New Wikipedia article on "Pantelism"

[Eric B]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantelism

Just put this back up the other day. There once was an article with this name, back around the time I first discovered you guys, and was looking up the concept. However, that old article made it sound identical to full preterism. It just said that it meant "all fulfilled", but didn't specify fulfilled redemption. So somewhere inbetween, it was taken completely down. I went looking to correct the article, and found it was gone, so then put up the new one.

You all can add to it, as well; just make sure whatever you put is verifiable (either mentioned in the "Presence" or "Pantelism.com" articles I have as sources; or add another source; but they don't want forums like this, blogs, or other "opinion" discussions).

[davo]

Fantstic Eric... I've tried on various occassions in the past to get something up there but have always had it knocked back, so it's great to see what you've done :)

[Barry]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantelism

Just put this back up the other day. There once was an article with this name, back around the time I first discovered you guys, and was looking up the concept. However, that old article made it sound identical to full preterism. It just said that it meant "all fulfilled", but didn't specify fulfilled redemption. So somewhere inbetween, it was taken completely down. I went looking to correct the article, and found it was gone, so then put up the new one.

You all can add to it, as well; just make sure whatever you put is verifiable (either mentioned in the "Presence" or "Pantelism.com" articles I have as sources; or add another source; but they don't want forums like this, blogs, or other "opinion" discussions).

I am amazed.
Barry

[Jotham]

Very nice work Eric. Well stated and with good references.
Davo, your site is organized nicely! Easy to get around and the articles have been some of my favorites for some time.

Cheers,
Thom

[Eric B]

Thanks all :)

Davo, what was your article like? I was trying to think why it would be "knocked back"? Is it that you did not have the sources? Or was yours the on that sounded identical to Preterism?

I hope noone scrutinizes it like they just did last week with an article on a hip hop subject I created, and four minutes after I first posted it, it was tagged for deletion (how they found, read, and made that decision on it that fast; I'll never know). They would not accept any of the references I gave (which are mostly from blog sites). So it was a big dispute, but after the time was up, it was taken down, and an administrator gave me a list of books I have to go look up in the library to use as sources, before I can put it back up.
So fresh after this; I hope nobody decides King's site, for example, is too much like a blog, or whatever. But I usually have not had that kind of trouble. But since Pantelism once was an article, that was taken down, someone could be watching it (we can have "watchlists"; which was probably how they found the rap article so fast, as it had been an article before, too).

[davo]

Davo, what was your article like? I was trying to think why it would be "knocked back"? Is it that you did not have the sources? Or was yours the on that sounded identical to Preterism?Hi Eric… no the problem wasn't a specific article but trying to get "pantelism" itself up on wikipedia like "preterism" is defined etc – I think how I was trying to submit it just wasn't to their liking, but anyway what you've got up there seems to be staying :). I also might make one or two adjustments on some of the definition if that's ok.

[Jotham]

...I also might make one or two adjustments on some of the definition if that's ok.I'm out of the loop on the details of how the wiki site works. I did notice there was an "edit" link on the page. So somebody can come in behind your work and make changes? That's sort of scary in a way. ?? fill me in.

[davo]

Yep that is true Thom, anybody can change things around -- I'm not sure how wiki work around that one, I guess it just comes down to keeping an eye on whatever submissions are made and keep a copy of the last editing just in case it has to be set straight again.

[Eric B]

Yes, the idea that anyone can change it makes Wikipedia sound very unreliable, but then that is precisely its own error correction method. Because anyone else can come right behind them and correct any errors, and of course, it is very likely someone will see erroneous material and correct it. They do have what is called "vandalism", which is corrupting articles. Whole IP addresses (like AOL) are locked out sometimes, if a lot of anonymous vandalism has been coming from them.

Schools may restrict it from use in report assignments, because it is always possible that the particular moment you access an article, it has been vandalized, or have erroneous or unverified information added.

Say Davo; you're basically saying your definition of "pantelism" sounded like "preterism"? (This IS basically what I saw there, before. I should have changed it then, and maybe it would have stayed up).
Something like that would get merged with the other article.

[Jotham]

Yes, the idea that anyone can change it makes Wikipedia sound very unreliable...
Sao Davo; you're basically saying your definition of "pantelism" sounded like "preterism"? (This IS basically what I saw there, before. I should have changed it then, and maybe it would have stayed up).
Something like that would get merged with the other article.THX you two. This will assist me in any further use of the Wiki site, knowing it's defs are not necesarily the "gospel". grin.

Now onto the def of Pant. I liked what i read. This goes beyond the basics of Pret, and includes the idea of some sort of C.G. which i'm warming up to (actually i think it's fantastic, it is just still so knew to me).

: ) Thom

[davo]

Hey guys... I've made some ulterations in my quote below, but not changed anything to the wiki entry -- how do you think this reads:


This article is about a distinct form of Preterism that is also universalist in scope. For the more common form, see Preterism.

Pantelism is a variation of Christian eschatology that holds that the plan of God has been completed, both prophetically, and redemptively. The term "pantelism" comes from the Greek and means, "all things having been accomplished". It is similar to the concept of "Comprehensive Grace" as presented by Transmillennialism™. Pantelism is an extension of Full Preterism. The difference, is that in full prêterism, while the scriptures have been prophetically, fulfilled, they have not been redemptively fulfilled; thus people are still born "lost" and must profess personal faith in Jesus Christ in order to escape Hell when they die.

Pantelism holds that all "end-time" judgement recorded in the Bible, including the lake of fire, refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year AD 70; this includes all of the other prophetic events, such as other forms of prêterism believe. With the Old Covenant system of law and judgment ended, redemption came to Israel and reconciliation therefore spread to all men everywhere thereafter, and this regardless of a professed faith in Jesus Christ.

Pantelism is often viewed as a form of Christian universalism as it accepts the authority of the Bible, unlike some other forms of universalism. This however would be a less than adequate understanding as the focus of Pantelism is the eschatological fullness that came to all Israel through "the elect" in that "last days" period AD 30-70. This then is where Pantelism differs significantly from both Prêterism and Universalism, where both view "the elect" as "who goes to Heaven after death", whereas Pantelism understands "biblical election" in terms of those "called into the service of God" in this life, i.e., election is not about life after death, but about sevice.None of the hyperlinks etc wanted to work when I cut and pasted it back into the "edit" mode as I was playing with it on wiki :confused: -- so I've not posted this as yet. What do you think, does it make sense?

[Paige]

Makes sense to me :)

[ozark]

Well done Davo.

[Amie]

I like this change a lot:
"It is similar to the concept of "Comprehensive Grace" as presented by Transmillennialism™."
I wouldn't agree that "pantelism" or "transmillennialism" are forms of "preterism", but that all three are "variations of Christian eschatology" as Eric put (or even "a belief system within the field of fulfilled eschatology).

So often "preterism" is used in exchange for "fulfilled eschatology" even though their meanings are not synonymous. Fulfilled eschatology is the study of "end times". "Preterism" is a belief system resulting from that study.

One who studies zoology would be considered a zoologist. One who studies eschatology, following that logic, would be an eschatologist. One need not take on any belief system to participate in that study. I think that firstly presenting these defintions more accurately would lend further credibility to the field of study, as well as opening doors for more people to participate in it without concern for also being attached to stigma associated with it.

I'm beginning to see the point being made about our view being a form of Christian Universalism in that we do see all of humanity as accepted by God. How we apply that acceptance per the fulfilled view would make that specific form of Christian Universalism, "pantelist".

Y'all are free of course, to do this any way that you want. This is just my two cents.

Amie

[Eric B]

It is similar to the concept of "Comprehensive Grace" as presented by Transmillennialism™.
I still don't understand what exactly this "Transmilennialism" is, especially since you are labeling it a trademark. I read that it means something like the Millennium being between the covenents, IIRC. Is that one person or organization's own intellectual property?
It looked to me like Pantelism was the generic or "Family" name of these concepts, and CG and Transmillennialism were either other names, or special variations of it. You're saying CG was "presented by" Transmillennialism?

I would keep "This has been confused with Full Preterism", because of the fact that the two terms "pantelism and preterism" are often used exchangeably; including, especially, there on Wikipedia.

This however would be a less than adequate understanding as the focus of Pantelism is the eschatological fullness that came to all Israel through "the elect" in that "last days" period AD 30-70. This then is where Pantelism differs significantly from both Prêterism and Universalism, where both view "the elect" as "who goes to Heaven after death", whereas Pantelism understands "biblical election" in terms of those "called into the service of God" in this life, i.e., election is not about life after death, but about sevice.
This at first sounds almost like particular opinion on what the "real" doctrine is. The article is at this point, inteneded to be referring to the "in general" concept. I would only add that if it is in King' or Embury's site, or you have another source for it. Then, perhaps describe or list the different variations, rather than useing one as the "official" position.

Also; I had meant to ask; I had seen from the planetpreterist discussion, this use of "election"; that there are still particularly elect people. I had thought that technically; all people were elect; or better yet, election had ended, because there is no longer any distinction between "in Christ", and "out of Christ", which is what election originally determined, with personal belief being the criterion. So is this to keep the passages abut "election" and "service" relevant to us?


I wouldn't agree that "pantelism" or "transmillennialism" are forms of "preterism" well, being that "preterism" is really a more generic family, holding that "prophecy has all been fulfilled"; Pantelism certainly fits that definition, and thus is quite technically, a form of preterism; only it has other distinctions separating it from other forms of preterism.

I'm beginning to see the point being made about our view being a form of Christian Universalism in that we do see all of humanity as accepted by God. How we apply that acceptance per the fulfilled view would make that specific form of Christian Universalism, "pantelist".
Yes, universalism also, is a generic "family". The majority of "universalism" arrives at that position by throwing away scripture, and relying on reason alone. In other words, they accept that the Bible teaches Hell for all unbelievers for all time, and since that seems too cruel, and goes against our sensibilities about God's love, it must be wrong. (The UU pamphlet I once had said "Church leaders began to preach that a loving God would not damn any of His children in Hell. The Nicene Creed must therefore be in error". Here, they connect the Bible with the Nicene Creed, which they see as the source of both Hell and the Trinity).

Shame nobody was able to find the Biblical means to support universalism. Armstrong of the Plain Truth tried, but had ho real scripture for it; just an obscure passage from Isaiah about a child living to 100 in the Kingdom, which was taken to support his theory of salvation at the second resurrection.

[Amie]

well, being that "preterism" is really a more generic family, holding that "prophecy has all been fulfilled"

Touche'.

From the article I link to below:


Webster’s Dictionary defines "preterist" as "one who believes that the prophecies of the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled." Picking up on this linguistic fragment, many from the Reformed world began to view Max King’s writings as "preterism."

Soon "preterist" web sites sprang up. "Preterist" debates spread across the U.S. among Reformed churches. Within five years it became evident that there were various "shades and degrees" of preterism, i.e., full, partial, hyper, consistent, etc., and that these differences could be radical and harsh at times. There were even militant "Christian Identity" patriots that considered themselves "preterists," advocating the armed overthrow of the U.S. government.

When the term "preterist" began to be used in the ’90s, no one even spoke of "partial-preterism." In Max King’s view of redemption post-A.D. 70, there was no such thing as "partial" covenant. God’s redemptive plan is completely in place. All of it. And if the end fully came at the fall of Jerusalem, there is no need to invent a non-biblical resurrection and judgment for individuals at death. At best, by 1999, the "preterist" term no longer stood alone and had to be qualified in terms of degree. At worst, the term became a badge of infighting among postmillennialists.

Reality seems to dictate that the integrity of the term "preterist" has been compromised. This in turn, communicates mixed messages and perpetuates confusion - making the whole matter to seem to be better left to radicals.

That's why I suggest describing "t'mill", "preterism", and "pantelism" as belief systems resulting from fulfilled eschatology. This offers clarity imo. Eschatology, as I said before, is a field of study and not a belief system.


I still don't understand what exactly this "Transmilennialism" is, especially since you are labeling it a trademark.

http://www.presence.tv/cms/transmillennial_view.php

Though "transmillennialism" and "pantelism" (as far as I can see) hold to the same theology, the term "Comprehensive Grace" comes from an article written by Tim King (who has the transmillennial view). Terms that I've seen tossed around here are "fulfilled grace" and "realized redemption".

I would say further, that both "t'mill" and "pantelism" are applied theologies birthed out of fulfilled eschatology (You may find differences in those applications, I'm just not completely sure yet.)


Also; I had meant to ask; I had seen from the planetpreterist discussion, this use of "election"; that there are still particularly elect people. I had thought that technically; all people were elect; or better yet, election had ended, because there is no longer any distinction between "in Christ", and "out of Christ", which is what election originally determined, with personal belief being the criterion. So is this to keep the passages abut "election" and "service" relevant to us?

There were those who were called out of Israel during the time of transition that are often projected into the future. That particular calling has served its' purpose. I would not claim that God doesn't call anyone now into service for a different reason, however that calling has nothing to do with the afterlife.

Hope ya don't mind my putting another two cents in :D.

Amie

[Barry]

May I suggest that this take an "informative" and "educative" approach. Otherwise it will not stand. That meaning, no apparent "agenda" should be discernable.

IME then one might say, "Pantelism parallels some forms of "Preterism" which claim a fulfillment of all scripture in the destruction of the Jerusalem in AD 70." or some variation thereof.

Personally speaking, I don't think it necessary to link to Transmill to explain Pantelism. IME this simply become more confusing.
If you wanted to do this, I would recommend touching base with Presence and getting their input on the wording.

Overall I think that is wonderful, and perhaps only small variations to Eric's original posting may be benificail for clarity at this time.

On the other hand, I'm not an expert in the matter and my views should be taken as more a matter of "feeling" than "education" in this matter.

In any case, it is surly impressive, in any form thus given so far!
Blessings Barry

[Amie]

"Pantelism parallels some forms of "Preterism"

And that would be true :).


Personally speaking, I don't think it necessary to link to Transmill to explain Pantelism. IME this simply become more confusing.

True again, it would save the headache all together.

:D Amie

[davo]

Hey folks this input is valuable… it is good to be a little flexible and all our thoughts on this stuff are valid.


I wouldn't agree that "pantelism" or "transmillennialism" are forms of "preterism", but that all three are "variations of Christian eschatology" as Eric put (or even "a belief system within the field of covenant eschatology).
Personally speaking, I don't think it necessary to link to Transmill to explain Pantelism.Actually I agree Amie and Barry… however out of respect for Eric's having been able to get a definition of Pantelism to stay up on wikipedia I thought all I would do was adjust what was written to better reflect what I thought was a slightly more accurate reading – what do you think Eric?


Also; I had meant to ask; I had seen from the planetpreterist discussion, this use of "election"; that there are still particularly elect people. I had thought that technically; all people were elect; or better yet, election had ended, because there is no longer any distinction between "in Christ", and "out of Christ", which is what election originally determined, with personal belief being the criterion. So is this to keep the passages abut "election" and "service" relevant to us?Eric, from the pantelist perspective "election" as found in the NT was specific to that generation, so technically "election" as we find it in the Bible HAS ended – the problem is election gets read out of the Bible and so misapplied because it is seen as referring to post-mortem. Election had to do with the redemption [forgiveness of sins] of Israel; this came to fruition in the Cross-Parousia event. The Parousia did not end the "calling of God" to serve Him as we "love thy neighbour" etc, "faith in Christ" grasps this still.


This at first sounds almost like particular opinion on what the "real" doctrine is. The article is at this point, inteneded to be referring to the "in general" concept.Eric would there be a better way of expressing this IF "opinion" is considered a "no no"?

[Eric B]

If it's an opinion of the creator or advocate of the theory (as long as the creator or advocate of of the theory is not the Wiki editor himself), then it can be included; but you must have the reference to where the person said it, and you should make it clear that they said it, and it's not your own particular opinion.