2 Timothy 3, Amillenialism, Postmillenialism

And greetings, welcome to the Dividing Line, it's Thursday afternoon, and yeah, I know I never talk about this particular subject, there's a reason for it. I was noticing even earlier today, the subject of eschatology came up in channel.

And even folks that are normally on the same page with one another, if they have an eschatological difference, all of a sudden the knives come out, the long swords, the concealed carry weapon permits, and everything else.

And it's just not my experience that most people can handle eschatological discussions with much in the way of equanimity. Now in my experience, and it is a limited experience, of, let me define something first here.

For those of you who may not have a lot of background in theological terminology and things like that, eschatology is the study of last things, eschaton in Greek, last. And so there are areas of eschatology that I am, I've spoken on many times, the return of Christ, the concept of resurrection, punishment for sin, I've tried to resist becoming the apologist for hell, but something tells me I'm not going to be able to avoid that forever.

So those are elements of eschatology and they're vitally important. But generally, when people talk about eschatology, they are talking about the three, primary three, and there's subdivisions in each one, major interpretive schemes concerning the order of events in regards to the second coming, judgment, setting up of the eternal state.

And the three general schemes are the premillennial, the amillennial, and the postmillennial. And then there's all sorts of divisions, and that's one of the problems, is there are so many subcategories and divisions within each one of these camps, not so much in the amillennial camp, but anyway, you've got your optimistic amillennialists and you've got your pessimistic amillennialists.

But then amongst your premillers, you've got your disbe premillers and your historic premillers and amongst your disbe premillers, you've got pre-trib, post-trib, mid-trib, pre-wrath. There's just so many, so much stuff there.

And of course, if all you ever watched was TBN, you would only know that that's the only group that exists, basically, because you've got really big guys with really big charts. And it just, with colors and lines and it looks like Amway on steroids, it's just amazing.

So if that's all you're exposed to, then you find out that there are people who go, I don't think there's a rapture, what are you talking about? Where'd you come from? Everybody believes that, you know, and then you get the posties and they're way out there.

So you've got all these different theories and stuff like that and I tend to avoid it for a couple reasons. For full revelation here and transparency, I guess that's the big word today is transparency.

For all transparency, I was raised dispensational premillennial. I remember taking my college entrance, well, no, I think it was a California achievement test. Is that what they were back then? Anyway, senior year in high school and I get done, you turn it in, but you have to stay there.

You have to sit there. And I was reading Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth. I remember it had a red cover and I think it had yellow page edges for some reason. I'm not really sure why. Anyway, so, you know, J. Dwight Pentecost and all that, that was, in fact, I remember a lock in in 1979, 1980 ish, as I recall, at North Phoenix Baptist Church, a youth lock in, which means you stay all night.

And I was explaining to the people that were around me about what was coming, you know, eschatology and stuff. And back then you had, you could have tritium watches. Remember these? Some of you, you're old enough, Ken, you remember tritium watches?

You don't remember tritium watches? Oh, OK. We used to have, we used to actually have watches that had radioactive stuff in it. Thankfully, it put off alpha particles, which couldn't get through a piece of paper.

So you were cool. But it would glow all the time. It wasn't like you had to put it in light. It would glow all the time. And it was bright enough that if once you're in the dark for a long time, if you put it next to a book, you could you could actually sort of read.

That's how I was looking at Matthew 24 or something. OK, that's that's where I was coming from. Then in in college, my, especially Dr. DC Martin was an aumilor. And we had arguments, good arguments, you know, but I'd never heard any other perspective.

And it was primarily when I started studying comparative religion and homiletics and hermeneutics and all the various H words there that I I became concerned that the hermeneutical methodology I was using in looking at especially Revelation and Daniel was not what I was using in any other subject.

And so for a long time, I called myself a pan millennialist. It'll all pan out in the end, which is a nice way of saying I don't want to argue about it. I'm not convinced one way or the other, and it's not really the front issue on the burner for me.

And then, as I've mentioned many times before, I don't remember how many years ago it was. But I was given. Well, this shows you how many years ago I was given a cassette tape series. You do remember cassette tapes.

Yes. OK. All right. Still have a few hanging around in boxes someplace. OK, I was given a cassette tape series. We have a live studio audience today. Other than Rich, who normally is live, but isn't always paying attention, a cassette tape series.

I don't even bother by Dr. Greg Nichols from Trinity Ministerial Academy. And I don't know where I was going, but I know that at least at one point I was listening to it while driving somewhere between Flagstaff and the Grand Canyon.

I just remember that up on the reservation someplace. And his series was on the now and the not yet. It was basically asking the question, what was Jesus's eschatology? And what is the the age, the present age and the age to come?

Present age and the age to come. And he did just an exhaustive study of what Jesus taught about the difference between this age and the age to come. And I was absolutely convinced from from that series.

That made perfect sense. It wasn't it didn't require you to take this and hook it up with this in light of the possibility of this. And and then you had to have the seven headed beast over here. No, it was real simple, straightforward.

And I became a non-millennialist. And I'm like, I'm like, you know what, that that's the same interpretive methodology I use every place else. Yay. Move on. I didn't go and read a bunch of books, didn't start a campaign, you know, didn't put it on my on my website and didn't have a website then.

I was just like, OK, fine, we'll we'll go on from there. So that's pretty much how I've handled it. But I recognize that very often your conclusions on this. And here's one thing that concerns me. Your conclusions on this subject, just like your apologetic, should flow out of your theology.

Very often for people, they grab on to something in one of these systems and then that determines your theology. Wrong direction. I would really think on this matter, especially that there should be a natural, seamless flow from your theology into your eschatology rather than eschatology backflowing and determining where you go theologically.

And there are some folks that this is their main thing. You know, I mean, it becomes focused upon this. And I'm sorry, there's a lot about eschatology in the New Testament. But on this subject of the specifics of order and things like that doesn't seem to be the primary focus of the New Testament writers.

Doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about it. You can charge me with being lazy or something because I don't read every book that comes down the pike on it. OK, that's fine. But one thing we have to be very, very, very careful of is making sure that the interpretive methodology that you use to present and defend the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the person, the Holy Spirit, the doctrine, the atonement, soteriology as a whole, ecclesiology, all the central aspects of gospel studies, your hermeneutics need to be the same.

It needs to, your exegesis should not change. And that's what prompted this particular program. That is, I read a brief article, which I will read for you here in a few minutes. And I went, eh? It just struck me as being an example of where the hermeneutic and exegesis just didn't seem consistent with what you would normally expect to find.

2 Timothy 3 and the Last Days

But let's look at a text of scripture first. I've asked Rich to have it ready here on the screen for you. And that is, this was about 2 Timothy chapter 3. So you can't assume that everyone just off the top of your head goes, oh, 2 Timothy chapter 3.

Let's take a look at it. Let's read through it and see what it has to say, all right? But realize this, that in the last days, so you've definitely got escates haemeris there, so the last days, difficult times will come.

And you could, you know, they're difficult, and tyroi can be times, seasons, things like that. But you definitely have an eschatology there. There's escates, so you've got, there's clearly the indicator that this is definitely relevant.

In the last days, and of course, everybody has to define what last days is. I would say we've been in them for a long time. But realize this, in the last days, difficult times will come. For men will be, there's an amazing word, belaltoi, lovers of self.

Man, if that doesn't describe Western civilization, I don't know what does. Lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers. Boy, I almost said something about Houston there, but I'll skip it.

Disobedient parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, which would actually isn't just, you'll notice it's not the term for agape or phileo or anything like that there. It's really lacking normal affection.

The affection would be normally a part of the created person in the image of God. Irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure, rather than lovers of God.

So if you look at lovers of pleasure, paladinoid, you know, you're familiar with hedonism. So lovers of pleasure, rather than phileo, lovers of God. Holding or having a form of godliness, although they have denied its power.

Avoid such men as these, for among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women, weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Just as Yanis and Yambres opposed Moses, and by the way, those are the traditional names that had been assigned to the Egyptian soothsayers, magicians, who opposed Moses in front of Pharaoh. Just as Yanis and Yambres opposed Moses, so these men also opposed the truth.

Men of depraved mind rejected in regard to the faith, but they will not make further progress. Their folly will be obvious to all, just as Yanis' and Yambres' folly was also. Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium, and at Lystra.

But persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me. Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

Now, I just stop here for a moment, because when we read through the article, we'll have reason to revisit this. You could, I suppose, go back here to verse 10 and go, okay, there's a full break here.

Now we're moving on to something else, and that would actually be helpful to the postmillennial interpretation, I think. But I don't think it's possible, because verse 12, Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

Is that just in Paul's day? I mean, obviously, what happened to him at Antioch, Iconium, Lystra were historical realities, part of Paul's life, right? That's a given. But then, from that specific statement that had a historical fulfillment in Paul's experience, you have this general statement, Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.

Now, it seems to me that that is what we would call a gnomic statement. It is a general statement of truth that is not limited to the days of Paul. It is a truth that is true as long as this age continues.

As long as this age continues, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Think about that. What does that mean? As far as the nature of the relationship of those who bow the knee to Christ and those who do not.

And in fact, the next phrase, which is one of the key, I'm sorry, which is one of the key verses, verse 13, But evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. I would suggest that just the normative reading of the flow of the text would say that just as verse 12 is a general statement that is true throughout the church age, that all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, in the same way, the fact that verse 13 begins, I would identify the day, Paneroid day, as a adversative, but it's functioning in a connective fashion to what's before.

So it's an adversative in the sense that, okay, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. There's the godly. But other than them, in distinction from them, evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

Now, you could ask the question, well, the Paneroid, especially when you have gaetas here, imposters, that can be sorcerers, enchanters, things like that. It doesn't really fit here. Is it possible to see the context here as being within the church, because Timothy's primary encounter with evil men would be within the context of the ecclesia, and so would it be imposters in the sense of the pseudodelphoi, the false brethren that Paul's already dealt with?

Possibility. But the point is that just as 12 is giving us a nomic general principle that is true for the church throughout his experience, there's no indication given here, and this is only in your time period.

It's going to get better. That's going to stop. Don't see anything like that. In fact, it seems that evil men and imposters will proceed from bad to worse. And if you look at the term here, it's in the future.

So it is talking about future events that Paul is warning about. And then in contrast to them, you, however, continue in the things you have learned to become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them.

Now we're going into really familiar territory. I don't know how many times we've covered this, but every time we've covered this, it's never been a question as to whether what is enunciated in this text remains relevant for the entirety of the church age.

I, I've probably debated this. I've debated this against St. Genes and Matitix and numerous Roman Catholic apologists and others. That's never even come up. Never even, never even had to deal with it because it seems so obvious.

I mean, yes, this is directed specifically to Timothy. You, however, continue the things you have learned to become convinced of, but notice what it says. Knowing from whom you have learned them from childhood, you have known the sacred writings, which are able to give you the wisdom and leads to salvation through faith, which is in Christ Jesus.

All scripture is Theanoustos. God breathed and profitable teaching for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. The man of God may be, and this is a new American standard. I really don't like translation here.

Adequate. It's perfected, equipped for every good work. So we get to the classicus locus, the primary text in regards to the normative role of scripture in the church. I, other than Peter's statement about men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

And Matthew 22, you know, when Jesus holds men accountable, have you not read what God spoke to you saying? Can't think of any, too many, any texts that are much more important than this. So in that text, boy, talk about, talk about getting a, uh, uh, knocked off your, your tracks.

I just happened to look down at Twitter. Um, and Douglas Wilson has just tweeted me now. Is that planned? I mean, seriously, enjoyed being on your show. Our ships passing as they say in the night. Quick question though, is Arminianism the gospel?

Is this a trick question? No, Doug, Arminianism is not the gospel. In fact, Arminianism is a sub-biblical gospel. And I'm very thankful that most Arminians are very inconsistent on it. What does that have to do with Rome?

What does that have to do with indulgences and everything else? I, I'm not, not sure there. Maybe he's trying to make the connection. I don't know. Maybe he's trying to say that if I'm consistent, I should say Arminians aren't saved.

Be happy to go there. Happy to go there, but don't get me off right now because that's a different subject. And we have some, some, uh, DORs watching today, just waiting, you know, DORs, Disciple of Rastuni.

And they're sitting there going, don't, don't respond to that. Even though we like Doug Wilson, don't respond to that. Stay on the, stay on, stay on, stay on target. Oh no, another movie reference. Okay.

Anyways, uh, thanks Douglas Wilson for completely want to talk about golf, Ken, want to talk to, no, let's not talk about golf. Let's not do that. I would, I really wouldn't get very far talking about golf at all.

Anyway, you, you, you, you look really strange when I'm talking to you from in here. You look sort of like, don't talk to me. Stop that. Am I making you nervous when I do that? If you can't talk back, is that the point?

You can, you can send me a text message, but I didn't bring my phone with me. So it really won't make any, uh, won't make any difference. Okay. Back to where we were. Thank you very much, Douglas Wilson for completely, uh, derailing us, uh, outside the line, 10 minute line.

What's that? We were outside the first 10 minutes and you got derailed. Normally it's earlier on. Yeah. Okay. All right. Back to the flow of the text. Yeah. Even red saying, get back to eschatology. The point is that second Timothy chapter three is flowing directly in this chapter.

And it is, has always been considered by everyone to enunciate a normative statement for every age of the church, all scriptures, they honest us as proper teaching throughout the church age for reproof throughout the church age for correction throughout the church age for training and righteousness throughout the, the only way that the man of God at any time in the church can be thoroughly equipped for every good work is because he possesses this.

They honest us scriptures, right? Well, if that's the case, then it would seem in light of the fact that verses 12 and 13 are likewise giving us gnomic general statements that are true for every generation and will be, um, until Christ returns and you have that final judgment, then it, it seems to me that there is reason for looking at this and going, it is God's intention.

And, and I would tie this, I tie this together with a number of other things. I would tie this together with, uh, with Jude's statement, uh, that we are to ep agonize a mind. We are to, uh, agonize for the gospel.

I see no biblical basis for saying that there's ever going to be a Christian generation that's not going to have to do that. Uh, I don't see that ever being the case. And why would, why would you have to ep agonize a mind for the gospel unless there remains active, powerful opposition to the gospel throughout?

And I think there always will be. Now you may be a post millennialist goes, yes, there always will be. Um, you know, there's different extremes as to how prevalent the kingdom becomes, but there's another issue here and that is some of the stuff I read.

And again, I'm just being very general here, but, but some of the stuff I read concerns me because I experienced, um, the kingdom of God, uh, last week I experienced the kingdom of God. I, I sat in, um, in pastor Dennis's home in Durban, South Africa, um, on the other side of the planet and rejoiced in the fact that we were one in the spirit of God.

We confess the same gospel. We confessed the same truth and that's, that's the kingdom. It has, Christ has built his church and Christ is reigning all across this world. It, it, it's, I'm a little concerned sometimes that we, that we might lose the recognition that we need to look at the kingdom in the way that would have made sense.

For example, in the first century church, think about this small persecuted minority of people reading the book of revelation, which announces this eventual complete domination by the Lord of that small little group that every, as, as the Carmen Christie's while the first hymns, the Christian church, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess.

Wow, that's awesome. But what does that look like? If you looked today outwardly at what's going on in South Africa, little pockets of true believers, lots of false teaching. And from the external perspective, yeah.

And yet Christ is active there. He has built his kingdom. He there, he is ruling and reigning in the lives of his people in that place. And I'm a little concerned that sometimes the idea is the app that ain't enough, that ain't enough.

And we need to have, I think, biblical eyes. So anyways, there's my comments on second to me three. Now let's make application and read the article. This is from post-millennialism today. I should have put the article up, but here's what happened.

I yeah, it's postmillennialismtoday .com. That at least was put into Evernote, but I saved it in Evernote and I didn't see any way of getting a URL out of it other than that. So you should be able to find it.

It's Kenneth, Kenneth L. Gentry juniors stuff, post-millennialism and perilous times question mark. And as I said, it was posted on Facebook by a member of my own church. And that's why I read it. And I went, yeah, let's stir everybody up and talk about it.

Cause I think it's, it's, it's important enough. Here's what it says. The second to three one, we find a passage. It seems to undercut the post-millennialism optimism for the historical long run there.

Paul writes, realize this in the last days, difficult times will come. Kim Riddlebarger sees this passage as a problem for those who hold the prospect of a victorious church. Throughout the last days, some will distort the gospel to tickle itching ears and gather themselves and gather followers to themselves.

He continues in response to post-millennialism. Paul warned us that this lamentable state of affairs is an inevitability for Christ church end quote. I did not take the time to look those up. I'm assuming that they're accurate quotations.

And I would agree. I do believe that that will be the state of the church. And I think it is a part of God's purpose for the church. In fact, I would say that when the church has adopted the idea that it has conquered the culture is when the church is in the greatest danger.

Look at Europe, look at what happens when you think you can pass Christianity on genetically. Remember, where's some of the wildest, craziest secular liberalism taking place today? In former reformed lands.

Warning, warning right there. Dispensationalists agree. Wayne House and Thomas Ice argue that the Bible speaks of things progressing from bad to worse of men deceiving and being deceived, 2 Timothy 3 13.

We look out at our world and see how bad things really are. John concurs with the progress of the present age in spite of the dissemination of the truth and the availability of scripture. The world undoubtedly will continue to follow the simple description which the apostle Paul gave here.

Wiersbe agrees passages like 1 Timothy 4 and 2 Timothy 3 paint a dark picture of the last days. Such interpretations as passage, however, and here's Dr. Gentry, are exegetically flawed and anti-contextual.

Strong words, strong words. Nothing taught in these verses is contra post-millennial. Note the following observations. I go, eh, because one of the tendencies of people in every eschatological camp, but I will say more so amongst the posties and the dispies, is utilization of language like nothing, everything, you know, just total statements of we've got it all, you've got nothing.

I really think when it comes to this especially given that I don't think any of us have a nice easy answer for everything when it comes to exact order of stuff. Best to phrase things differently. Phrase things differently.

First, Paul's original focus. He is dealing with a particular historical matter in the first century. He is speaking of things that Timothy will be facing and enduring. He is not prophesying about the constant long-term unyielding prospects for all of history.

Likewise, when Paul writes to the church at Corinth complaining that it is actually reported that there is immorality among you, 1 Corinthians 5 .1, we should not lift it from its context as a universal principle applying to all churches.

He is writing specifically to them. Now, I'll stop right there for the moment. I don't think that's a meaningful parallel at all, and that's one of the things that caught my attention, is there was specific historical application to Timothy because Timothy is a leader in the church.

But what was the foundation of that? Is there ever going to be a time when men will not be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers? If we are going to limit this to the first century, then why not limit every sin list to the first century?

What's more, 1 Corinthians 5 .1 is talking about a specific, identifiable church discipline issue in Corinth. I mean, Paul didn't do this. He could have, but he could have given us a name. There was a specific person, specific incident, and that had historical fulfillment.

No question about it. But so much of what we've seen in Sanctimony 3, that's not what you've got. You have instead general descriptions of the nature of godlessness of those who will try to get into the church, false teachers, those who enter into households and captivate weak women.

That doesn't happen anymore today. Of course it happens today. It's happened in every generation. It might happen more in one generation than in another generation, or more in one place than in another place.

But these are, every minister of the gospel is going to look at this and go, wow, oh, he knew about Mrs. Snicklefinger, who's always coming to me with some new heresy that she's cooked up that week. Everyone knows that this is the case, and every generation of ministers has been able to grab hold of the promise that, yeah, there are men of depraved mind, reject and regard the faith.

I mean, sometimes I sit down with people and they study the Bible and they study the faith and do all sorts of stuff like that, and yet rejected in regard to the faith. They're men of depraved mind. You can explain it to them with clarity, like, I don't know what, you can be patient, but it's just like their hard drive is bad sector, man.

Just, you can't write that, it's bad sector. Write truth to this sector. Nope, can't do it. That's just the way they are. And was that only true in Timothy's day? No, of course not. I've experienced it, and I've certainly read of many church leaders down through history that likewise have done that, and so it seems to me to be very much a different situation, and the parallel First Corinthians 5 .1 doesn't fit at all, doesn't fit at all.

It's not a matter of prophesying about the constant long-term unyielding prospects for all of history. It is giving guidance to the church that will be valid in every generation of the church. Are we actually going to suggest that Second Timothy 3 is not to be seen as valid guidance for the church in every generation, including verses 16 and 17?

That's what caught my attention with this, and I went, that's not the kind of exegesis that I would expect on any other subject. So, point number one, Paul's original focus. Point number two, second, Paul's actual point.

The text does not demand unrelentingly bad times lie before the church in all of history, and though difficult times, Kairoi, will come during the last days, the period between the 1st and 2nd Advents, see chapter 13, which means this was cut and paste from something.

This does not demand a pessimistic position. The Greek term Paul employs here is Kairoi, which means, which indicates seasons. It is the logical error of quantification to read this reference to some seasons of difficulty as if said all, as if it said all seasons will be difficult.

The difficult times are qualitatively complexioned and specifically appointed seasons. That's the quote. Post-millennialists are well aware of the seasons of perilous times that beset the church under the Roman Empire and at other times.

If I'm understanding this, and since I didn't have chapter 13, maybe I'm not, but if I'm understanding this, the idea is that what's being described in verse 13, specifically, but evil men, imposters, no, verse 1, I guess we'll make a differentiation there, difficult times will come, is referring to specific seasons primarily, evidently, under the Roman Empire and at other times.

I don't know what those other times are. Does it follow that when you're not in a difficult season that the rest of what it says becomes irrelevant to the minister in the church? So is it only during difficult seasons?

Because there's no way you can escape the fact that it's Gar. So the Gar is connecting verse 2 to verse 1. So the reason that there will be difficult times is because men will be lovers of self. So I'd like to know when during the history of the church have men not been lovers of self?

When have men not been lovers of money? Or are we saying that this is only within the church? Now, of course, brutal, without self-control, what would what would the man of God have to do with people like that if this was only in the church?

Discipline them, put them out. Seems obvious to me that this is a general description of a sinful society in which the church exists and therefore is influenced by what's going on in that context, just as we see it today.

I mean, one of the biggest problems today is when the church does not trust the gospel and the spirit to bring people in and change them radically, but tries to woo them in without changing them and challenging their very man-centered perspectives, which is what all of this is all about.

So are there only seasons where there are those who enter into households, captivate weak women, that only happens once a while, primarily under the Roman Empire? Are there going to be people only at certain times that are always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth, and at other times everyone's able to do that?

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And again, I really see verses 12 and 13 as standing against this. All who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Is that only during certain seasons, or is that not the case as long as we're in this age before the age to come?

I would say in the age to come that will no longer be true, but in this age and at every point of this age, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. And if 12 is true all the way through, then it would seem to me that the church will always be dealing with evil men and imposters, deceiving and being deceived.

And we're dealing with that all over the place right now, are we not? In fact, I think you could argue in some ways that we're dealing with more of it now than we've ever dealt with before because of the availability of communication.

I mean, false teachers have found television, radio, and the internet to be the greatest boon to their business ever. That doesn't seem to have diminished, it seems to have increased. Now, you do not judge eschatological perspectives on the basis of your current knowledge of world affairs.

So, when things are really bad, post-millennialism seems to wane some, and of course the pre-millennials are all, whoo-hoo, rapture coming real soon, and let's find out what 666 means, or is it 616?

You know there's one manuscript that says 665? I'm sort of hoping that's it because then everyone's guess will have just been blown right out the door. It's a neighborhood, you know? Oh, it is. It's very clearly.

It's apartment complexes. Well, that would be 616A. Right, right. Or second floor or something. Something like that. But the postman knows. It's got the beast. It's right there. He knows which door to go to.

You know, it's the fire coming out and stuff like that. But anyway, thank you for Doug Wilson saying anything more to me. No, Doug Wilson hasn't said anything more to me. So, I really struggle with this idea that this is just seasons.

That does not flow from the reading of the text to me. Third, Paul's misunderstood nature. We're almost done. There's only four points. Paul's misunderstood nature. This passage does not teach historical decline accelerating in history.

Citing 2 Timothy 3 .13 in the debate leaves the unwarranted impression that things shall irrevocably become worse and worse in history. But the verse actually says evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.

Paul is speaking of specific evil men becoming ethically worse, not more and more evil men becoming increasingly dominant. He is speaking of their progressive personal generation, that is, the progressive anti sanctification of evil men.

Paul says absolutely nothing about a predestined increase in the number and power of such evil men. Okay, so if, again, I'm just trying to follow what it's saying. If the understanding of 2 Timothy 3 .13 is that certain evil men in the first century and certain impostors in the first century proceeded from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived, but they're now gone, then you no longer have a contrast to Timothy.

You no longer have a contrast for any of the rest of us that we are supposed to contrast ourselves to the evil men around us. And the real problem is, does that also then mean that in verse 12, that that was only true in the first century?

That all who in the first century desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, but that won't be the case in the second century. Well, it was the case. Well, it wasn't the third. Okay, it still is all the way to today, right?

I mean, all over the world, every generation has. It's because of the clash of those who've bowed the knee in lordship to Christ and those who've not. That'll always be true. The first 12 is always true.

What's the what's the the contextual clue that don't worry about verse 13, that's already fulfilled. That's not a natural exegesis. That's not a natural exegesis to me. Fourth, Paul's post-millennial balance.

He balances his teaching with a note of optimism. As a good post-millennialist, Paul clearly informs Timothy, these evil men will not make further progress. Their folly will be obvious to all. Since God places limits on those evildoers, Paul speaks as a man who expects victory.