One simple question regarding audience relevance
One simple question regarding audience relevance
2 Peter 3:13-16 - Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
My question is simply this:
When Peter said that Paul "hath written unto you," did he mean first century saints, or did he mean the 21st century Christians? If you say he is speaking to that group of Christians almost 2,000 years removed from his audience, then you destroy any meaning for those first century saints! It also gives excellent proof that Paul's letters were not written to us 21st century saints, but to first century saints...
This is audience relevance in a nut shell. Futurism abandons the original interpretation in favor of a present 21st century one...but only in eschatology.
14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
My question is simply this:
When Peter said that Paul "hath written unto you," did he mean first century saints, or did he mean the 21st century Christians? If you say he is speaking to that group of Christians almost 2,000 years removed from his audience, then you destroy any meaning for those first century saints! It also gives excellent proof that Paul's letters were not written to us 21st century saints, but to first century saints...
This is audience relevance in a nut shell. Futurism abandons the original interpretation in favor of a present 21st century one...but only in eschatology.
Re: One simple question regarding audience relevance
I don't see this. Of course Peter and Paul are writing to first-century Christians. This, to my knowledge, has never been disputed. Yet, neither Peter nor Paul indicated a date for the fulfillment of the parousia predictions, so they are about equally relevant to any audience, in any age, until their fulfillment.
Which part of these verses do you consider to contain time-sensitive information?
Which part of these verses do you consider to contain time-sensitive information?
Re: One simple question regarding audience relevance
This is audience relevance in a nut shell. Futurism abandons the original interpretation in favor of a present 21st century one...but only in eschatology.
Mellontes
In 2nd Peter 3.8 the same author said "a day is with the Lord as a thousand years" therefore since this preceded what you quoted i think God is telling this "audience relevance"group that they should keep their mind open to all possibilities.
After all to be consistent with audience relevance was Isaiah 53 actually about Israel?
Mellontes
In 2nd Peter 3.8 the same author said "a day is with the Lord as a thousand years" therefore since this preceded what you quoted i think God is telling this "audience relevance"group that they should keep their mind open to all possibilities.
After all to be consistent with audience relevance was Isaiah 53 actually about Israel?
Re: One simple question regarding audience relevance
Yes, Steve, I realize you don't see this. You have grown up in a paradigm that has explained away or ignored every single time reference of the parousia to that first century group of Christians. I used to do that too. It was our NATURE of endtime events that mandated a future time. But Scripture is very clear as to the imminence expressed by Jesus and all the apostles. Atheists know this and Christian non-preterist scholars realize this. That is why when the Scriptures are read today we no longer accept who they were written to. We have inserted our generation into the text. Eschatologically, we have become the pronouns in the Bible. We absolutely refuse to give the pronouns the first century timeline that they demand.steve wrote:I don't see this. Of course Peter and Paul are writing to first-century Christians. This, to my knowledge, has never been disputed. Yet, neither Peter nor Paul indicated a date for the fulfillment of the parousia predictions, so they are about equally relevant to any audience, in any age, until their fulfillment.
Which part of these verses do you consider to contain time-sensitive information?
You said, "Yet, neither Peter nor Paul indicated a date for the fulfillment of the parousia predictions." I don't possibly see how you can say that. It is your opinion of course. But honestly, what do you do with Peter's "the end of all things is at hand"? What do you do with Paul's letter to Timothy where he tells Timothy "from such turn away" when describing the individuals who would be present in the last days? It won't do to say the last DAYS encompassed a period of almost 2,000 YEARS. The last days of ANYTHING is always at the end portion.
Although the time sensititve material is not so obvious in this one particular passage, it does not dismiss the fact that Peter's audience were well aware of the situation. They were aware of Paul's letters. They were aware of Christ's teachings. And contrary to what you might wish to believe that there is not time sensitive info regarding the parousia, Paul is VERY clear on the immediate imminence. He believed, as Jesus did, that it would occur within the generation that Christ mentioned. He merely was answering the disciples' question regarding the when of the parousia, although I know you disagree. And of course there were the scoffers (εμπαικται - Strong's G1703) who would come. They had arrived in Jude 18 as mockers (εμπαικται - Strong's G1703). If you compare Jude 12 and Jude 19 in relation to Jude 18, it becomes painfully obvious that they had arrived.
And since you now admit that the letters were written to the fist century church (I am glad you understand this), then perhaps you can explain what "we who are alive and remain" meant to those who received Paul's epistle? I would be especially interested in the "we" portion. It ain't us...
Or how about "to you who are troubled rest with us" in direct regard to "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:" Who are the pronouns referring to? The first century church or the 21st century church? Was it the Thessalonian church that was being persecuted by the unbelieving Jews (1 Thess 2:14-16) or was it the Christian church some 2,000 plus years off in the future with no Jewish persecution?
I am very curious to see how you answer those questions while keeping the audience relevance intact. Your blanket statement of "Yet, neither Peter nor Paul indicated a date for the fulfillment of the parousia predictions" just doesn't cut it when it comes to determining who the pronouns are. Perhaps you need to be reminded how one of your futurist scholars sized up the immence issue. I am so very ashamed of this man for calling my Savior an embarassment just so he (and all the other futurists) can hold on to their precious NATUREof eschatological events:
“The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” (Essay; “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)
Just out of curiosity, do you accept Paul's definition for the elements (stoichea - Strong's 4747) in Galatians 4:3,9; Colossians 2:8,20; Hebrews 5:12, or do you accept Dmitri Mendeleev's defintion?
Please respond to my questions...
Re: One simple question regarding audience relevance
Oh, how many times I have heard that excuse. Everyone always partly quotes it , as you have done. So desirous is the will to delay the coming that only the first portion is ever quoted.steve7150 wrote:This is audience relevance in a nut shell. Futurism abandons the original interpretation in favor of a present 21st century one...but only in eschatology.
Mellontes
In 2nd Peter 3.8 the same author said "a day is with the Lord as a thousand years" therefore since this preceded what you quoted i think God is telling this "audience relevance"group that they should keep their mind open to all possibilities.
After all to be consistent with audience relevance was Isaiah 53 actually about Israel?
Let's get the right quote out there and see if it matches what you are endeavoring to say:
"one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
So, if you truly accept this as meaning what you think it said, then 1,000 years would be as one day. This meant that things were going to come to pass even quicker, well, at least 1,000 times quicker than first seemed! But I don't think you like that part of the verse.
First of all, Peter is quoting Psalm 90:4 in reference to God's total faithfulness. What he says He will do He WILL do! Look at the very next verse in context:
2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I would have to place you in the category of "as some men count slackness." You wish to delay His coming to suit your paradigm.
Hebrews 10:37 - For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
According to Charles Ryrie, a futurist, he dates the book of 2 Peter at 66 AD. The generation was coming to an end. The 40-year period to flush out the unbelievers was coming to an end. Soon the parousia would be upon them. Are you sensing any typology here? You should be...
Re: One simple question regarding audience relevance
Mellontes,
I appreciate your questions and desire to express the things you are, but just from reading your posts it seems majorly lacking the fruit of the Spirit. I won't pretend to know your heart or assume you meant it to come off that way, but I just want to exhort you to speak gracefully with your brothers and sisters. Our Father takes personally the way we treat one another (1 John chapter 4.) I can't pretend I do it well all the time either, but hopefully we keep growing to that end.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us though.
I appreciate your questions and desire to express the things you are, but just from reading your posts it seems majorly lacking the fruit of the Spirit. I won't pretend to know your heart or assume you meant it to come off that way, but I just want to exhort you to speak gracefully with your brothers and sisters. Our Father takes personally the way we treat one another (1 John chapter 4.) I can't pretend I do it well all the time either, but hopefully we keep growing to that end.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us though.
Re: One simple question regarding audience relevance
First of all, Peter is quoting Psalm 90:4 in reference to God's total faithfulness. What he says He will do He WILL do! Look at the very next verse in context:
2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I would have to place you in the category of "as some men count slackness." You wish to delay His coming to suit your paradigm.
Fortunately i could'nt care less what category you place me in. Secondly IMO Peter is speaking about a principal of God regarding time and it does'nt only apply to one topic but it's a commentary about how he views time from his perspective.
2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I would have to place you in the category of "as some men count slackness." You wish to delay His coming to suit your paradigm.
Fortunately i could'nt care less what category you place me in. Secondly IMO Peter is speaking about a principal of God regarding time and it does'nt only apply to one topic but it's a commentary about how he views time from his perspective.
Re: One simple question regarding audience relevance
Point well taken. I guess I occasionally suffer from attack-the-hereticitis. I don't really mean to be too hard. I guess I do say things to "shake" them a bit. I will try harder. I hope you watch their posts too. Did you happen to see this one: http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 125#p41749IsaacJ wrote:Mellontes,
I appreciate your questions and desire to express the things you are, but just from reading your posts it seems majorly lacking the fruit of the Spirit. I won't pretend to know your heart or assume you meant it to come off that way, but I just want to exhort you to speak gracefully with your brothers and sisters. Our Father takes personally the way we treat one another (1 John chapter 4.) I can't pretend I do it well all the time either, but hopefully we keep growing to that end.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us though.
Re: One simple question regarding audience relevance
So, then am I to understand that Christ's resurrection took place in 24.657534 years (3 days X 1,000 / 365 days)? God is quite capable to address man perfectly. You are perfectly welcome to ignore Psalm 90:4 and the immediate context of promise keeping, but I honestly believe you must do that in order to hold to your paradigm. How do I know this? Because I did the same thing for more than 20 years! Scripture is supposed to produce our paradigm for us. We are not to read Scripture through our paradigm. And there is a big difference. I happen to believe "at hand" means at hand. You do not. It is as simple as that. Here let me quote a futurist scholar on what he thought about all those easily recognizable time statements that we (full preterists) keep bringing up.steve7150 wrote:First of all, Peter is quoting Psalm 90:4 in reference to God's total faithfulness. What he says He will do He WILL do! Look at the very next verse in context:
2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
I would have to place you in the category of "as some men count slackness." You wish to delay His coming to suit your paradigm.
Fortunately i could'nt care less what category you place me in. Secondly IMO Peter is speaking about a principal of God regarding time and it does'nt only apply to one topic but it's a commentary about how he views time from his perspective.
“The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” (Essay; “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)
Now, I know you won't like this next comment of mine, but I would have to say that anyone who holds this type of view is the embarassment, not Jesus Christ or the Word of God (implying inspiration error).
Re: One simple question regarding audience relevance
I happen to believe "at hand" means at hand. You do not. It is as simple as that. Here let me quote
No i think your wrong, i believe at hand applies to 70AD, which is missing some of the characteristics
of the final judgment of the world.
I think you are misapplying what 70AD is. Israel has always been a type of the world and it's destruction in 70AD is not God's final judgment. The world will be judged, evil will be finished.
No i think your wrong, i believe at hand applies to 70AD, which is missing some of the characteristics
of the final judgment of the world.
I think you are misapplying what 70AD is. Israel has always been a type of the world and it's destruction in 70AD is not God's final judgment. The world will be judged, evil will be finished.