Welcome to Planet Preterist
Search Site:     
Submit an article | Submit a link
3275 articles; 634 encyclopedia terms
 Submit  Links  Exclusives  Forum  Downloads  RSS Feeds New Account
Planet Preterist Blogs
Click to read the most recent Blog entries:

Chris: Wacky Math (3)

Mick: 30 reasons for Great Depression 2 by 2011 (1)

Windpressor: ONN Round Table -- "Monetary Policy" (0)

Windpressor: School Liberation Advocate: Marshall Fritz - RIP (0)

Virgil: The world has never seen such freezing heat (4)

Virgil: One Step at a Time (15)

Virgil: The Great Samaritan Story (0)

Virgil: Obama win causes despair, emptiness (8)

Virgil: iPhriday: Mac Power (11)

Virgil: Top ten irritating phrases (16)

Jer: On Boobery Or Why I Dislike Debates (3)

Mick: The Disgraceful Nature of the Contemporary American (6)

Chris: A church in need (0)

Virgil: Mixaphorically speaking: Elections (5)

Life14all: Wigging out 2008 (1)

Virgil: Novus ordo seclorum (5)

Chris: Adam and Eve? (15)

Virgil: Beautiful Fall (11)

EWMI: Christian Right Wrongly Praying In Front Of Golden Calf (Bronze Bull) (0)

Virgil: Quotables (4)

EWMI: Police Prepare For Riots Should McCain Lose (2)

Mick: Interesting Astronomy Survey (1)

EWMI: Rubbing The Bull For Luck Eh? - 'ur gonna need it' (2)

Chris: Spread the Wealth (7)

Mick: With no AIDS vaccine in sight, what's next? (0)

Virgil: The Great Thanksgiving Hoax (0)

Mick: Harvest Moon (0)

Virgil: Today in History: Michael Servetus (8)

Virgil: Biblical Socialism (1)

Virgil: Everything Must Change: Indianapolis (2)


You want your own Planet Preterist Blog?

Tools & Links
· What is Preterism?
· Intro to Preterism
· Outline to Preterism
· Frequently Asked Questions
· Create Account
. Submit an article!
. Submit a link!
· Preterism en Espańol
· Preterism în Română
· Our PGP Key (new)
· Blogs Login
· Archive
· Chat
· Encyclopedia
· Forum
· Feedback
· Instant Mesg.
· Private Messages
· Recommend Us
· Online Store
· RSS Feeds
· Top 15
Login
Nickname

Password

Please create a free account to post in the forums, submit articles, links...etc.
Funny Stuff
God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself...He was not a little like God. He was not almost like God. He was not subordinate to God even.
-- Kenneth Copeland, "Following the Faith of Abraham," tape 01-3001, n.d.
Our Columnists
· William Bell
· Timothy Berman
· A.J. Bernhagen
· Marcus Booker
· Mickey Denen
· D. Stephen Douglas
· Nathan Dubois
· John Evans
· Samuel Frost
· Thomas Gorey
· Terry Hall
· Jason Lile
· Jeremy Lile
· Paige Marshall
· Timothy P. Martin
· Duncan McKenzie
· John McPherson
· Richard McPherson
· Michael E. Overbay
· Parker
· Albert Persohn
· Don K. Preston
· Doug Reed
· Charles Roberts
· Dale H. Robinson
· Larry D. Siegle
· Virgil Vaduva
· Norman Voss

Want to write a column for PlanetPreterist? Please contact us and let us know!
Catalog Items

Right Behind: A Parody of Last Days Goofiness
Was: $11.95
Now: $9.95
Preterism: Disavowing Hyperpreterism?
Posted on Saturday, March 03 @ 07:51:11 PST by Virgil

Preterism Dee Dee Warren, a long-time critic of Preterism is criticizing what she calls "the bias" of Todd Dennis' website Preterist Archive and is also writing "Now Todd himself, I am very glad to say, is disavowing hyperpreterism (defined as being equivalent to the self-serving term of “full preterism”) as his personal position, and I pray for him to return to orthodoxy." Is Dee Dee correct, and is full-preterism finally starting to collapse under its own arrogance and dogmatism?

Click here to read the entire article

 
Related Links
· Outline to Preterism
· PreteristArchive
· IPA
· More about Preterism
· News by Virgil

Most read story about Preterism:
Login

Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 3


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Bad
Regular
Good
Very Good
Excellent


Options

Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

View PDF  View PDF file

  Subscribe

  Comments RSS

   ^^Go to Top - E-mail to Friend - Print - View PDF View PDF -   Subscribe -   Comments RSS

"Login" | Login/Create an Account | 234 comments
Threshold
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
You are not logged in! Login to post comments:

Nickname:
Password:
[ Lost your password? | Create New Account ]
Re: Disavowing Hyperpreterism? (Score: 1)
by ChefTony on Saturday, March 03 @ 09:40:56 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)

Quick, somebody get that woman a Midol!

Ok, I'll have to admit, DD help me very early on in my discovery of Preterism. I heard her as a call in on the "Bible Answer Man".

But enough is enough already with the heretic stuff. Can we not just accept Yashuah’s own qualifications on who’s a part of His Body: Those who confess His Name, Call him Lord (for no one can call him Lord except by the Spirit).

In my world, semantic evolution is just a plain old fact of life. Get use to it.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: Disavowing Hyperpreterism? (Score: 1)
by Islamaphobe on Saturday, March 03 @ 10:15:01 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
"I pray for him to return to orthodoxy." I have paid little attention to the writings of Dee Dee Warren because on the basis of what I have seen, I have concluded she relies upon marketing and propaganda techniques, as opposed to scholarship, as her primary intellectual tools. The use of such terms as "orthodoxy" and "heretical" is a convenient way of avoiding the obligation to reexamine ones position. I have my own problems with what Todd Dennis terms "FP"; i.e. full preterism, but I also see that many of those who adhere to that position have adopted a scholarly--as opposed to progagandistic--approach in support of their arguments.



[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: Disavowing Hyperpreterism? (Score: 1)
by davo on Saturday, March 03 @ 11:32:15 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)

I find it humorously ironic that certain full preterists in taking issue with other variations within the full preterist framework, call those with whom they disagree, "hyper preterists" -- the very label that partial preterists of Dee Dee's ilk originally labelled them.

davo


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

dee dee's breakdown in logic (Score: 1)
by Parker on Saturday, March 03 @ 11:33:15 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
This is an interesting discussion on what "bias" is.

If I understand it correctly, Todd Dennis takes "unbiased" to mean that two differing viewpoints are allowed to present their views freely so as to slug it out in a public forum and let audiences decide which is more convincing. In my view, that is a reasonable understanding of the concept of unbiased.

"dee dee", on the other hand, takes "unbiased" to mean that one of the differing viewpoints may be prejudged as automatically wrong and subsequently banned from being presented in an open debate. Such an understanding of the word "unbiased" is illogical. Therefore, her rejection of Todd's claim fails.

Though I myself am a Catholic partial preterist, I think it is obvious that Dee Dee has a misguided understanding of what "unbiased" means. For example, when she writes, "to lump in heretical beliefs as 'preterism' is not unbiased, it is taking a stand that heretical beliefs share the same rubric as orthodox ones," she is merely asserting as true something that *must first be proven.* There is much question begging in her statement. For example:

Who in protestantism determines "heretical beliefs"?
Who in protestantism determines "orthodox ones"?
Who in protestantism determined that differing views "don't share the same rubrics" of argumentation?
If full preterism hasn't gone through the scrutiny of protestant councils, who has the right to prejudge it as either heretical or orthodox?
If full preterism is pre-censored and pre-judged by Dee Dee, then how can it receive a hearing and subsequent judgment by the whole church to see if it is heretical?
Is Dee Dee the Pope and the magisterium authorized to arbitrate this matter for all?


As we see, there is a total breakdown in logic there. To assume as true something that must first be proven is a common error in argumentation. Dee Dee has committed this error in her post against Preterist Archive and Todd Dennis. If she commits this error knowingly, then she is unethical. If she commits this error unknowingly, she is merely wrong in her approach, but not unethical.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: Disavowing Hyperpreterism? (Score: 1)
by Sam on Saturday, March 03 @ 13:41:30 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Virgil,

You wrote, "Is Dee Dee correct, and is full-preterism finally starting to collapse under its own arrogance and dogmatism?" Aside from Dee Dee being incorrect (as usual), what do you mean by suggesting that preterism is collapsing through arrogance and dogmatism? I see no signs of collapse, but instead fruitful discussions as the main paradigm is confronted with various problems. This is how paradigms make progress. I am dogmatic (assured, confident) that Jesus, our Lord, returned "a second time to bring everlasting life." I no longer consider any other view. This confidence (dogma) is hardly shaken by Dee Dee's or Todd's alledged move from Full Preterism. Dee Dee is just an opportunist, and she uses preterism to produce "hits" to her website. Apparently, it works. As for Todd, I think I'll ask my dear brother himself rather than rely on that bastion of scholarship produced by Dee Dee....(that was sarcasm by the way)

Sam Frost


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: Disavowing Hyperpreterism? (Score: 1)
by Virgil on Saturday, March 03 @ 14:02:16 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Guys, let's keep the personal attacks against Dee Dee out...the reason I posted this was not to attack Dee Dee or use this as an avenue to put her down; I was more concerned with what I see happening within the preterist movement, and with what she is saying about Todd.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: Disavowing Hyperpreterism? (Score: 1)
by Jhedges on Saturday, March 03 @ 14:08:46 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Once again the fighting over scraps instead concentrating on the meat is going on again. I used to be engaged in the B.S. Fighting over who “runs” preterism and who gets to define it and who the grandpa of the movement is.

On one hand Dee Dee is slinging her name calling again and on the other site, John the Baptist reincarnated is once again telling everyone how is willing to step up to the plate when others wont.

Really when it comes down to it, does it matter how Virgil or Todd or Rod or Sam or anyone defines “full preterism”? I use to think so but know I really don’t care.

It’s also sad to see Virgil’s name come up again, once again proving that certain people need medicine for their O.C.D. Virgil my hats off to you for not lashing out, I cant say I could remain as calm as you.

The preterist message which is the message of the kingdom is not dieing. It is moving forward, taking in those that hear and destroying those who don’t.

My bible shows me the gospel going forth forever and nothing prevailing against it. I am sad for those who don’t see it that way.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: Disavowing Hyperpreterism? (Score: 1)
by Ransom on Saturday, March 03 @ 15:36:01 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Yes, he is distancing himself from full preterism, towards preterism-idealism.

http://preteristarchive.com/Preterist-Idealism/dennis-todd_06-03.html

I, for one, am taking what he has to say here seriously.


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

internet = reality? (Score: 1)
by KingNeb on Monday, March 05 @ 11:08:06 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
One of the things that turned me off to Roderick was this idea that we can bookmark a few websites and think we have the whole Preterist world figured out.

Seriously, do any of us know how many preterists exist? My little dinky site (RCM) ran by a web novice (me) gets an average of 10,000 hits per day. We've had almost 200 unique visitors since thursday. I probably get one "random" email a day from someone asking for more info and/or where a particular topic is addressed....who are these people? And i know these numbers are a joke in comparison to the traffic P.P. and P.A. get.

I found out last year that at least 10 full preterists live just 10 minutes from where i lived before in Alabama and they were there when i was getting booted from my church, thinking i was "all alone". They're just "regular" ol' families that don't get online much.

Are we so arrogant to think that a handful of sites speak for the whole of Preterism?...that just because a site or two turns in one direction, that means Preterism as a whole has turned?

i don't get it. Fact is, nobody knows how big this is. We (online prets) are only a part and we "active" online prets are a smaller part at that.

Perhaps our 'own arrogance' is that we think the world of Preterism revolves around our respective websites.

[ps. my use of Virgil's words does not imply that i'm charging him with arrogance]


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The real issue is Dispensationalism (Score: 1)
by Barry on Thursday, March 08 @ 21:58:46 PST
(User Info | Send a Message)
Tim, you said:
“As I said before, I'm not interested in a food-fight.”
That’s good, but I was joking.

You said:
“I listed this already. Adam had to hold fast in the garden before the fall. God created man to live this way. This means obedience through faith is necessary for any to have salvation life after redemption is complete. It has been this way from the beginning!”

This is but mere conjecture on your part and furthermore it does not explain anything of the historical meaning of fulfillment and fulfilled redemption. In fact the whole idea of reconciliation is one of buying back. The price itself (once consummated at the end of the age), that being the Son of God changes the outcome of reconciliation. That should have been obvious.

You said: [caps are mine]
“And yes, I believe that INDIVIDUALS CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE TREE OF LIFE BECAUSE OF APOSTASY. As John says: "And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book" Rev. 22:19 NIV. How does CG deal with John's warning to be removed from the tree of life?”
And:


1Cr 9:19 For though I be free from all [men], yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
1Cr 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Cr 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1Cr 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I MIGHT BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME [in reference to consummated salvation at the end of the age Rom. 13:11].
1Cr 9:23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with [you].
1Cr 9:24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one RECEIVETH THE PRIZE [at the end of the age]? So run [until the end], that ye may obtain [at the end].
1Cr 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they [do it] to obtain a corruptible crown; BUT WE AN INCORRUPTIBLE [at the end of the age].
1Cr 9:26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
1Cr 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

1 Thes 2:19 For what [is] our HOPE, or joy, or CROWN of rejoicing? [Are] not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ AT HIS COMING [at the end of the age]?

2 Tim. 4:8 Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, SHALL GIVE ME AT THAT DAY: and not to me only, but unto all them also that LOVE HIS APPEARING.

1 Pet. 5:4 And WHEN the chief Shepherd shall appear, YE SHALL RECEIVE A CROWN OF GLORY THAT FADETH NOT AWAY.

Rev. 3:11 Behold, I COME QUICKLY: HOLD that FAST which thou hast, that no man take THY CROWN.


The prize at the end of the age is incorruptible and the crown incorruptible. Your view however apparently indicates that they could indeed loose it after having run the race and gaining the prize and attaining the crown.
Once again, why is this not a problem for you?

Not only this but you have them still running the race as long as they are alive. And so you have bypassed historical fulfillment at the end of the age. Unless it is a new race that they are running and a new overcoming to do. Please explain with scripture.


Rev. 3:12 HIM THAT OVERCOMETH will I make A PILLAR in the temple of my God, and HE SHALL GO NO MORE OUT: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, [which i

Read the rest of this comment...


[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Re: The real issue is Dispensationalism (Score: 1)
by Paige on Sunday, March 11 @ 21:14:48 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
"God does not change and will not, why do we now want to make him into a tame “chicken loving” God."

Jesus says if we have seen Him, we have seen the Father. I trust that He was telling us the truth.

"But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven in perfect."

From what I gather, Tim's presentation of a dangerous God is featured heavily in his book. I must be stepping on some toes here...

As for "chicken loving"...

"...How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

Are you willing, Norm?



[ To reply to this, please login or register ]

Web site powered by Planetpreterist.com Apache Web ServerPHP Scripting Language

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners.
The comments are property of their posters, all original content © 2008 by Planetpreterist.com
You can syndicate our articles using our RSS Feeds