Preterist Explanation of 1 Peter 2:12

[robbyyoung]

Brenden, are you denying fulfillment as outlined by the author? If so, enlighten us in the context where this is found.

Seems to me the burden is on the preterist to show scriptural or historical evidence that the Romans or other gentiles glorified God because of the behavior of Christian at the time Jerusalem was destroyed.

I have the same feeling that I had when reading Russell's "Parousia" many years ago. I was going along with what he wrote for awhile but then I thought he became implausible and I stopped reading the book. It has been in the bookcase since. The preterist needs a very big and stout shoehorn; tough to get a size 12 foot into a size 8 shoe.

Hi Homer,

What kind of ill reasoning and doubt against inspired testimony are you suggesting a Christian should cling to for lack of "Historical Proof". Where's YOUR proof Yeshua was raised from the dead? Or how about Yeshua walking on water? We can go on and on... Is this your litmus test as a Christian?

We believe the accounts because the scriptures says so. If their happens to be historical corroboration, so be it, and if not, so be it. The burden is NEVER on the Christian who believes scripture, for his faith sustains him on account, HE WASN'T THERE! (1 Peter 1:8)

Peter said because of The Dispersion's conduct The Nations will glorify God [in the day of visitation]. Now either you believed this happened 2000 years ago or not. I guarantee The Dispersion did, you know, the ones who actually received Peter's letter. It really isn't that hard, but unbelief takes us down inconsistent and confusing paths, void of any truth to be gained.

God Bless.

[Homer]

Hi Robbie,

I asked for scriptural or historical evidence:

the burden is on the preterist to show scriptural or historical evidence

You wrote:

Peter said because of The Dispersion's conduct The Nations will glorify God [in the day of visitation].

I thought the contention of the preterist was that there was a mass killing of Christians (including the Apostle John) by the gentiles just prior to 70AD? But the gentiles praised God because of the behavior of the Christians shortly after (or before) this? I'm confused.

It really isn't that hard, but unbelief takes us down inconsistent and confusing paths, void of any truth to be gained.

I'm not disbelieving the scriptures, just your interpretation. I think the day of visitation is future and Peter's words apply to all Christians throughout history.

[TheEditor]

Hi Robby,

I spent too many years as a great apologist for a completely implausible eschatological sytem (JWs) as a missionary. And I was good at it, if I say so myself. Forgive me, but this dog won't bite. Laying a false choice and calling into question my faith in the Scriptures is way up there on the list of desperate argumentational ploys.

This is the problem I have with the zeal of the Preterist convert. They are rarely content to rejoice in their own discoveries and merely share what they have learned, leaving it to the hearer to agree or not. They feel compelled to go on to nearly make it a "test of faith" which I find as deplorable as the Dispesationalist doing same.

Polycarp apparently missed the train in 70 AD (I guess since he was a child, we can surmise some kindly Greeks raised him to be a Christian, not unlike a white couple raising a Native American adoptee in the Chiricahua tradition....

And then there's Trajan, who must have found it strange indeed that he had no Chrisitans to persecute, so, not to be outdone by Nero, he invents the so well-documented great persecution of the Christians, just for posterity.

This is my test of faith in the Bible? Really? The church was present in 70 AD. It was present in 80 AD. and it was present in 90AD. On what basis do you say they all hopped on that magic bus to the spirit in the sky (I think I hear Norman Greenbaum...)

Regards, Brenden.

[robbyyoung]

Dear Homer and Brenden,

My Brothers, I have nothing but the love of Christ for you and your desire to know Him better. I will apologize now and forevermore for offending you regarding any doubt towards your spiritual walk with God.

So I humbly ask that you bear with me in my less than adequate writing skills when trying to convey my thoughts and ideas towards scripture, which I believe is in-line with the position I hold – as we all do. Therefore, I really want to remain respectful to the threads created by the brethren and not hi-jack them with Preterism dogma which is unrelated.

If you are inclined, let’s continue our conversation here:

http://www.theos.org/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 7&start=10

As always, God Bless!

[TheEditor]

Hi Robby,

I appreciate the heartfelt apology. Though, of course, none was needed. I don't mind dialoguing on the subject at all. I still remain unsettled/decided on the matter.

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

No apology needed here either.

[Douglas]

Could it possibly be that Peter is just saying that by keeping your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, despite them speaking evil against you, they see your good deeds and this ultimately changes their hearts and become followers of Jesus and that come the "day of visitation" whatever that may be, they end up glorifying God. The point being that a Christians conduct and visible good deeds may change the hearts of the non-Christians so that some day they end up giving glory to God whether it is/was then, now, or future. Ones view of eschatology ultimately doesn't make a difference I think in this verse.

Douglas

[Homer]

Good observation Douglas!