PMT-2015-020 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
The end is near. The end of this series, that is. But the end is not yet. This is the second to last article in my reply to Dr. James White’s critique of my understanding of 2 Tim 3. I have dealt with his webcast critique in two series of articles, the current one being the longest. But it will soon be time to move on to other things. Only this and one more article remains.
White is an amillennialist. And as an amill he expects history to descend into chaos as time moves on toward the second coming of Christ. As an adherent to a pessimistic eschatology, he sees 2 Tim 3 as a key biblical problem for postmillennialism. My March 2014 study of 2 Tim 3 caught his attention, leading him to devote a webcast to rebutting my argument on this passage.
In my earlier article, I explained that Paul’s statements in 2 Tim 3 were not prophesying the future flow of history, but were commenting on what Timothy was to experience in his own day. I argued that 2 Timothy was an “occasional epistle,” dealing with first-century issues. Continue reading