You are hereInterview with Tim King, President of Presence Ministries

Interview with Tim King, President of Presence Ministries

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 28 April 2004

Several months ago, while in the process of planning the TruthVoice 2004 conference, our board decided to invite Tim King, the president of Presence Ministries to be the keynote speaker for the conference. Little did we realize the firestorm our decision was to create. E-mails have been floating around mischaracterizing Tim's doctrine and theology, and outright slandering his character, so we decided that a one-on-one interview with Tim would be the best way to know the man, his ministry and his vision. Let's also hear his side of the story...Virgil: Tim, thank you for agreeing to this interview. I know you are a busy individual, and I appreciate you taking the time to answer some questions for the readers of our website, and the attendees of the TruthVoice 2004 conference. Hopefully this will dispel some of the misrepresentations, and sometimes outright lies concerning you that we have come across.

Tim: It is my pleasure, Virgil. And I am grateful to you and the heart you have toward getting the message of fulfilled prophecy out to the world. Interviews are often helpful tools because of a principle written about in the Wisdom Literature: “Each man seems right until his neighbor comes along and questions him” (Proverbs 18:17). In this light I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some things that may be of interest to our movement at large and to question some of the inaccurate things that are causing division.

Virgil: I know that Presence Ministries International is a ministry dedicated to furthering the truth of Scripture, and making people aware of the “living presence” of Christ. In general terms, so are most preterists. Are “Transmillennialism” and “preterism” really incompatible positions? Are you not in fact also a “preterist”?

Tim: There is a bit of irony in the way you worded your question. If I say, “yes, I am a preterist,” then am I part of “most” of the preterist community that is making people aware of the “living presence” of Christ or the other part of the preterist community that is not? I think your word “most” is an interesting, and accurate choice of words. Clearly, there are many ‘degrees’ of preterist thought—some of which brings the fullness of Christ and his kingdom to reality now, some that postpones some or even much of that living presence for the future dimension (i.e., post-physical existence). Perhaps I can answer your question this way: my theology, which I call Covenant Eschatology, is a preterist view of Scripture. The term “preterist” means “past” or “fulfilled.” I read once on your site where someone misquoted me as saying that preterism was not even invented until the mid-90’s. What I said was, that preterism as it has come to be known today was not even defined until the 90’s. In other words, a preterist view of Scripture has existed for hundreds of years. However, the idea of full, partial, hyper, consistent, IBD (incorruptible body at death) versus IBD (immortal body at death), was never a discussion until the last part of the 20th century. This has created a situation of confusion where one may no longer say, “I’m a preterist,” without then going through a litany of discussion about just what type or flavor of preterist he is. A word that comes to mean “many” things eventually comes to mean little or nothing at all.

So you ask, am I a preterist? The only way I can answer this is to say that my theology is preterist, believing that the restoration of all things, Acts 3:21, is past. In THAT sense, yes, I hold to a preterist view of Scripture and, therefore, preterism and Transmillennialism are not at all incompatible. But I would also like to add that the Transmillennial view is a developing worldview…not just a theological position.

Virgil: So are you and Presence Ministries working against preterism, or do you think the two positions compliment each other?

Tim: Presence Ministries is not working “against” anything. Whether individually or as a ministry, each of us has to make a decision on how we approach our understanding of truth and then how we are going to communicate it. The board of PMI has made a conscious decision that we will have a “contribution” versus “conversion” mentality. What we mean by this is that when one takes a conversionist approach to a subject, it only serves to draw lines and it tells those with whom we disagree that we are right and believe that they are wrong. In essence, this repels dialogue versus building it. Our aim is to “contribute” to the lives of others by positively putting forth the truth as we see it. We don’t debate. We don’t get on message boards and argue. We choose instead to keep our shoulder to the plow and with the mind and heart of Christ, continue to put out the truth as we see it. If others disagree, that is okay…out theology does not demand that anyone else believe it. We can only control ourselves, not others. Therefore, we seek to build up, not tear down. In this we believe that we have learned from past mistakes and are dedicated to a future more in line with reflecting the heart of God as we understand it. Many “preterists” (choose your definition) are doing good work in contributing to the discussion regarding fulfilled prophecy and we applaud their efforts.

Virgil: Some “leaders” in the preterist camp have been asserting that you are a universalist, because of some of the aspects of Comprehensive Grace. Well, I should ask you plainly, are you a universalist? Do you subscribe to “some form” of universalism and do you believe that everyone will go to heaven after his or her physical death?

Tim: Good questions—let me take them one at a time.

You (Virgil) say: “Some ‘leaders’ in the preterist camp have been asserting that you are a universalist, because of some of the aspects of Comprehensive Grace.”

Let me (Tim) respond to this up front. I challenge those ‘leaders’ to find where I have ever said that I am a universalist either in print form or oral lecture. Where is the proof? If they cannot find it, and they cannot, for I have never said this, then they should repent for their misrepresentation. Not only have I never said I am a universalist, I have written about why I am NOT.

One humorous story might help make the point as to how irrational some are in trying to keep others from walking with us. When first investigating the field of fulfilled prophecy, one person was told by another ministry leader that I was a universalist and an annihilationist—it made them wonder, if I’m a universalist, then who’s left to be annihilated?! It didn’t take them long to see through the person who was laying out the divisive line about our ministry. I’m happy to say that person is now a monthly supporter…as for the ministry leader? Well, let’s just say that he’s still using that line and hasn’t figured out the contradiction yet.

You (Virgil) ask: “Well, I should ask you plainly, are you a universalist?”

(Tim) No, I am not. I abhor the entire universalist position. If I may, let me share a written quote from my article entitled, Comprehensive Grace, an article where much has been quoted out of context. “A great problem with the modern Universalist movement is its low view or marginalizing of Christ and scripture regarding the salvation of mankind. Typically, those espousing universal salvation do so apart from the covenantal framework of biblical eschatology. This breech creates a void that does irreparable damage to the Christ story and relies more on philosophical presupposition than inspired prophetic fulfillment, not to mention that it approaches the entirety of the issue of salvation from a modern, Western perspective.” (End quote)

Note that I address a “great problem” with the universalist position and that I clearly put forth an argument against it saying that it takes a “low view” and even “marginalizes” the work of Christ. In this light, for someone to apply the universalist tag to me is at best irresponsible and at worst “sowing discord among brethren” (listed as an abomination to God: Proverbs 6:16-19). Why would somebody do that? What gain do they receive by misrepresenting me in this way? What motives are at work?—certainly these are all interesting questions to be raised.

You (Virgil) ask: “Do you subscribe to “some form” of universalism and do you believe that everyone will go to heaven after his or her physical death?”

(Tim) No, I do not subscribe to “some form” of universalism. I believe that each person will stand before God and I’m quite sure He will continue to deal with them according to his eternal nature—In further answering this, again allow me to share another quote from my article:

“The impetus of the Comprehensive Grace position is to neither lend credence to the limited salvation of humanity as held by many fundamentalist evangelicals nor to open the door to the religious relativism held by so many teaching universal salvation. Instead, proponents of Comprehensive Grace seek to re-frame the entire issue of salvation by placing it back into its first-century, covenantal setting…
Proponents of Comprehensive Grace are content to leave the judging of individuals to God for he alone has the knowledge of good and evil and he alone understands all that is needed to prepare the way for his holy and righteous love…
For adherents of Comprehensive Grace the message of the greatest story ever told is about inspiring others to know and fall in love with God – not to spend a lifetime trying to avoid the fate of eternal torment. The thrust of scripture is to be compelled by God’s love (2 Cor. 5:14), not religions fear. The call is for the creation to find abundant life by aligning itself with the universal spiritual teachings of the Creator, to find freedom, love and acceptance by living for God in living for the building up of humanity. In essence, the call of those embracing Comprehensive Grace is to bring the world to its knees by being Christ to the world.” (End quote)

I have never made the statement that everyone who has ever lived will, has been or is saved. My quote above is clear—God and God alone knows the hearts of man and his intentions for dealing with them. Our job is to share his abundant love with the world. It seems odd that so many would find this offensive and seek to label it as universalism or some form of universalism.

Virgil: So then, do you feel any need and obligation to explain what Comprehensive Grace is?

Tim: This is something that is as broad as the issue of what covenant fulfillment means. I’ve only written one article on this subject, and its certainly impossible to do it justice in just one article, but we plan on putting together a DVD series on it in the near future. Perhaps then people will have a greater grasp of what we’re saying and what we’re not.

Virgil: When should we expect Max King’s work on Comprehensive Grace to be completed?

Tim: His work is actually focusing on Romans 9-11. He’ll be doing this by taking an overarching approach to the entire Book of Romans. This will go a long way in helping set the table for a greater perspective on the efficacy of the cross event. We’re hoping that it is published by this time next year, but, as always, the goal is to get it right versus getting it quickly.

Virgil: The theme of the TruthVoice 2004 conference is, “The Road Ahead.” What can attendees expect to learn from you on this topic, and generally on how Covenant Eschatology affects our lives and future?

Tim: I’m very excited about the conference you have put together and am honored to be one of its participants. I hope to use my allotted time to identify where we are, how we have arrived at this point and then how we must move forward. To do this, we will look at the time of Jesus, the futures he faced and then compare them to our day and the future scenarios that we are facing. If we’re going to navigate the road ahead by utilizing the fulfilled truth of the greatest story ever told, then we must understand the four entities that make the world go round and learn to lead with love and not dogma—to create an up-stream versus side-stream life and ministry. As well, we’ll talk about worldviews and what type of worldview holds the most hope for transforming the world of the 21st century. As I look at your lineup of speakers I know that TruthVoice 2004 should be very enlightening and I hope many people make the effort to attend.

Virgil: Tim, thank you for your time, do you have any other comments?

Tim: I guess my final comment would be to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to respond to some of the inaccuracies being spread. I think this interview format is an excellent way to work toward harmony and understanding. I would also say that I would welcome more of this in the future to further explain things about Presence Ministries, Max, or myself in general. Understanding each other builds bridges. Buying into unchallenged stories we sometimes tell ourselves (or allow others to tell us) about others burns them down. There are too few of us not to be walking together. For 2000 years the world has suffered at the hands of sectarianism, we can’t afford to continue the same much longer.

Thank you, Virgil—you’re doing a great work!

Virgil's picture

Well said Roderick - hopefully whatever good will come out of this excercise (if any), will bring preterism into a new era, where we can be confident we can positively affect every aspect of this world, from politics and environmentalism to education and science. This is my dream...maybe I'll live long enough to see a glimpse of its fulfillment :)

Virgil's picture

This is my dream...maybe I'll live long enough to see a glimpse of its fulfillment :)

Well wait a minute Virgil, didn't you know the world is only going to get worse?? :o)

This was my first impulse when I became a preterist which is why my web page began with John 17. I thought preterism would unite us. Then I learned it is impossible to unite even in preterism when you have these "leadership egos" always in the way. Which is why I found such common ground and hope in Rodericks writings over the past couple years.

Preterism must and will tear down the temples of today, leaving the already Resurrected Temple as the only thing left standing. It is our only hope of unity!!

God Bless
Nate

TRKing's picture

Nate, if I could comment here, perhaps I can re-frame some things from the perspective of Presence Ministries...and I'm not asking you to agree. Growing up as Max King's son was a bit traumatic to say the least. I, too, yearned for the day that people would come to see the fulfilled truth and we could all walk together. I never dreamed of the day when there would be a plethora of people who saw and embraced this view, and yet still found sectarian reasons why they could and should not walk with us. That was a real wakeup call.
At this point in my life (45 this summer, ugh!), I've come to see this entire movement as being in line with nature and creation. Fragmentation is not good, but "differentiation" is the process of life AS LONG AS that which differntiates comes back together in the larger picture. A cell divides, re-integrates on a higher level and then wonderful things begin happening.
It is okay to have people say we are this, that and the other--even if we feel we are not. However, we must at least see the value in always coming back together at the end of the day and making something wonderful occur from our association. That's what I see Virgil trying to accomplish with his conference this year...and when people differentiate and then refuse to reintegerate, biologically that is a dissociative process that creates a pathology or cancer. My prayer is not that the world would agree with all that PMI is doing, or that everyone choose to walk with us, my hope is that we all begin to learn to come back together at the end of the day. Now THAT is idealism, eh? I'm pleased to walk with you!
God bless.

TRKing's picture

Tim,
And I am pleased to call you a Brother and think you do good work. Your ministry is good for the preterist truth in spreading victory for today.

But please stop insulting my inteligence! I have read your article. Now and once a year ago.

Do you believe all men (all humanity) are reconciled to God because and only because of the completed and victorious work of Christ?

God Bless
Nate

Naulon's picture

Hello Nate,

You asked Tim King, "Do you believe all men (all humanity) are reconciled to God because and only because of the completed and victorious work of Christ?" Written May 1st and still have no answer. I'm not surprised. Don't expect any.

Let me give you some background.

I came into the preterist fold about 25 years ago. At that time there was an absence of accessible literature to support the position. I admit I didn't know where to look. After about 10 years of I fortuitously ran across Max King's "The Cross and Parousia of Christ". That's when my views solidified. That was pre-internet days. Since then I have found numerous preterist sites and numerous books, tapes and literature to support the view. I thank God for planetpreterist.com and all it's doing to get the preterist message out. The resources here are invaluable.

In The Cross and Parousia of Christ, Max King argues against universalism. His definition of universalism at that time was salvation to all humanity apart from faith in Christ Jesus. In other words his position on individual salvation was not any different from most of Christendom in general and what is taught in the Church of Christ were he hails from. A person is saved by faith within the New Covenant. Later I purchased the tape set produced by Tim King and Jack C. Scott Jr. called Covenant Eschatology: A Comprehensive Overview from planetpreterist.com. Produced in 1998, there is no hint of universalism in any form in the materials and I highly recommend them.

Recently I've started taking part in discussions in forums such as this one. I debated futurists at a Christian Church site to no avail and was told that a belief in a non-body resurrection excluded me from salvation in the kingdom of God. That statement coming from people who claim to practice, "in opinion, liberty," I was taken aback. I then decided to move on to a preterist discussion site. Because of Max King's influence in my theology I decided to look into Presence ministry's site.

After about a week of discussion at the site it became apparent that most of those who were contributing were openly espousing a form of universalism. They don't believe that one is saved by other religions or apart from Christ, but they believe that redemption is given carte blanch to everyone as a result of the, as you say, "completed work of Christ" in A.D. 70.

Such a theology bypasses the New Covenant. I first noticed it when the discussion moved into the topic of redemption. Redemption for them is found apart from faith. In other words everyone is redeemed by Christ's blood regardless of whether they believe in Christ or not. This is their definition of "comprehensive grace." All humanity is saved by Christ's grace only. It's basically an extension of Calvinism only that all humanity is "chosen" by the fact that "all Israel" is saved. (Romans 11)

Tim King says he is not a "Universalist." By that he means, he does not believe that all religious roads lead to heaven. He intentionally uses a very narrow definition of the word because he knows that being called a universalist would invariably kill his rapport within the Christian community. The fact is you aren't likely to get a straight answer from King or his Presence ministry staff. But they believes all humanity is saved "corporately" by Christ's redemptive work apart from the faith of any the individual. For most of us (not Tim King) this is a form of universalism. King's article on Comprehensive Grace can be read at <http://www.presence.tv/cms/compgrace.shtml>.

King believes that because "some" of Israel believed, "all" of Israel is saved with them. They argue their position from Romans 11 and 1 Corinthians 15 with a strict interpretation that "all" must be inclusive of nonbelievers as well as believers. If "all Israel" is saved corporately because of the faith of the firstfruits, during 40 year age changing end time period, and the Gentiles are also included, then "all mankind" is saved as a result of the faith of the Gentile firstfruits as well. They will call that "the completed or finished New Covenant." but guess what? It finishes it all right but not in the way they believe. It outright destroys it. God's grace is "comprehensive" they say. Salvation is completed by the faith of Israel in A.D. 70. Rather than Christ being the light of the Gentiles they replace him with Israel being the light of the Gentiles. (Ezekiel 49) They contend that salvation is through corporate Israel rather than through Christ alone.

I challenged them that this was a different gospel but I get no response. They keep me at bay saying "it's not our place to determine who is in or out of the kingdom." When I found out that the moderator at Presence ministry also held this position I was shocked. He had done his best to keep it hidden from me. That's Presence ministry's MO. They won't admit to anything. I asked the moderator repeatedly to define Presence ministry's, Max and Tim King's position on universalism to no avail. There is a concerted effort to "no comment" on the issue. I was always referred to Max's upcoming book or "17 years of articles, that this was not done in a corner," or just plainly ignored. Never once could I find clarity on the issue. I was persistent in asking to which I got repeated angry and rude responses from the moderator. Talk about "living Christ's presence?" What I have found at Presence' forum is a concerted effort to conceal the truth about what they truly believe.

I'm not at all surprised to hear that many of the preterist leaders are distancing themselves from Presence ministry. Presence earlier material, pre-2000 seem to be on track but lately they have gone the route of universal salvation, albeit as a result of Christ, but universal just the same.

Virgil is doing his best to try to keep Presence ministry acceptable within the preterist fold. Presence ministry is indeed preterist. We can all benefit from both King's work, but be cautioned, their recent direction shows they have removed "covenant" out of "Covenant Eschatology." This is not hear say. This is the conclusions I personally have come to from articles posted at the Presence site and interaction at their forums.

Virgil,

Your interview with King was enlightening. King defined "universalism" narrowly enough to allow him to claim he wasn't universalist. You should have pressed him further. Perhaps you yourself have universalist leanings. Your posts so far seem to go out of the way to defend King's deception. He obviously couldn't define, or more accurately wouldn't define "comprehensive grace." Next time, ask him about redemption. Are nonbelievers, outside of a New Covenant faith in Christ, redeemed? But don't be surprised if he doesn't duck those questions too.

Naulon

Virgil's picture

Naulon,

Why do you see it necessary for Presence to be accountable to you or I on what Tim King believes on a certain issue? Even if Tim King WAS a universalist, I would still not condemn him in public and demonize him the way he has been demonized by those with no flaws in the Preterist movement. I may admonish him privately, but to have the arrogance to call him a "universalist" when he says he isn't one is appaling. I will do no such thing and I don't see what good could possibly come out of that kind of confrontation. And that goes beyond universalism...it's about arminianism, calvinism, reformed theology, partial preterism...you name it.

Naulon's picture

Here are some questions for you Virgil.

1. Was not this thread about answering the question if Presence ministry was teaching universalism or not? If I believe you came to the wrong conclusion am I wrong to voice my opinion?

2. Did you not read Tim's article about CG and does it not teach universalism by it's wider definition? Is it "arrogance" to want to clarify the issue? What is your hidden agenda in defending his erroneous claim?

3. Is universalism not a different gospel then what the New Testament teaches? Do you not consider it to not be a serious issue? Should we refrain from condemning something that has the potential to destroy the New Covenant? Is not this thread a good place to discuss such issues?

4. Presence ministry is at the forefront of preterist studies. Is it not important to know and understand what direction they are going? Shouldn't they as leaders in the movement be held accountable?

5. What do you have against the truth? If the truth is pointed out, how can that be "demonizing?"

6. Arminianism, Calvinism, Reformed Theology and Partial Preterism all believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ Jesus as taught in the scripture. Each of these theologies take a different stance on the New Covenant but the gospel message remains biblical. But universalism is a total denial of covenant. Tell me, what issue is more important than one in which the gospel is destroyed? Are we to keep quiet on such a matter or should we call a spade a spade?

Naulon

TRKing's picture

Nate, you appear bent on insulting your own intelligence...especially when you misspell the word.
I have provided the answers in both the above post and in the interview. If you can't live with that, then I'm sorry.
Have a nice weekend.

Virgil's picture

That's what I see Virgil trying to accomplish with his conference this year...and when people differentiate and then refuse to reintegerate, biologically that is a dissociative process that creates a pathology or cancer. My prayer is not that the world would agree with all that PMI is doing, or that everyone choose to walk with us, my hope is that we all begin to learn to come back together at the end of the day.

That's exactly the point Tim - we are not getting together to fight over our differences, but to rejoice over what we have in common, and so far, the many things in common dwarf the few differences. :)

JayGary's picture

Malachi, the Reformation was right about many things, but I remind you, even churches influenced by it outside the Catholic communion, like Anglicans, use the term "priest." They consider their priests, "priests" according to the order of Melchizedek, the New Covenant Order of Christ. Ministerial titles, such as "Rev." or "Priest" or "Brother" are non-issues among Christians with full biblical & historical worldviews. That doesn't mean that we all need to suddenly adopt a string honorific titles, like apostle ___ or his holiness ____.

When Tim King last served as a senior pastor, no one in his church ever called him anything but Tim. But neither should we seek to strip a brother or sister in Christ of how their community refers to them. In Matthew 18, Jesus gave his followers this very authority to put the gospel in context, by saying, whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven. So there are cross-cultural norms, maybe different from ours, that have God-ordained sanctifying power in churches around the world. We need not be iconoclasts. Let's not read the Bible as a freeze frame photograph, but instead, read it like Jesus did and see where the map takes us today.

> Sometime ago, PMI decided to stop being merely an expounder of
> Preterist eschatology and to synthisize Preterism into a holistic philosophy
> of human life and existence

You use the term "preterist eschatology." Presence never used that term. It always used the earlier governing ideal of "covenant eschatology." It never jumped on the Reformed "preterist" bandwagon of the mid-'90s. Intellectually, that train was led by R.C. Sproul and Kenneth Gentry, with help from people like Keith Mathison.

Presence never was seduced by Dominion theology, Christian reconstructionism. Unlike other fulfilled prophecy "leaders" it didn't embrace "hillbilly theology" or militant states-rights fundamentalism. In fact, Presence never was a "preterist" ministry and it will never be one. Why? Because "leaders" within that world carry to much man-made baggage and have created to much risk for any thinking Christian to embrace their dogma.

I am glad that the real Timothy R. King is speaking at TruthVoice on the road ahead for Covenant Eschatology. He will share why he stayed the course in leading fulfilled prophecy into the Transmillennial view, rather than let it be hijacked by fundamentalism, or be retreaded as "preterism"--according to pet doctrines.

If you go to that conference, ask Tim to share his "Soteriology/Ecclesiology" chart, that maps in visual terms where fulfilled prophecy has gone the past 25 years, and how Transmillennialists are leading the movement toward an inclusive post-AD 70 consummated kingdom framework, rather than an exclusive pre-AD 70 transitory church stance. All this talk about CG obscures the larger directions that fulfilled prophecy is taking toward working out the applications of God "being all in all" in and through his people today.

With apologies to planetpreterist.com, "Preterism," IMO, is history. It has been weighed and found wanting. It never got out of New Hampshire in the presidential race. It failed with Sproul to lead the church into a new day, because it could only lead from the past. It failed with the Evangelical Theological Society to influence academic scholars. It authors failed to break into mainstream Christian publishing, because of their caustic tone. Preterism is history. It must die. Either it finds a way to cocoon itself and be transformed into a butterfly, or it will die crawling on the ground, just like it did a hundred years ago.

You can argue with reality for the rest of your life, but preterism will never "cross the chasm" as organizational theorist say. They will never birth a movement, or build a bridge to the early majority within American Christianity. They are a counter-, side-stream special interest group, as much as civil-war historical enacters are in the South, only they are fixated on the Roman-Jewish war of 66-74.

The future of Covenant Eschatology is Transmillennialism. As a new born butterfly, it is learning how to lead from both the **past** and the **future**. When it comes down to it, that is the only way to be fully **present** to our generation, by bringing forth both old and new treasures from one's storehouse (Matthew 13:52). This is the only way to regenerate faith and bring forth a transformed church for the third millennium.

> we do not like the new face of PMI!...
a very undefined area;
> neither Christian nor pagan nor new age; a strange mix of pop
> psychology, Christianity, and the wisdom of man.

Malachi, I appreciate your spirit and honesty. Write Tim's office at info@presence.tv and request a complimentary e-book copy of Tim King's book, "Give Me This Mountain: the story of the Presence movement." The website is merely a snapshot. That book is the movie, or as Paul Harvey says, the "rest of the story." I would like to know if after reading that book you still think that PMI has a "new face." Please get back to me with this "focus group" feedback. Roderick Edwards did that this past January, and I was indebted to him.

There is no "new" face of PMI. Yes, before 2001, Presence was known as LPM. But since 1998, Tim King started to focus on both "applied eschatology" to complement Max King's "dogmatic eschatological" scholarship.

The underlying organizing ideas became two fold: 1) the **presence** of God is here 2) all things can be **transformed** through Christ.

Do you embrace these two dynamics? These two applied doctrines? If so, then Presence.tv has a communications gap.

I will grant you this, that Presence layers its metaphors in speaking about these two dynamics. It does not always remind the reader that Matthew 24 is undivided. But its main audience doesn't need its identify constantly reinforced as adherents to Covenant Eschatology. It's audience is asking for "what now?"--the expressed need of many younger "preterists" have, as Virgil claims. And King is giving it to them, in a wide variety of ways, through Bible teaching, life teaching and intellectual development.

Beyond an isolated reference to the "Christ event," can you give me an example of what you have read on the Presence.tv home page that illustrates "pop psychology" or anything that is neither "neither Christian nor pagan nor new age"? It would help me as an advisor of theirs to understand where they are miscommunicating. Remember the story in the book of Joshua about shibboleths?

Jay Gary, jay(at)jaygary.com

Jay Gary, Helping Faith Communities Cultivate Foresight, http://www.jaygary.com

Virgil's picture

Preterism is history. It must die. Either it finds a way to cocoon itself and be transformed into a butterfly, or it will die crawling on the ground, just like it did a hundred years ago.

You can argue with reality for the rest of your life, but preterism will never "cross the chasm" as organizational theorist say. They will never birth a movement, or build a bridge to the early majority within American Christianity.

I am not as willing to give up on preterism just yet Jay. Yes, today's preterism in its form may be found wanting, but like I said several times, this very thread is evidence of a struggle between the old and the new. Christianity didn't have to be abandoned by Luther...just radically changed.

Because it is a loose movement by its nature, change cannot be accomplished easily without the development of natural leaders who are willing to take other paths. Maybe we cannot cross the chasm today, but tommorow is a new day my friend.

- virgil

JayGary's picture

> I am not as willing to give up on preterism just yet Jay.

Virgil, remember when Jesus told his contempories, Matt 12:6, "I tell you, something greater than the temple is here." That is what I am saying. People have enshrined covenant eschatology into their own idols, and proudly call it "preterism". They have alienated (the truth hasn't) 90% of those they talk with, for no good reason, other than their own immaturity.

Preterists are like children sitting in the market places, who call out to the others, "We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn." Matt 11:16. Like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they want to establish a theocracy of the new clergy, themselves.

Presence is finished playing those games with "preterism." It recognizes no pope, no bishops of fulfilled prophecy, it never did. It believes the Bible, in the hands of the people, can create the next house.

> Christianity didn't have to be abandoned by Luther...just radically changed...
> change cannot be accomplished easily ...

The road ahead is either change or die. One cannot build life on the spirit of Absalom. The greatest sin of the American church is its schismatic tendencies. "Preterism" has drunk deeply from that well.

> Maybe we cannot cross the chasm today, but tommorow is a new day my friend.

Well said. What I am talking about is the journey beyond "egocentric" and "ethnocentric" and even "worldcentric" frameworks to an "allcentric" space where theology can be renewed for the road ahead.

Sadly, most of Christianity, and most of preterism worships its own self-image, or a tribal god, or in liberal christianity, some notion of egalitarianism.

The consummation of the ages shows us that God is all in all in human life. The separating wall between matter and spirit has been torn asunder by the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection and the consummation.

True religion no longer serves just the tribe, or the nation, or the planet, but all of life in covenant with God, in communion with its Creator.

> without the development of natural leaders
> who are willing to take other paths.

That is what Tim King will speak on at Truthvoice, how Jesus envisioned the other path, beyond the conventional or counter paradigms of his day. Courage leads from the future, the creative path. Anyone can stay where they are and be comfortable, but they will only be leading from the past.

The Transmillennial world came to the conclusion that scholarship without leadership would not bring about biblical renewal. The challenge for the road ahead is to call the church out of its captivity to the industrial age. That will require we go beyond church as it is presently known.

Are you willing to lay aside what you know, for what you don't know, to follow God into the New Day? That is the call from the Road Ahead.

--Jay Gary, jay(at)jaygary.com

Jay Gary, Helping Faith Communities Cultivate Foresight, http://www.jaygary.com

Malachi's picture

Jay, all I can say is that your whole tone and tenor of speech only tend to confirm my impression that PMI is wandering off the path of merely expounding Preterist eschatology for the fuller appreciation and understanding of the Christian faith and venturing into a totally undefined area where "Tim and Jay" will forge a new religion for us called "Transmillennialism." Thanks, but no thanks! I am sticking with good old fashioned Chrsitianity and Jesus!

Virgil's picture

Haha...come on now, nobody every proposed the formation of a "new religion" - that is pure ideological presupposition and ignorance speaking at best! I have no affiliation with Presence Ministries, and I do not want to spend the rest of my life "merely expounding Preterist eschatology". If that's what you want to do with your life, that's fine, but please stop criticizing those of us that want to make positive life applications out of Preterism. If you want to stay in a corner and continuously argue Preterist theology that is your choice - I believe in thinking big, and moving Preterism to where we can move mountains and change the world for Jesus through the wonderful realization of covenant eschatology.

You are acting as if my goals are incompatible with preterism...what a shame.

Roderick's picture

Jay, I respect what you are saying here though I must highly disagree. My full response to this notion can be read under the article titled: The Death of Preterism?

But here, just let me say the idea that Preterism died in the 19th century with J.S. Russell, F.W. Farrar, Philip Mauro, and others is preposterous. It would be like saying the idea that God saves the elect died with Augustine just because it didn't really come to force again until Calvinism picked up steam. Or that justification by faith died with Wycliff and Huss 100-200 years before Luther came on the scene. This is the reason I must take issue with the conclusion about the fate of Preterism. It is obvious that the Jews figured that this litte sect (Acts 24:5, 28:22) would pass if it was ignored (Acts 5:35-39). It seems rather those people who advocated a preterist mindset in the 19th century were pioneers ahead of their time.

And as I have stated before, it is obvious that the so-called High Church of the Protestants thought the Low Church (which was mainly driven by the peasants), would dissipate. No -- what makes so-called grass-roots movements so difficult to stop is that there is no clear leader to target, to bring down. What the Jews in Acts 5:35-39 misunderstood is that these followers of Jesus weren't merely following a man, but God and the freedom God brings.

The victory of Christ, currently advocated via the term of Preterism is certainly here for the long haul. Granted the terms may change but the idea is unstoppable.

Roderick

Jer2329's picture

Jay Gary is a trademark of the Council on Transmillennialism. All rights reserved.

Parker's picture

Malachi:
Christ's is the only priesthood. The substance having come, the shadows have past away. To claim a continuing priesthood of men is an implicit denial of the priesthood of Christ. That is why Christians from and after the Reformation avoid use of the term "priest" - it is unscriptural.

Parker:
Ugh. Read what saith the scriptures:

Revelation 1:6
and He has made us to be a kingdom, PRIESTS to His God and Father

Revelation 5:10
"You have made them to be a kingdom and PRIESTS to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.

1 Peter 2:5
you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy PRIESTHOOD

1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen race, A royal PRIESTHOOD,

Kevin's picture

It is interesting to me how tenaciously folks in the preterist world who have abandoned all traditional forms of eschatology continue to retain traditional forms of classification in other areas >> ecclesiology, soteriology, etc. It seems to me that a transformed eschatology naturally leads to one's rethinking and reexamining all these other questions too. Interestingly (at least to me), in the book of Job when Job's situation becomes something totally new and incomprehensible to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar that the three friends accuse Job of abandoning the traditions and forging a new path. Job was forging a new path because the old way was no longer able to speak to the current reality. Is it possible that 16th-19th century religion (including late C20 preterist eschatology) can no longer hold dialogue with today's world constructively? If a new path is called for, should we not forge ahead?

Kevin's picture

It is interesting to me how tenaciously folks in the preterist world who have abandoned all traditional forms of eschatology continue to retain traditional forms of classification in other areas >> ecclesiology, soteriology, etc. It seems to me that a transformed eschatology naturally leads to one's rethinking and reexamining all these other questions too. Interestingly (at least to me), in the book of Job when Job's situation becomes something totally new and incomprehensible to Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar that the three friends accuse Job of abandoning the traditions and forging a new path. Job was forging a new path because the old way was no longer able to speak to the current reality. Is it possible that 16th-19th century religion (including late C20 preterist eschatology) can no longer hold dialogue with today's world constructively? If a new path is called for, should we not forge ahead?

Naulon's picture

Yes we should forge ahead to rethink and examine everything we believe. The more we understand about our covenant with God the better we will be able to live out the terms of the covenant. We are to forge ahead towards Christlikeness.

Colossians 1:28 We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. 29 To this end I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me.

But Presence ministry advocates forging ahead by abandoning the New Covenant in favor of a no covenant universalism. It completely changes the gospel by completely eliminating the New Covenant and it's terms. (Rethinking and reexamining you call it.)

Is that what Job did? Did he abandon "faith" as important to his salvation?

Naulon

davo's picture

That was so good Kevin it was worth saying twice ;) Blessings bro!!

davo

Virgil's picture

Kevin, I had the same conversation today, and while I was arguing for progress and "forging ahead" as you so well put it, the opposition was based on the fact that other preterists who may not subscribe to agressively moving forward may be "offended" by an overly agressive "forging ahead" - this is a weak argument. Jesus didn't call us to be soft spoken believers and measure our influence on the world based on how much or how little we offend others! If forging ahead means leaving some behind, I am sorry...but if Preterism is truly the next Christian reformation, then we all need to get our act together and together make it happen!

davecollins's picture

Dear Christian brothers,
Having spent a very enjoyable weekend seminar with Tim, I would offer a couple of observations.

1. He is a very genuine and personable man..a great spokesman for our covenant views.
2.He desires to build up folks in the Truth of Jesus not tear down, and He has a plan to accomplish that.
3. Comprehensive Grace was never discussed or even hinted at. My personal understanding, but not a held opinion,is that CG is Calvinism,with the whole world considered the elect.
It is different from Universalism in that Jesus Christ is still the only Savior.This position magnifies the Grace of God to the infinite degree.
It looks past the judgement of Old Covenant Israel and sees a complete restoration to the Spiritual New Covenant Israel.

Please don't form opinions or malign this brother before you put the time and prayer into truly investigating this doctrine. (Thats what futurists do, too often, with Preterism)

Searching for God's Truth, thankful to be in Jesus,dave

Randude's picture

All the more reason for all of us to go hear him ourselves!

chrisliv's picture

3. Comprehensive Grace was never discussed or even hinted at. My personal understanding, but not a held opinion,is that CG is Calvinism,with the whole world considered the elect.
It is different from Universalism in that Jesus Christ is still the only Savior.This position magnifies the Grace of God to the infinite degree.
It looks past the judgement of Old Covenant Israel and sees a complete restoration to the Spiritual New Covenant Israel.

Dave,
This IS universalism any way you slice it. It means ALL are going to heaven and there is not judgment for the wicked BEYOND this earthly realm. If that is the case, the righteous seem to get the same judgment as the wicked here on this earth on a daily basis.

If Tim is NOT a universalist, then he would disagree with your above definition, because your word play still spelled UNIVERSALISM!!!

Why won't you guys just admit it? No matter how you think ou can defend it, it is still universal reconciliation versus covanental reconciliation.

This is exactly why Tim, a leader of a ministry, needs to define himself in simple laymans terms and do it now. If he subscribes to Daves definition, he IS a universalist. If he doesn't subscribe to Daves definition, he should give one soon or there is no one to blame for the confusion but himself. Because the above definition is what CG is being taught as throughout the preterist sites!!!
Nate

Virgil's picture

Nate, please stop staying that. Nobody from Living Presence said that Comprehensive Grace is universalism. THEY coined Comprehensive Grace. If people represent it as universalism "on preterist forums" then take it up with them.

Why don't you pickup the phone and call Tim and ask him what Comprehensive Grace is?

I already said that I don't want the comments on this article to turn into a Comprehensive Grace thread. If we are going to talk about CG, please take it to the Forums...

Naulon's picture

Nate's got it right Virgil. It's time to call a spade a spade.

Presence ministry is teaching it's own brand of universalism. They teach Christ's gracious redemption is granted to all humanity without regard to personal faith in Christ Jesus.

I've been on their site for the last couple of months "discussing" their views with their moderator. They define "universalism" with a much narrower definition to allow them to claim they are not universalists. But most of us define universalism in a different way and they do.

This is how the dictionaries have it.

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Universalism
A. Theology. The doctrine of universal salvation.
B. Unitarian Universalism.

2. The condition of being universal; universality.
3. A universal scope or range, as of knowledge.

Princeton University WordNet: The theological doctrine that all people will eventually be saved.

Websters Dictionary: The doctrine or belief that all men will be saved, or made happy, in the future state.

Tim King and those at Presence ministries are using the Unitarian Universalism definition in which "all religious roads lead to heaven." That he doesn't believe thank God. But we use the word "universal" in the sense of salvation given to all humanity outside of a covenantal and personal faith in Christ Jesus.

By this definition King and Presence ministry's believe and teach a form of universalism. Salvation is granted by them (not by God) to everyone because they believe everyone is born into a covenant relationship because of the finished work of Christ. As all were born into Adam so all are born into Christ in the new age.

I know you want to believe differently Virgil, and we love Tim King just a much as you do, but the fact is that you didn't take the time to define "universalism" before you interviewed him. You let King define universalism. Big mistake. I'm sure King believes he isn't a universalist. By his definition he isn't. Perhaps we should call him a "neo-universalist" or a "comprehensive grace universalist", but a universalist he is.

Pre-2000 I might have followed King's theology just about anywhere. He and Jack Scott's Covenant Eschatology: A Comprehensive Overview materials are second to none. That's why I'm quite perplexed by Presence's latest moves.

Theologically Presence ministry seemed sound before this latest venture. But King sound scripture teaching and has chosen to push his own agenda for the sake of expedience. He believes that an "inclusive" (just another word for universal) approach would reach out to people better than the "exclusive" approach the church has used for the last 2000 years. He thinks if we would stop judging people "in" or "out" that more would respond to the gospel.

Instead of saying, "You are destined for hell if you don't believe in Jesus." he believes people would respond to Christ better if we could say, "Jesus loves you and died for you so you are destined to go to heaven! Why don't you thank him and love him?" By "realized eschatology" King preaches that sin and death have been destroyed universally for all people.

Well if you put it that way, yeah I can see why people might respond easier when Christ's love is the focal point then on threatening people with eternal damnation but that can be done without coming from a universalist perspective and a little bit of fear of eternal punishment never hurt anyone.

King's approach reduces the New Covenant into one where the parties haven't chosen to participate. Such was already tried in the Old Covenant and failed. Only by choice will people willfully follow and love Christ.

For King, "conversion" is reduced to "falling in love with God" but I can't see any difference in the number of people who will fall in love with God just by realizing that they are already saved and going to heaven. I agree with King that love is the best motivator for converting people but just because people learn that they are already saved, will they all of a sudden, in great numbers, respond in love as King desires? In his dreams!

What we will find is a group of ungrateful people in heaven who didn't choose to be there. They will rebelliously cry, "I didn't ask to be born into a covenant with you! Why should I love you? You can't force me."

All of a sudden we have "hell" in "heaven." Is this what God intends? You see, faith is necessary after all isn't it?

There are a lot of various opinions that can be tolerated within the church but Presence ministry drastically changes the terms of salvation found in the gospel. Saved without faith? Doesn't that cut out the core of the gospel message? "ONE FAITH" says Paul. (Eph. 4:5)

Sure, "nobody from Living Presence said that Comprehensive Grace is universalism." They will always deny it. (Much like the alcoholic denies he has a problem. Everybody can see it but him.) But Tim King spelled it out for us and it sure looks like universalism to me.

You said you don't want the comments on this article to be about Comprehensive Grace, but, wasn't that what the interview was about? Is Presence ministry teaching universalism or not?

Saved by grace through faith,

Naulon

DavidTimm's picture

Nate, the CGers who have shared their views on the Planet Preterist forum have clearly shown the difference between our views and universalism so please stop calling me a universalist. I am strongly opposed to universalism! One place this is discussed is on the first page of the CG2 thread.

God Bless,

David

Roger's picture

"My personal understanding, but not a held opinion,is that CG is Calvinism,with the whole world considered the elect."

U`ni*ver"sal*ism, n. [Cf. F. universalisme.] (Theol.) The doctrine or belief that all men will be saved, or made happy, in the future state.

"I am strongly opposed to universalism!"

Oh really?? You are a universalist who believes Christ is the only deserver of credit, you are universalist NONETHELESS.

Virgil, you admonish me, yet you let DavidTimm misrepresent Tim Kings theology "Comprehensive Grace" by clearly presenting it as a universalist belief.

What is going on here? I did not say Tim was a universalist, I said his phrase was hyjacked, and I WILL NOT stop. If you choose to defend Tim and his phrase, then admonish those who abuse his phrase by presenting it as a universalist doctrine.

I will not stop saying what is so plainly true in these last few posts. Will you now seperate me??!

Nate

Virgil's picture

Nate, I repeatedly said that any discussions about CG should move to the forums, not continue in this thread. Please do so before I start removing comments...

Virgil's picture

Thanks for my answer. I guess this is where this page is headed as well.

This is getting sad.

DavidTimm's picture

"DavidTimm misrepresent Tim Kings theology "Comprehensive Grace" by clearly presenting it as a universalist belief."

Nate, I want to make it clear to everyone that I've never claimed to represent Tim King's beliefs. When I share CG I only share what I believe the Bible teaches and what I believe the outcome of CG is. CGer's don't see everything the same just like other Christian groups. Some CGers believe in annihilation for the wicked after death. Having met Tim King in person I know we share some similar views on certain aspects of CG, but how much we agree on concerning this is not for me to share.

I speak here only for myself. Some people will probably always consider me a universalist. This is because I do believe that Christ reconciled all men to Himself and that all will go to heaven after their physical death. The term universalism through greatly misrepresents my view. Unlike universalism I believe Christ is the only way to the Father. Unlike universalism I believe many people went to hell. Unlike universalism I don't believe everyone is currently saved. Unlike universalism I believe redemption was mainly (but not completely) focused on historical Israel (covenantal) and occured during the transition period (30-70AD) and was completed in 70AD.

David

davo's picture

Well said Dave.

Nate, since you have such a strong fixation on "universalism" why don't you check out the link below and see how it squares with the Christ honouring focus of the discussions that have taken place in the forums on the subject at hand.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/u-u2.htm

davo

davo's picture

Davo,
I only have issue right now with universalists who deny being a universalist in order to "introduce" or sugar coat the fact that they are universalist. I don't like your teachings, but I don't think you are "unsaved" like Ed and many others might. Just admit you guys are universalists BY DEFINITION!!
And if Tim IS NOT, then he should explain his version of CG in laymans terms without making people buy anything. He is offended by Ed's attack but the only thing Ed has to go off of is the prevailing definition of Cg which is universalism at it's core.

Nate

davo's picture

nate4onenation: I don't like your teachings,...

Nate, I don't have an issue with you not agreeing with me on this matter - but check out that link and see if it squares with what you are saying we are saying - that's all I'm saying.

davo

Virgil's picture

Of course not!!
I do not call them Brothers in Christ either.

I never called you a Unitarian, I said your doctrine is universalism (by definition of Webster that it means you believe "salvation (reconcilliation) is extended to all humankind").

Thank God you are not Unitarian. I would never call you such either.

Nate

Seeker's picture

Virgil is into censorship now. He's deleted all of my posts except for one.

Seeker

Seeker

Naulon's picture

What a shame. I would have liked to have read them. Virgil must have his own agenda in this matter.

Naulon

Paige's picture

Dave,

Thank you for being a voice of reason and love in the midst of this firestorm. I completely agree with you and am encouraged to know there are christians who have not lost sight of what is important.

I am reminded again that Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ.

Thankful to know Him, Paige

valensname's picture

I have been blessed to know Tim for over ten years. I have kept up with covenant eschatology, PMI, and the Preterist community all during this time. Over the course of these years and previous years within "church," I have never found a group of Christians that have more of the spirit of Christ when it comes to sharing beliefs and taking disagreements in love than PMI.

We can discuss or argue points of doctrine and we should but need to do it in the correct spirit. I think none of us claim to speak as the apostles did, so we are all wrong about something.

Everyone gets quoted or misunderstood. I agree sometimes our questions are not answered directly or as clearly as we would like and this leads to saying the other person believes this or that. However, I believe we need to strive to understand each other better.

I will not be attending the conference but look forward to the dvd's.

Glenn

Ed's picture

Let me begin by saying that I, among others, have been reading and listening to Tim King for some time now. On another forum, we began discussing Tim's article on Comprehensive Grace. Through our discussion, several of us came to views that far exceeded Tim's vision of Comprehensive Grace.

I came to this site to share something that touched my heart. I posted an initial comment in the forums under the title "Comprehensive Grace". It has since taken a life of its own.

I expressed to several of my friends on the other forum (several of whom have come here to post) that we should be careful to not represent Tim's view as our own. I knew (and they agreed) that we had taken it farther than Tim ever did. However, thanks to Tim's graciousness, we were never chastised or rejected for our "faux pas".

A couple of us (me and davo) decided to change the name. Davo took "fulfilled grace", while I took the more "ancient" universalist term, "infinite grace". However, it has since proven impossible to divorce "our views" from comprehensive grace thanks to many "conversionists" on this site. Anyone following any of the discussions will know to whom I am referring.

The sad part is that Tim has been villified by many here, and elsewhere. The only consolation is that Ed Stevens villifies anyone who is not A) a male, B) a Calvinist, C) an ECTer, D) a non-physical rapturist, and E) sees the destruction of Jerusalem being completed in AD70 (Lynn Schuldt comes to mind). So, with that said, Tim probably couldn't win for losing in Ed's book.

I apologize for this long introduction, but now I would like to refer EVERYONE on this site to Tim's article on Comprehensive Grace. He explains his aversion to universalism (and the other soteriological views), and affirms that God is gracious, and it is not our job to decide who's in and who's out of the kingdom. I'll let you read it and decide.

http://www.presence.tv/cms/compgrace.shtml

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Ed's picture

Let me begin by saying that I, among others, have been reading and listening to Tim King for some time now. On another forum, we began discussing Tim's article on Comprehensive Grace. Through our discussion, several of us came to views that far exceeded Tim's vision of Comprehensive Grace.

I came to this site to share something that touched my heart. I posted an initial comment in the forums under the title "Comprehensive Grace". It has since taken a life of its own.

I expressed to several of my friends on the other forum (several of whom have come here to post) that we should be careful to not represent Tim's view as our own. I knew (and they agreed) that we had taken it farther than Tim ever did. However, thanks to Tim's graciousness, we were never chastised or rejected for our "faux pas".

A couple of us (me and davo) decided to change the name. Davo took "fulfilled grace", while I took the more "ancient" universalist term, "infinite grace". However, it has since proven impossible to divorce "our views" from comprehensive grace thanks to many "conversionists" on this site. Anyone following any of the discussions will know to whom I am referring.

The sad part is that Tim has been villified by many here, and elsewhere. The only consolation is that Ed Stevens villifies anyone who is not A) a male, B) a Calvinist, C) an ECTer, D) a non-physical rapturist, and E) sees the destruction of Jerusalem being completed in AD70 (Lynn Schuldt comes to mind). So, with that said, Tim probably couldn't win for losing in Ed's book.

I apologize for this long introduction, but now I would like to refer EVERYONE on this site to Tim's article on Comprehensive Grace. He explains his aversion to universalism (and the other soteriological views), and affirms that God is gracious, and it is not our job to decide who's in and who's out of the kingdom. I'll let you read it and decide.

http://www.presence.tv/cms/compgrace.shtml

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

Virgil's picture

Maybe in the future, if anyone who is not directly linked with Presence Ministried will discuss the topic, they should strongly re-enforce the fact that they are not presenting Tim King's views on Comprehensive Grace, but rather their own version of it. It is unfortunate, but this is how rumors get started, and this is why when Tim says "I am not a universalist", someone comes and says "yes you are". Obviously no matter what he says, there is already a predisposed attitude against him as far as Comprehensive Grace goes. This predisposition makes it impossible for him to even want to discuss the topic, so I can't blame him.

Also, Tim should probably consider contacting those of you who "hijacked" Comprehensive Grace or misrepresented it (unintentionally) and smack you guys around a couple of times....I know you probably deserve it.

Ed's picture

As I said before, Tim knew well what I and others were espousing but knew that it was not "universalism" as defined by today's theological lexicon. Also, if anyone would bother to do a search through the entire "Comprehensive Grace" Forum, they would find that I am the ONLY ONE who ever used the term in a positive light.

One last point, as I said before, it was I who first pointed out that we should stop using the term, since we knew that Tim stopped short of where we had already tread.

The difference is that Tim King is not about throwing brothers out on heresy charges. He accepted us in the Transmillennial world. That is more than I can say for some around here.

ed

Papa is especially fond of us

JayGary's picture

Ed, et al. While Tim is wise enough not to spill unneccessary ink on CG before Max King fully exegetes Romans 9-11, King has in a past conference (Atlanta, 2003 November), enumerated five soteriological approaches the fulfilled prophecy world has taken, over the past 30 years. He identifies his position most closely with position number 3, as I heard it.

1. Restrictivism: the notion that Jesus died for the Jews only, and that Gentiles in Paul's Hellenistic world were of the 10 lost Jewish tribes. Therefore salvation is for the Jews only, not Gentiles. The restoration of the ages deals only with the Renewal of Israel, the "nations" being only the tribes of Israel. This is creation, election, and eschatology of Abraham understood in its upmost particularity.

2. Exclusivism: the notion that Jesus died only for the elect, a remnant, a sub-group of Jews and Gentiles. Only those who confess his name according to right church doctrine and persevere are saved, or prove they are elect, this side of heaven.

3. Inclusivism: the notion that Jesus died for all peoples, and that everyone is summoned to confess God's victory through the cross and resurrection. There are no unbelievers in heaven. Whether one hears the gospel clearly in their lifetime or not, whether one joins the 'true' church or not, whether one truly repents or not, the only thing we contribute to our salvation is our sin. There is a wideness in God's mercy, beyond our human constructs, as God's grace appears in salvation history to usually follow his judgment. Ultimately, will not the Judge of all the earth do right?

4. Universalism: everyone is saved, either through or apart from Christ. There is no evangelism or salvation today.

- -

Please don't ask me to elaborate further on these positions. There is enough parallel information outside the fulfilled prophecy world to these positions that any informed Evangelical theologican can explain these further to you.

Tim King's position three is very close to where many Evangelical theologians are today in both the UK and the USA. I can assure you that like King, none of them are universalists, and if someone labels them that, it only shows their lack of intelligence. Of course, the majority of the conservative scholars are in #2, due to denominational loyalties.

There is a larger issue here, as Tim King has stated in this thread. Rather than continuing to think this through the grid of futurist theology, as is the norm, this issue demands a full treatment from Romans 9-11, from the most rigorous Covenant Eschatology mind alive today. Once that work is released, it might create a whole new schemata of consummated soteriology, based on first-century fulfillment, with no correlation to Tim King's 4 fold terrain above.

It is just too premature for people to take sides, apart from publishing their own 800-page treatise on Romans 9-11. Knowing how Max King's Romans 9-11 forthcoming work will challenge both Augustinian and Lutheran soteriological based on Pauline 2nd Temple constructs, now is not the time to carve our soteriologies in stone. There are larger questions about the Road Ahead, other than CG, that Tim King will share at TruthVoice 2004. For that he has my prayers.

--Jay Gary, jay(at)jaygary.com

Copyright 2004 by Presence Ministries. Do not copy, repost or publish this in print in part or entirety without express permission from the copyright holder.

Jay Gary, Helping Faith Communities Cultivate Foresight, http://www.jaygary.com

Seeker's picture

Virgil,

Have you actually read what PMI or Tim King has written on Comprehensive Grace? Can you honestly say that is no Universalism?

Seeker

Seeker

Naulon's picture

Read it. Discussed it with Kevin, Davo, Paige and others at the Presence site all before coming to this site and independently came to the conclusion that Presence is teaching a brand of universalism; "All mankind are unconditionally redeemed."

Naulon

Barry's picture

To all my brothers and sisters:
I have read the entirety of this and these are my comments.

Great interview!

The 3 initial proponents of their own versions of Comprehensive Grace on this forum were ED, Davo and I, and all made such statements that they spoke on their own behalf. 2 of the 3 initial proponents invented new terms to reinforce the point. Anyone reading our posts will see that the 3 initial proponents of the CG concept do not express ourselves in the same terms and do not see all things identically! However, for the sectarian labeling mind set as I see it, our efforts were not sufficient.

PMI put the topic of CG in the “free world”. People are “free” to:
1) Agree with the article
2) Disagree with the article
3) Discuss the article
4) Discuss the concept
5) Express what they think CG is in Biblical terms
6) Express what one thinks are the draw backs of what each individual’s concept what of such a thing is
7) Express what one thinks are the correct points of what each individual’s concept what of such a thing is

Praise the Lord for the freedom we enjoy today!

On the PMI’s own forum anyone can freely express any of the above points. Logic itself dictates that one’s thoughts on the article, for or against are just that. It is there to be discussed. PMI has for its own reasons (which it is free to do so) decided to limit its own involvement in the discussion, apparently until it is ready to develop its own views of the concept that they themselves coined and put forward for discussion. Praise the Lord for the freedom we enjoy today!

If this has proved to be somewhat of a hindrance or inconvenience to PMI then that is simply something that they must endure and deal with. The problem however is not in the discussion of the topic or the concept. It is in my view, the intense desire from a ego oriented sectarian mindset to label and destroy. It is this ego mindset that creates the very strong emotional doctrinal ties, that constrain “Christians” to be “unchristian”. The doctrine becomes attached to the ego or the ego to the doctrine as the doctrine is perceived to reinforce a context of human performance and potential which pleases the ego. This behavior forces all who have their own views of the CG concept into a labeled “corner”. However many times they may reiterate that they speak only on their own behalf, this falls on deaf ears.
In fact while common sense dictates such (that those who promote their own concept of CG cannot speak on the behalf of PMI), to my recall, such a question (do you speak for PMI,) was never asked! After all, since it is impractical to place such a disclaimer in all posts, if ever their could be some uncertainty in the matter it is clearly the Christian duty of the one reading and discussion the issue to ask for a clarification on the matter as opposed to the sectarian label and destroy.

It is not even logical that anyone who is not associated with PMI can or could speak on their behalf. The sectarian mindset is not however motivated by common sense. Rather its mission in life is to label and destroy anything which endangers the doctrine which is attached to the ones own ego. What the labelers and destroyers want is everyone to participate in the same behavior. So when PMI did not “destroy” those who promoted their own views of what CG biblically means, then the destroyers, in their mind set concluded that this MUST MEAN that PMI supports all their views. This however is completely illogical, because the promoters of their own views of CG differ widely enough that they could not possibly be speaking on behalf of PMI.

So what is the common sense response to such a thing. Are we to start 3 (or many more) new threads to deal with the concept of CG as coined by PMI? How about “infinite grace” for ED, “fulfilled grace” for Davo and so I can be called the real heretic I’ll opt for “covenantal universalism”. Then as the numbers grow of those who adhere to certain concepts of CG then each one of those can invent their own term. But if you decide to use “covenantal universalism” in discussion make sure you put a disclaimer in every post that you do not represent MY “covenantal universalism”! (The universal effects of the end of the law. This however may be classified as a subtopic of CG. It is also a concept that is believed to be true FROM ONE EXTENT TO ANOTHER by almost all full preterist. This was not put forward for your discussion here, take it to the forum.)

PMI in my view has certain rights to be able to continue and develop the concept of CG which they themselves have put forward and initiated. When this takes place we will once again be “free” to:
8) Agree with the information
9) Disagree with the information
10) Discuss the information
11) Discuss the concept
12) Express what they think CG is in Biblical terms
13) Express what one thinks are the draw backs of what each individual’s concept what of such a thing is
14) Express what one thinks are the correct points of what each individual’s concept what of such a thing is

Of course, whatever is copyrighted and protected should be handled accordingly.
The CG concept cannot be hijacked by those who agree with its general theme but have developed the theme in their own way, unless they were to lie and say they represent PMI. This is called “discussion” and “freedom of speech”. It is hijacked by the “labelers” who refuse to see the common sense in the freedom that we have to discus and express our own views and thoughts on any given matter and issue.

The only alternative is that no one could bring up the subject until PMI has cleared the way. That no one could develop their own concept of CG means in biblical terms. This also is not common sense.

If I was not poorer than church mice I would be a financial supporter of PMI.
Nevertheless
I do not ever speak for PMI. Not while discussing “covenant eschatology” (coined by PMI) and not while discussing CG (coined by PMI).
I do not speak for Virgil
I do not speak for preterism
I do not speak for Davo
I do not speak for ED
I do not speak for anyone else that has developed their own ideas of CG.
I can’t even speak for what I will believe in 5 years from now!
I do love you all.

I am happy to represent my own version of what the concept of CG biblically means and look forward to comparing this with how PMI will develop the subject.

I am presently a universalist when defined by Nate’s definition.
I view Nate’s definition of universalism as absurd. Nevertheless bro. if you want to see it that way, you are free to do so!

That how I see it. If you see it differently I'm sure you will express yourself.

Love, and blessings to all
Barry
“Work toward a better world, because we can!”

we are all in this together

Naulon's picture

Barry,

Thank you for your words.

I'll respond from my egotistical sectarian point of view as you also must.

Sorry but you can't call Comprehensive Grace, "covenantal universalism" for the basic reason that it would be an oxymoron.

The New Covenant is bilateral and requires the free will acceptance of both parties. Universalism is unilateral. It is forced by one party on another and is thus non-covenantal. You can't put these together. It's like saying "frozen fire." How can that be possible?

You are better off with just calling it "comprehensive grace" or "CG universalism." But it has nothing to do with the New Covenant.

Saved by grace through faith,

Naulon

Seeker's picture

Excellent point.

Seeker

Seeker

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43