EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,448
- Reaction score
- 398
- Points
- 83
1, full preterism is the belief that all things eschatological were concluded by 70 AD. As a detail, I recently found an explanation of 2 Peter 3 here in the forums that said: that the burning-up of the heavens and the elements were simply about the Jerusalem temple in the 70 AD event. The 'crushing of Satan under your feet' is also located there.
2, 'neo-orthodoxy' is the broad modern theological position that there are parts of the Bible that are historically false but the 'meaning' is still 'true' because of the modern view that 'true' now means 'helpful.' These folks believe we still need the message of the Bible, but they are basically done trying to support certain historic features. Or as one geologist puts it 'the bursting of the fountains of the great deep' and 'the dividing of the earth' has nothing to do with a global cataclysmic event because there has been no such thing. If you know 2 Peter 3 you may draw a similarity to #1.
So I must conclude that preterism is just another part of the broad category which, in its case, has decided that certain future events cannot be true; that they have happened in a symbolic way in the catastrophic events of Judea in 66-70. In other words, it is neo-orthodox.
As you can see, this once again is a destructive way of handling 2 Peter 3. The passage had plenty of opportunity to refer to Judaica in a symbolic way, but does not. Instead there is a framework in which the earth is formed out of water and through water, which is also the medium used to destroy that ancient evil world; we must see that he is grounded in Genesis 1-11 there. Then we find that he is referring to the physical elements as we know it for the future and its date with fire.
Precisely when 2 P 3 could have jumped tracks to a metaphor about 'elements' (because Paul did say twice that the Law was the 'elements of the world.' Col 2, Gal 4), the passage does not. In the paganism of Peters times, in the NE Mediterranean areas, the 4 elements were worshipped and determinative. The Greeks were stuck: they could not appeal to their mythology gods, and they had no personal communicative god. So they had beliefs about the 4 elements. People could put 'god' in debt through obedience to the elements.
Paul knew this, but treated the dastardly actions of the Judaizers as equivalent. See especially Gal 4:8-9 here, because he says his followers need to be 'birthed all over again' from the 'elements of the world' (the Law) after having been brainwashed by Judaizers. Equivalent indeed!
To defeat paganism properly with 'mighty weapons of the Spirit,' Peter says that the (paganized) elements would be melted down beyond recognition, thus putting himself on the same page as Paul. He had already done this in I P 2 when referring to the former futile life of his forefathers. That also puts paganism and Judaizing on the same.
Instead, 2 P 3 speaks in the ordinary sense, without switching to metaphor or symbols, about the 4 elements, when framing the arrival of the NHNE. We also find this in the transition from Rev 20 to 21.
2, 'neo-orthodoxy' is the broad modern theological position that there are parts of the Bible that are historically false but the 'meaning' is still 'true' because of the modern view that 'true' now means 'helpful.' These folks believe we still need the message of the Bible, but they are basically done trying to support certain historic features. Or as one geologist puts it 'the bursting of the fountains of the great deep' and 'the dividing of the earth' has nothing to do with a global cataclysmic event because there has been no such thing. If you know 2 Peter 3 you may draw a similarity to #1.
So I must conclude that preterism is just another part of the broad category which, in its case, has decided that certain future events cannot be true; that they have happened in a symbolic way in the catastrophic events of Judea in 66-70. In other words, it is neo-orthodox.
As you can see, this once again is a destructive way of handling 2 Peter 3. The passage had plenty of opportunity to refer to Judaica in a symbolic way, but does not. Instead there is a framework in which the earth is formed out of water and through water, which is also the medium used to destroy that ancient evil world; we must see that he is grounded in Genesis 1-11 there. Then we find that he is referring to the physical elements as we know it for the future and its date with fire.
Precisely when 2 P 3 could have jumped tracks to a metaphor about 'elements' (because Paul did say twice that the Law was the 'elements of the world.' Col 2, Gal 4), the passage does not. In the paganism of Peters times, in the NE Mediterranean areas, the 4 elements were worshipped and determinative. The Greeks were stuck: they could not appeal to their mythology gods, and they had no personal communicative god. So they had beliefs about the 4 elements. People could put 'god' in debt through obedience to the elements.
Paul knew this, but treated the dastardly actions of the Judaizers as equivalent. See especially Gal 4:8-9 here, because he says his followers need to be 'birthed all over again' from the 'elements of the world' (the Law) after having been brainwashed by Judaizers. Equivalent indeed!
To defeat paganism properly with 'mighty weapons of the Spirit,' Peter says that the (paganized) elements would be melted down beyond recognition, thus putting himself on the same page as Paul. He had already done this in I P 2 when referring to the former futile life of his forefathers. That also puts paganism and Judaizing on the same.
Instead, 2 P 3 speaks in the ordinary sense, without switching to metaphor or symbols, about the 4 elements, when framing the arrival of the NHNE. We also find this in the transition from Rev 20 to 21.
