In Second Timothy chapter three it says perilous times will come and men will wax worse and worse. How would a Postmill respond to this scripture or the idea of a Great Apostasy?

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

I'm still studying Postmil, so i don't know it very deeply, but verse 9 tells us that these people won't get very far...

But they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all...

As far as the difficult times and the great apostasy, it's my understanding that classical Postmil agrees that there will be a great apostasy and tribulation that the Church will have to endure before the coming of Christ. However, some new strains of Postmil teach that it happened already.

__________________
Larry Bray
Training for Elder - Reformed Presbyterian Church of Boothwyn, PCA
Boothwyn, PA - http://www.rpcb.org/

Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net

-----------------------------------------------------
"The best Christian is still a poor Christian" - R.B. Kuiper

As I understand postmillenialism, it includes the idea that the period of Christianization will end with one last great apostasy.

Even though I am not very familiar with the eschatology debate I know that this is a very basic question (one which will obviously not be new to a Postmillenalist) and you should be able to find some info by looking through old threads in this forum.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

This may explain the old adage about Baptists being Methodists with shoes, and Presbyterians being Baptists who can read. To round out the adage, Lutherans might qualify as Presbyterians who drink to excess, and Episcopalians as Lutherans who know when to say when. - D.G. Hart

Is this quantitative or qualitative? Is it wrt men collectively or individual men?

Further, most (all) postmils believe in a falling away just prior to the 2nd Coming. I do not believe the passage is inconsistent with a generally optimistic view of the development of Christendom.

__________________
Tom Albrecht
Member, Covenant URCNA, New Holland, PA.

"I'm not a famous man. I'm just a simple country doctor with horse sense."

I am not postmil but I would refer you to Tom's comment. Other passages speak of a the kingdom leavening the earth, which would appear quite positive.

Secondly, does this mean that things will get worse all at once or gradually increasing over time? If the former, then it is part and parcel postmil teaching. If the latter, well, history disagrees.

Wow, I almost convinced myself of postmillennialism!

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

Many Postmills, including myself, apply this passage to the Jewish nation prior to it's destruction.

In fact, the entire chapter seems to have been written to encourage Timothy to remain steadfast in spite of persecution. Events of 2008 and beyond were hardly Timothy's concern.

__________________
Scott Kessler
Covenant Community OPC
Staunton, VA
Covenant Theology
Christian Skepticism
Christianity In History

Hello Aaron,

It's cool that you have a staunch postmil as your profile pic (Jonathan Edwards).

The catechism teaches us that the Lord's Prayer will be answered:

"Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?
Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends."

In other words, the Catechism and other standards are "latter day glory postmil", as was Jonathan Edwards.

That said, the historic view of 1 Tim 3 would be that a great apostasy would take place right before the second coming. As pointed out above, the folly will be known by all, meaning that it would be only a small portion of the total world populace who would fight against Christ. This is also countenanced by Isaiah 19 (esp v.18, where one sixth of the Gentiles, as represented by "Egypt" and "Syria", is said to be wicked).

Modern Postmils, myself included, deem this to be speaking of 70 A.D. and the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish people. So likewise do we take Matthew 24, John Baptist's declarations of the "wrath to come" and the "enquenchable fire" etc. They appear to be affirming the prophets' teaching of the destruction of the Temple, the call of the Gentiles, and the future recall of the Jews (as per Romans 11, and our Catechism).

Cheers,

__________________
Adam Brink, Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA, Pleasanton, California
"Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" Romans 8:33

That is an outstanding hermeneutical approach to cutting out just about every passage in Scripture as having any relevance/applicatory value to the church today. Not to mention the assumption that is being made that Paul was only intending to address Timothy's immediate circumstances, and not give an apostolic description of that which the church would run up against throughout its duration preceding the second advent of Christ.

It is also a classic case (along with Aaron's following post) of having to provide an unnatural reading of a passage(s) to conform to one's eschatalogical presupposition.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Back to looking for a call...
Evergreen PCA
Salem, Oregon

I guess you're not a fan of Kenneth Gentry . This is a common charge, but with all due respect, my approach does not cut "out just about every passage in Scripture as having any relevance/applicatory value to the church today". My "approach" respects the historical context and original audience. Understanding this has great value for the church today.

In contrast, the idea that Paul was addressing modern apostasy is the only "assumption" here, not to mention the resulting vague interpretation (every Christian has thought they were living in the last days.) It is your approach that makes the passage irrelevant to Timothy, and to every other Christian for the past 1,900 years.

I also hold that my view can consistently define the phrase "last days", whereas your approach causes great confusion regarding what the last days actually are.

The apostle says to Timothy in verse 5, "from such turn away." It is clear therefore that Timothy was living in these perilous times which are designated "last days." There is no need to speculate a 70AD Jewish reference or create an end times apostasy.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Correct, but what was the apostasy that created the perilous times for the saints in Timothy's days?

New Covenant Judaism and Caesar worship.

There are certainly applications that can be made to any type of past, present, or future apostasy, but the passage is hardly a problem for postmillennialists.

Rev. Myer,

With all due respect, Sir, I do not agree that interpreting a passage in its original context ever reduces the relevance of that passage to anyone.

In fact, it may be scarcely contradicted that this approach may be characterized as the Reformed or Calvinistic method of interpreting the Scriptures, and results in the maximum relevance of Scripture (see Calvin's commentaries for historical examples, as well as the notes in the Geneva Bible). Knowing what God said to Timothy in Ephesus, why He said it, and the original intention helps us to know how these things are to be applied in all areas of our lives.

Also, Sir, you said the following:

"It is also a classic case (along with Aaron's following post) of having to provide an unnatural reading of a passage(s) to conform to one's eschatalogical presupposition."

While it is entirely possible that I am engaged in the task of eisegesis, may I ask you to provide alternate interpretations for the passages alluded to? It may also be safely stated that the view stated in the Westminster Larger Catechism is (in my estimation) not eisegesis, and yet represents a distinctly optimistic eschatology, and therefore, I am a little more confident that my reading of the texts I mentioned is not too far amiss, despite my own peculiarities and/or misreadings.

Rev. Winzer, I do not think that AD 70 is a matter of speculation. As far as I can tell, it is clearly alluded to in the law, the prophets, the gospels, the epistles, and in the Apocalypse. It seems rather a great deal of speculation would be involved to deny the threatened destruction of the temple, and the fact that all of the righteous blood from Abel to Zechariah would come on the generation that crucified the Righteous One, Whom, having crucified, they filled up the iniquity of their fathers. Speculation would be involved in trying to make 70 AD of little import in the writings of the Apostles.

Godspeed,

I am not partial preterist, but I do freely grant that when the apostle (Christ speaking) says this generation, he does not nuance it to mean "not this generation

One is hard pressed to find even one event of AD 70 for which there is a prophetic statement in the prophets, the gospels, the epistles, or in the Apocalypse. The temple was destroyed when they crucified the Lord of glory.

Calvin certainly is not alone among Reformed commentators who see at least some portion of Matthew 24, etc predictive of the physical destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.

It's putting words in my mouth to say that I am asking one to disregard historical context and original audience. That is a given starting point. However, what you are doing is unnecessarily reading assumptions about the destruction of the temple into your historical context, as well as unnecessarily limiting the audience to Timothy alone. You divorce the Divine Author and the audience of the Church from the human author and what you assume to be his only intended audience of Timothy.

As well, if your interpretation of things is as clear as you think it to be, what would you say we are now living in, the "post-last days"? It is fairly incontestable (apart from a strained preterist argument) that throughout the NT the phrase "last days" refers to the time between the advents, and not merely the period between Christ's ascension and AD 70. It is not a "vague interpretation" then to say that, indeed, every Christian from that time has been living in the last days. I've never really found that a difficult concept to grasp.

I guess that the classic amil position then, is the one that causes "great confusion" regarding the meaning of the phrase "last days".

Oh well.

Okay, fellas, I've taken more than my fair share of exegesis/hermeneutics 101 courses, and have no where asserted something as silly as has been claimed by either of you. Again, you will not find anything in my first post that states or implies that one should throw original context to the wind. What I am contesting against is a false and truncated hermeneutic that would seek to limit a passage's interpretation and/or application strictly to the immediate historical context and/or original audience. To be frank, if you take that approach, you will find yourselves doing nothing other than a premillenial dispy (I've sat under them, and that is exactly what they advocate), although through inconsistencies in application of that practice you may come up with differing results.

No need for the historical lecture either; I've read Calvin's Institutes (several times), his commentaries, etc. etc., as well as the confession and catechisms. It might do you well to go back and read his commentaries on the minor prophets (or his sermons on, say, the prophet Micah) to see that he himself does not limit the context or the audience to the immediate and the historical, although he would incorporate them into his understanding, as would I.

Also, it is debatable/historically dubious to assert that one can claim that the Westminster Standards support a modern postmil interpretation. Most, if not all, the statements in that prayer fall in line with an amil understanding, but even more importantly (before you cite it as proof) is the understanding that it is setting forth a model of good things for which we are to pray. No one would contest that these are good petitions, what is contestable is whether or not their encouragement to pray for, what you assume, are certainly postmil petitions necessarily means that the bible's own eschatology is postmil. Prayer for good things does not always mean that we will be receiving them!

But Jacob, you know full well that the meaning of 'genea' is the very issue at stake! Naughty, naughty. It is not necessary to say that a meaning for "generation" that implies something greater or larger than a mere 20-some year period of time, is in fact saying "not this generation". Covenant lines are distinguished as generations (elect vs. reprobate), as well as the broader understanding of the generation of those living in the last days.

Edited to add: the "last days" according to the standard interpretation, not the odd preterist view mentioned above; so this means all of those living between the advents.

There are also many Reformed commentators who assume the historicist understanding of the Apocalypse, but the event-driven methodology in either case is not specifically "Reformed," and so it has no compelling basis for imposing it on the reformed system.

Many postmill writers take the apostasy warnings to be warning of falling away in the 1st century persecution. The last days being the last days of the Old Covenant age/ not the last days in our day.
If you read the verses dealing with apostasy as being fulfilled in large part by 70 ad, alot of the steam comes out of those who hold to a large apostasy in our day. What verses are left to say it speaks of our days, if MT 24, AND LK 21 HAVE ALREADY BEEN FULFILLED?