Cdero’s Weblog

Seeking the Shalom of the City

God and “soon”

Something is definitely wrong and right in the following statement made in a debate between fellow Christians Kerry and King Neb.

Kerry:

“Neb mentioned earlier about how the mockers ‘understood’ that there was a time limit of sorts on the text. I disagree – in fact, their MISunderstanding of the text is part and parcel of why 2 Peter was written – God doesn’t *always* account time as we do. For a timeless being, ’soon’ doesn’t necessarily mean within the time frame we may want to frame it. ‘Soon’ has been continuing for 2000 years thus far, but that’s not even a BLINK to God. A day is like a thousand years to God and a thousand years is like a day. When you’re timeless, ’soon’ happens when you’re ready for it to happen. And regardless of if ’soon’ is another 1000 years from now or 10,000 years from now, it still won’t compare against the backdrop of eternity.” (end quote)

How does the transcending nature of God changes the meaning of “soon” to ” a very long time?” On the basis of Kerry’s reasoning “a very long time” then may also mean ” in a short while.”  So when God gives you everlasting life, since God is timeless, what you really get “is a short life.” Give me a break.

Just making an observation on a debate that I am following.

July 23, 2008 - Posted by cdero | The Bible | , , | 2 Comments

2 Comments »

  1. Well, you can follow no more. I’m in HCR prison now. hahaha.

    Here’s the ban message I got:

    “Take a few days off and come back differently. Whatever points you may have are lost in your name calling and attitude.”

    Get this: Kerry calls me a mocker/scoffer and blasphemer of Christ. I called him out on it. And yes, i eventually got around to calling him a hypocritical coward, only because he started whining about how i was inconveniencing him and that he was barely even interested in the thread to begin with.

    Our Lord spoke of this, didn’t he? Remember when he said, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, and if he says you’re an inconvenience and doesn’t have time for you, leave him alone and get a life.”

    And I’m the unorthodox one. ::rollseyes::

    When we doing our show bro?

    Comment by king neb | July 24, 2008 | Reply

  2. But anywho, Cruz, what are your thoughts on this passage? I ask because you said, “Something is definitely wrong and right.”

    Wondering what the “right” part is. ( :

    Here’s the fundamental problem i see with Kerry’s argument. Peter did not write his letter to God. He wrote it to humans who account time the human way.

    Also, i imagine his response to you would be that there are only “some” texts that we should treat this way.

    But this then begs the question of hermeneutics – how do we know which texts are “human time” and which are not?

    Also, why does this discussion even have to be taking place to start with? How hard of a saying is “the end is near”?

    The only reason it appears hard is because it doesn’t fit within kerry’s framework, so he has to look for an alternative. So instead of exegeting Peter’s use of Ps 90 to pull out of it what it is saying, it now becomes a proof text for some God-time theory that he absolutely MUST have in order to avoid my argument.

    Keep in mind that a natural understanding of “near” and “soon” as implying something that will happen within a short time are not even options for Kerry, though the words can carry that meaning.

    I like what Peter Leithart says here. (I realize quoting Leithart carries no weight with these guys because Leithart doesn’t fit their nice and neat little ‘reform’ bubble, but whatever..haha)

    “…it is highly unlikely that Peter would respond to the mockers by dodging the question of timing. As we have seen, the whole dispute about the Parousia is about its timing: Jesus promised to come before the apostolic generation had passed, but now the fathers are falling asleep and Jesus is nowhere to be found. If Peter suddenly offered an argument that avoided the question of timing, he would be playing right into the mockers’ hands. They would respond with even deeper skepticism, since they would conclude that, as far as the apostle Peter is concerned, statements about time are not statements about time. We can be fairly confident that, if the letter is coherent at all, Peter is not doing this.

    “Instead, Peter is responding to the delay of the Parousia with two arguments. The first is from Ps 90.4. The Psalm of Moses is a meditation on the contrast between God’s eternity and the brevity of human life. What is a long time for man is only yesterday for God. He has all the time He needs; He is not so much timeless but, as Robert Jenson puts it, time-ful. How does this respond to the mockers? Peter is not emptying temporal statements of meaning; he is not saying that Jesus might be interpreted as saying that the Parousia would not happen for millennia. Nor is he saying that “this generation” might actually mean “the rest of world history” or that “some of you standing here will not taste death” might actually mean “all of you standing here will taste death.” Rather, Peter is saying simply that what appears to be a lengthy delay to us is nothing to God. Peter is making no comment here about the timing of the Parousia, for he wrote the entire letter to insist that the timing will just as Jesus promised.”

    Cruz, Leithart here makes a whole lot more sense than kerry.

    Why would Peter say that the end of all things was “at hand” or “near” (1 Pe 4.7) and then turn right around and tell us that “near” is unknowable? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Why even pen that? It doesn’t mean anything.

    And as Leithart’s comments reveal, the mockers whole reason for fussing was because some 30 or more years had passed from the ascension until then, indicating that for them 30 years was a “long time”! Else, why would they start mocking?

    All Peter is doing, in essence, is echoing Paul when he said, “Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?”

    Which does not change the timing Jesus DID give us elsewhere.

    What does Kerry do with “this generation” or “some of you standing here will not taste death until you see the son of man coming…”?

    Neither the words “soon” or “near” are used, yet these verses suggest exactly that because it limits the timing to the deaths of SOME, but not ALL.

    Is this now more “god talk” and therefore we can’t for this either.

    It just doesn’t make any sense and seems so unnecessary.

    But hey, i’m just a heretic. what do i know. hahaha.

    peace.

    Comment by king neb | July 25, 2008 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »