would be.

68.73.136.251 says:

We've asked this question before, and none of the attackers have answered: "What Church council, Pope, Church authority, and Church decree labeled Preterism as heresy, and when did this happen?" Stop the babble and answer the question. Yes, we all know that YOU PERSONALLY believe full preterism to be a heresy. Where does the Church state so?


MY RESPONSE:

Again, another personal attack - everyone who disagrees with you is an "attacker" and you provide no rebuttals to the points presented. And who is "we" that you are referring to? I am here as myself, not as a "we" - though I certainly could assemble a "we" but for what purpose? Are the two full preterists here who have supported this point also "attackers?" But to the point at hand, I just quoted the Athanasian Creed above. It clearly condemns your view and is a Creed of the Church. The Apostle's Creed also does for it affirms what the faith IS - and obviously it cannot be what it is not. As does the Nicene Creed, confirmed by a Church Council. Nearly all segments of conservative Christianity accept all three Creeds and all of the eucemenical creeds denounce your view - the Athanasian Creed does so explicitly. So your question has been answered. The eucemenical Creeds are the highest pronouncments of the Church. Also in my Catholic Encyclopedia quote above Papal pronouncements have been referenced. That is where the Church says so, which has even been recently anathematized by a denomination quoted earlier in this discussion thread as follows:

"The Spiritual Council of Sacramento Covenant Reformed Church prepared an overture to the Western Classis, asking it to adopt and forward to the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States, the following:

Whereas,

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no physical Resurrection of the body, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that the Second Coming of our Lord is already past, and whereas

The Hymenaeans called "hyperpreterists" allege, against the clear teaching of God's Inspired and Infallible Word, that there is no future Great White Throne Judgment, and

Whereas, these views represent a satanic attack upon the holy catholic faith once delivered unto the saints,

Therefore, in the certain Hope of the Resurrection, the Reformed Church in the United States does hereby find the Hymenaean heresy to be contrary to orthodoxy, and its adherents to be preachers of a false gospel. Let these enemies of Christ and His Kingdom be anathema maranatha.

We further urge the Synod of the Reformed Church in the United States to broadly communicate the action taken this day to those of like precious faith, that the people of God may be warned against this false gospel, and encouraged to pray for the repentance of those lost souls who have been enslaved by it. ADOPTED BY WESTERN CLASSIS MARCH 13, 1997 AND FORWARDED TO SYNOD."

Your doctrines have been in fact been condemned by many. The denial of the physical resurrection was one of the earliest things pronounced as heresy in the Church. Justin Martyr, a very early Church Father stated:

For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this (truth), and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians.

This is simply not contestable. What you should be contesting is the validity of these judgments, not the reality of them. And the Wiki article does give voice to the full preterist contest of the validity. Contesting the reality is historically revisionist and not forthright.

Dee Dee Warren 21:37, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Mike's Response to the Anon Full Preterist

Whoever you are, I'd love for you to identify yourself by name. Obviously, you're a full preterist, as am I. However, a major difference between you and I seems to be that your skin isn't thick enough to face the fact that MANY Christians who are eschatologically educated deem full preterism to be unorthodox.

Your point that Protestants came out of the Roman Catholic Church and were originally considered heretics is well taken; but, of course, there doesn't exist a Church (capital "C") that embodies all truth to which we can appeal, so we are left with the PERCEPTIONS of Church members. Those perceptions, while based on the Creeds and not necessarily correct, exist nonetheless. Face the facts, you "heretic." It would be nice to have some company.  ;-)

And please know that Dee Dee is not making a personal attack with this Wiki entry. She is not using this entry to make you look bad. You seem to be doing a pretty good job of it yourself.

Also, your assertion that the Catholic Church wouldn't think full preterism is heresy is simply groundless. Using The Catholic Encyclopedia as your authoritative reference is like someone using Shelby Spong's books to prove your point. Why not use the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, which clearly states that it looks forward to a future, bodily return of Jesus to this earth, as well as a physical resurrection? If an archbishop told the pope he was a full preterist, the College of Cardinals would be voting for a new pope soon as a result of his fatal heart attack. (If the RCC were to embrace full preterism, its Magisterium would lose all authority. To take a view completely the opposite of what it's been preaching for centuries would be death to the RCC's power. It ain't gonna happen.)

Mike Beidler 21:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey Mike

Hey Mike, thanks for your response. I do think your prior suggestion of "though not universally" is the acceptable comprimise between our respective views, and I would suggest that such be accepted as it was. It is less strong than the simple "many" statement and still historically accurate. The focus IMHO from the full preterists (as would be my focus if I were in your shoes) would be to dispute the validity of the opinion, but I would have to accept that the opinion exists. I believe that the section in the Wiki which shows that full preterists dispute the validity accomplishes that goal. I do think that is the reasonable goal for a Wiki article. If the validity dispute needs more detail, let's look at it, but the "many but not universally" is accurate. Purging it from the Wiki doesn't remove it from reality - and frankly, engaging in burying of facts is making a controversial movement even more marginalized. Now, I am not going to pretend like I am some great defender of the reputation of full preterism, but honestly, dealing with the actual facts is to the benefit of all concerned and should be sought by all. Mike and I do not agree by any means on doctrine, but personally and here on the Wiki we have frankly dealt with the criticisms others have of our position. I have to personally face the fact that a dominant criticism of my view is that it leads to full preterism. While I dispute that, it would not do for me to deny that this is the most common objection to my view.

Dee Dee Warren 22:50, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preterism/Archive_2&oldid=62914884"