If you are reflecting on what a loss his departure is, and it is indeed a loss, I encourage you to gain a better understanding of the problems with Lordship Salvation. Furthermore, I suggest that a shift in thinking is necessary to avoid assuming that the solution to the worldliness of the church is to make getting saved harder (see other blog post Free Grace Theology and the Requirement of Holiness). Ernest Pickering, a leader among fundamental Baptists, authored a short and to-the-point criticism of MacArthur when the book came out. I suggest it is a safe place to start. The article is available at Lordship Salvation: An Examination of John MacArthur's Book, The Gospel According to Jesus. I can guide you to classic writings that would avoid the excesses of some groups (such as the Grace Evangelical Society) while still maintaining a better perspective on this. Two other good online sources to start are True Grace Books and Grace Global Radio. Finally, Charles Ryrie's classic So Great Salvation: What It Means to Believe in Jesus Christ is worthy of consideration. I believe there is a need to renew a discussion and debate about the real issues that matter on this subject.

I trust that his overstatement of the terms of how one can get saved was only misleading at best. But there is a real sense that this view could come dangerously close to a denial of sola fide, and that would be going in the direction of heresy at worst.

• I am glad that he continued to keep dispensational premillennialism and the pre-tribulation rapture in the discourse of evangelicalism to some degree.

• I am glad for his work for young-earth creationism.

• I am glad for his stance in defense of the church's need to gather during COVID.

However, in my book, John MacArthur's legacy is tainted by 1988 and all that flowed from that book in his subsequent preaching and theology. God will be the ultimate judge, and I trust that classic free-grace Christians will be reunited with him in heaven by their mutual reliance on Christ alone and no works of discipleship for salvation.

“America’s Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers and the Future of the United States” was written by Cal Thomas, and released in January. In the book, Thomas goes through several historic world empires using a model of empire history that sees world empires as having 250 years of greatness before they fall from a position of great influence. Each empire (Persia, Rome, Byzantium, Arab, Spain, Ottoman, Britain, Russia, and finally the USA) is taken through seven stages – pioneers, conquests, commerce, affluence, intellect, decadence, and decline. He hauntingly asks us at the beginning, “How would your life change if you knew the exact date of the end of the world, and that date was only a few years away?” Based on this model (it‘s only a model, and not a prediction), America has until July 4, 2026 until it has fully declined from “greatness.” Even with the Trump MAGA phenomenon (not an endorsement; I am not an enthusiastic Trump supporter like some of my Christian brothers), the events of this year seem to lend support that the direction is down and recovery may be impossible. The latest flareup around police brutality seems to be particularly bad, and in a direction toward anarchy.

“The Gathering Storm: Secularism, Culture, and the Church” was released by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. just this month. This book is truly about a loss of religious liberty which will lead to a loss of freedom in general and comes from a denial of God. It deals with the development of secularism, the mindset of a rejection of God practically and often actually, along with how it has impacted various aspects of American society with appropriate engagement of developments from Europe. Sadly, Christians have not been able to successfully stop the trend since the Enlightenment of the 19^th century. Mohler addresses the denial of God’s design in the value of life, marriage, family, and gender/sexuality. These four areas are the foundation upon which the main threat the book builds toward -- the threat of secularism for religious liberty. He also sketches the outcomes of the underlying secularization in two areas: (1) the lost and wandering generation (my generation) and (2) the secularizing influence of the cultural engines of Hollywood, big business, Silicon Valley, and academia. His conclusion is that we are here because God was denied as a fruit of the Enlightenment and modernity. The outcome must be a denial of religious liberty, and therefore the only solution is to reaffirm God’s existence, truth’s existence, and the idea of liberty as a corollary of proper value of human life.  

At the end of their books, both Thomas and Mohler in general terms call us Christians to be faithful to our faith, even in the face of these troubles. Thomas outlines several suggestions for us, but it all boils down to being faithful to live like a Christian even as society may fall around us. He upholds the hope of 2 Chr. 7:14 as a general principle for the possibility of turning things around, though I would caution such an application of that verse though the principle still is valid. Mohler ends his book using the triad of faith, hope, and love—calling Christians to hold firm to the doctrines we profess, to have hope in God and in His ability to still work through the gathering storm, and to love people--people who may hold beliefs that are indeed harmful to themselves and persecute us for holding the very beliefs that are for their benefit and salvation from a society that cannot sustain them. I need to still deepen and strengthen my faith in view of the myriad of challenges we face.

I recommend both of these books to you--believers and even unbelievers.

If you are a non-believer, you will gain insight into history through Cal Thomas’s book and into Christians perspective about the trends that are popular in America while contrary to Christian faith.

If you are a believer, read these books to gain more insight into what we are seeing, and gain some motivation to face the course we are called to with joy and faithfulness. We must focus on revelation as the answer to the revolution posed by secularism. Deepen your faith, as I am am trying to do. Keep on serving God and building your families as you are able, and look to the soon and imminent return of Jesus Christ. 

Chapter 13: Dispensationalism Advances Sola Gratia by Grant Hawley. He rightly traces the general direction of how reformation theology had a mix of both a recovery of grace and marring of grace. His insight that the Reformation was more about the Pelagian versus Augustinian distinction of effort and effort as opposed to the Biblical distinction of grace and law is correct. I have had similar thoughts over the years of my contemplation of Calvinist controversies. However, Hawley does leave room for more work to be done on this. 

Chapter 14: Sola Fide in Every Dispensation by Glenn R. Krieder. The author gives an extended discussion of sola fide especially as it concerns early dispensationalists. Of particular interest to me was a discussion of Lewis Sperry Chafer's eccentric view of the offer of the Mosaic covenant, a view that holds that God wanted them to reject it and call out for grace instead (see Chafer’s work Grace for details on this in Chapter 4, Section Two, Sub-section II, I use a Kindle edition but it can be found easily in various formats online).. However, the explanation Chafer seems to give, according to Kreider, to the matter seems to place him in a strange way in the very (Augustinian) Reformed position that Hawley previously claimed to be an area in which dispensationalists developed further. Perhaps the solution to this is to still give Chafer some degree of charity, since elsewhere he squarely distinguishes the law versus works as the essential characteristic of this dispensation. If it may be so that he permits a grace versus efforts distinction in the earlier dispensations, then perhaps one can allow that. It would seem that this very issue of effort versus grace or law versus grace is a decent theological argument against Chafer's novel understanding of the Mosaic Covenant. It is better to take the posture of later folks along the lines that the law was a rule of life of works under the superstructure of an overall salvation by grace through faith.

Chapter 15: Solus Christus by Paul J. Scharf. This essay had good historical data about Catholics and Mary, which I found interesting. The author also gives some careful and promising explanation at the beginning of the disepensational section of the essay on how dispensationalists should not differ further from the reformed position on Christology but that they can go somewhat further and give some new emphasis, especially the known dispensational emphasis on the truth that believers are in Christ. It was an interesting discussion.

Chapter 16: Soli Deo Gloria as Pinnace of Dispensationalism’s Sine Qua Non by Christopher Cone. In this essay, there were some challenging thoughts from Dr. Cone about the various dispensationalists who don't quite take Ryrie's approach that the glory of God is the end of human history. I am left however wondering if he hasn't made the case as strongly as he claims that many dispensationalists weren’t like Ryrie on this issue. I just question if he is reading the figures accurately, but I may be mistaken and I will save final judgment on that for another day. There is a key description of all the ways God's glory is manifested that would be useful material for anyone studying the topic (pp500-501). He also gave an interesting comparison of grace and glory (pg509). In discussing the Reformers, he speaks well of Calvin as opposed to other Reformers. The key insight that he reaches is that there seems to be the distinction between intermediate ends, typically pertaining to man and/or creation, and the final ends, pertaining especially toward God and His own glorifying of Himself. Perhaps there is some explanatory value in those thoughts concerning how we live our lives day to day but not consciously thinking about God’s glory in every single thing we are or do. In fact, this line of thinking also shows up in the next essay.

Chapter 17: Soli Deo Gloria Revealed Throughout Biblical History by Luther Smith. The author ultimately agrees wih the preceding essay, but this author does note a different aspect of the glory of God through vocation. Interestingly, contrary to Cone, he painted C. I. Scofield favorably. This also would support my questioning if Cone is a little too hard on how he interprets older dispensationalists. In this essay, I also have more to consider as the interpretations of Dr. Smith about the glory of God in the seven dispensations didn‘t always seem natural. He also had an interesting description of the failure at the end of the church age.

Chapter 18: Semper Reformanda: Always Reforming by Christopher Cone. The book concludes with a short essay by Christopher Cone on the topic of Semper Reformanda: Always Reforming. This essay well concluded the book by reminding the reading of the place we have in the Reformataion lineage—that to be always reforming our views to be in more consistency with the truth. He links agility with the willingness to be always reforming, and cites both Martin Luther and the Biblical king of Judah named Josiah as examples of how to be always reforming. At the end of such a book of theological reasoning, this chapter provided an edifying conclusion to the book.

This book is an excellent historical theological discussion of the relationship of modern dispensational theology to the Reformation, and any theology student who loves the Reformation but is skeptical about dispensationalism has got to read this book. No critic of dispensationalism should ignore it. It is a great book! May we continuously reform our views to be more in accord with Scripture, and dispensationalism is a great way to start.

After a long hiatus, I am offering up the next to final part of my series from last year on Sunday and how we are to view it as Christians. I encourage you to review the previous posts to get back into the swing of what I've been writing here. I am continuing to list several problems I see with the traditionalist position on the Lord's Day.

Fourth, there is a definite reference to the “Lord’s Day” in Rev. 1:10. Dr. Beale helpfully notes that there is a unique adjective for “Lord’s” used here that is not used much elsewhere. It is not correct to take that as a reference to the prophetical Day of the Lord. The very early 2nd century testimony of the post-apostolic church seems to support that Sunday came to be known as the “Lord’s Day” and that the church was gathering that day. Some of these references may be within a generation of when the Revelation was written, and that makes it possible that the two phrases have the same reference. Still, this later evidence seems to me to be insufficient justification to reach such a conclusion. Even if John meant to say "I was in the Spirit on [Sunday]," it falls short of requiring any kind of particular practice or significance for Sunday. We can justify our worship on Sunday as our honoring of the day Jesus rose from the dead, but that is not the same as observing a weekly Lord’s Day as an institution.

Fifth, with regard to Dr. Chafer’s argument from Psalm 118:19, his connection is interesting but troublesome. First, the description there I always thought had connection to what happened on Palm Sunday, though it could be better linked to the day of His resurrection. Second, if this idea is applicable to the church, it makes more sense to rejoice in the Day of the Lord's resurrection rather than rejoice on a day that is devoted to commemorate the day of the Lord's Resurrection. We can choose to commemorate this day of resurrection on the same day of the week as He actually did rise from the dead, but this is not the same as regarding every Sunday as a day mandated as commemoration.

Sixth, there is the still more curious line of reasoning from Dr. Chafer, who typically (and sometimes, even oftentimes, rightly) calls for a distinction between law and grace. He seems to argue that there is a theological justification for the Lord's Day to serve as an anti-type of sorts to the Sabbath. He upholds his (albeit valid) distinction between law and grace with the Sabbath Vs. Lord's Day as a center piece Yet, he seems to me to contradict himself just a bit as he tries to forbid worldly pleasures and to call for a special day of spiritual activity. On the one hand, he tries to say the Lord's Day is not subject to rules since it is of the dispensation of grace. Yet, he still suggests rest is not something fitting for the Lord's Day or entertainment. It just doesn't make sense to me. He wants it all to be driven by God's Spirit at work, rather than rules, and that is good. But in essence, he seems to make rules that are a part of the "law of Christ" effectively. I have no objection with there being rules in a law of Christ, and I agree that we ought to focus on the grace of God empowering us rather than legal rules. But, Chafer still seems to just tangle a bit of a web that is overstated—and sometimes he does do that. I love his writing, but at times you do have to just move on.

I encourage you to read my previous posts (see above) since it has been a while. I hope in the coming month or so to wrap up this series with some concluding comments on why I do not accept the position that Sunday is a divinely ordained day for Christian purposes.

Up to this point, I have offered a historical summary of Sunday among Christians and given a summary of the traditionalist position. The summary of the traditionalist position showed the lines of evidence they use to defend that Sunday is a specific day for Christian worship by divine intention.

While these lines of evidence are interesting, there remain difficulties associated with understanding what precisely has happened in church history with regard to the emergence of Lord’s Day gathering. In fact, the major problem is determining whether this is some kind of divinely intended practice or a legitimate practice that the church developed in accordance with the doctrinal principles the apostles taught. Put differently, do we worship on Sunday in valid application of valid doctrinal principles or because of a divinely required practice. I remain unconvinced that the institution is more than a valid application. Allow me to explain some of my reasons to remain unconvinced that the weekly practice of Sunday worship is specifically implied in Holy Scripture.

First, why is there no explicit command in the New Testament for the church to gather on Sunday? Admittedly, one must be careful with this. My tendency is to miss obvious connections in the Scriptures of this sort. But, I don't think I'm too far off-base on this. The lack of explicit instruction is important.

Second, with reference to historical events (e.g. the Day of Pentecost) and narrative accounts of the early church doing things on Sunday (e.g. Acts 20:7), one cannot ignore the challenges faced in using such narratives to determine normative truth. These narratives, like all narratives, must be carefully applied because they do not provide an explicit basis for following a certain practice. The larger issue of Acts and the transitional nature of its period make the problem even more difficult. I can't help but wonder if a case can be made that the daily aspects of church gatherings are normal in the book of Acts and elsewhere. If so, then these descriptions of "Sunday" activities may be understood in light of the frequent meetings of the church and not the traditionalist conception of the Lord's Day. One wonders if the traditionalist position reinforces the faulty idea of “I’ve done my duty for God and for the church by coming on Sunday.” In reality, we should be active daily, or at least as much as possible.

Third, one of the items in the various discussions I read this time is a command for something to be done on Sunday—the gathering of donations (1Cor. 16:2). It is often taken as something to be done at the church weekly gathering, but I wonder if the verbiage of v2 requires that. Could it be that this is merely saying people should every Sunday put the stuff aside and then bring it all in to Paul when he comes? This is an area of further study for me. A second point would be the applicability of this command as normative for the church. This command in 1 Cor. is especially tied to the need for donations for the poor Jerusalem church. It seems that one could question whether it is a valid application to require donations every Sunday, let alone require that they happen at church gatherings. A final point would be that this passage does not really speak to ideas of the Lord's Day as a "day for service and rejoicing." (as Chafer described the Lord’s Day). To use this verse to make that kind of a point seems to read into it more than is warranted. In conclusion, 1 Cor. 16:2 does not give sufficient evidence to suggest that we are to gather ever Sunday on the basis of Paul's specific command that people gather donations for Jerusalem.

Next time, I will offer three additional thoughts why I remain uneasy with the conclusion that the Lord's Day is a required and divinely commanded or intended institution.

At this juncture in this study of Sunday, I will now define and discuss the traditionalist position of the Lord's Day--this term originating from Dr. Beale. The traditonalist position seems to be the view that Sunday is a divinely intended day for Christian worship and commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dr. Beale does give a list of about 10 points defending the justification for Sunday worship (Historical Theology in Depth: Part 2, pp103-104). These could be summarized as follows:

1. Multiple historical events post-crucifixion occurred on Sunday (from the resurrection to the Day of Pentecost). This covers his points 1-4.

2. Three theologically significant events that happened specifically on the Day of Pentecost, which was on a Sunday. This covers his points 5-7.

3. Three references to Sunday are found in the apostolic church, which are interpreted to give sanction to our current practice of Sunday worship. This covered his points 8-10.

More can be amplified concerning the three instances of Sunday in the apostolic church, apart from the early historical references. These references are significant as to their categorization – one is descriptive of Christian gathering on Sunday (Acts 20:7), one is prescriptive of gathering donations on Sunday (1 Cor. 16:2) , and one is descriptive of "the Lord's Day" (Rev. 1:10). Whether this is a reference to Sunday is debated. Dr. Beale is especially helpful by noting that the word used here is a unique adjective that is not used anywhere else except in one reference (1Cor. 11:20, "the Lord's Supper"). By contrast, it is not the construction we find in reference to the prophetic Day of the Lord (e.g. 1 Thess. 5:2). Given that John spends the first three chapters of the Revelation talking about the present, it does not seem to refer to the prophetic day of the Lord. Still, identification of what John meant in context is difficult in my opinion, without resorting to later historical studies and doing some form of eisegesis.

Now, at this point Lewis Sperry Chafer's discussion of Sabbath and Lord's Day contributes more to the discussion. While offering a similar defense of Sunday as the Lord's Day to the other two, he gives his own emphasis. He ties the subject to the broader theological themes of the distinction between law and grace and the Spirit-filled life.  His unique contribution is the position that Psalm 118 prophesied of Sunday as the Lord's Day and therefore as a weekly day of worship.

In conclusion, in contrast to the Christian sabbath position, this traditionalist position is helpfully summarized by Overmiller. He points out that the Lord’s day is a result of the new covenant in contrast to the Sabbath as a requirement of the old covenant. It correctly identifies that there was no specific requirement for Sunday worship in the early church, even though it did come to be a day of worship. It is logical, and reasonable for us to select a day to worship once a week, and Sunday being the day of the Lord's resurrection is surely a good day to do so. However, what is wrong with this position? I will begin to offer some disagreements I have with this in my next post or two. In a word, I will again affirm that I love Sunday as a day for spiritual focus, and I question that any church should change this pattern today before Jesus comes.

Today I will begin my analysis of Sunday in Christendom. As in the first post, I have introduced the topic at hand as a discussion of the way we got to modern views of Sunday as some kind of a ritual day for worship and/or rest. Today's post will summarize Dr. Beale's historical summary of Sunday in Christian thought.

The historical analysis of the data from church history by Dr. Beale (a retired Bob Jones University Seminary professor of church history) is very surprising on several accounts. Overall, the testimony of church history is an affirmation of Sunday as the Lord’s Day with no connection to the Jewish Sabbath. Most early church folks were careful to reject a Christianized sabbath, but still calling for some observance of a day (even though there was not explicit Bible instruction). In fact, according to Dr. Beale the idea that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath is one that originates from the post-Reformation Puritan period in England, This is very surprising. But, a reasonable explanation is the anti-Jewish character of the early church. Over time, even overt anti-Semitism settled into the church. The direction toward Sunday as a Christian Sabbath had perhaps a brief period of growth from the 1600s to the 1800s. But, with the beginnings of the dispensationalism of the 1800s a segment of the church returned toward a traditionalist view of Sunday.

All this is to say, the Christian Sabbath does not have much going for it, In passing it should be noted that there is simply no place to change any Jewish legislation to be directly applicable to Sunday. Lewis Sperry Chafer (in his book Grace) was quite strong on this point. There would have to had been some kind of explicit precept in the New Testament for such a change, and there is none. Even then, such an institution would not be a Christian sabbath, but a new institution. Some point to a supposed creation ordinance of the Sabbath, but this is not true. I used to think that it was a valid idea. However, concerning the period between creation and Moses I would point out (as do some of these authors): (1) God did not command the Sabbath in Gen. 2, He took a sabbath rest once, (2) It is not valid to assume from silence that Abraham or others practiced Saturday rest, (3) the prohibition of the gathering of Manna in Exodus is a foreshadowing of the Mosaic Covenant soon to come in a few short days, not an example of the on going practice of the Sabbath that had been going on since creation, and (4) the reference to Creation in the Mosaic Covenant is one of analogy but not reaffirmation, and (5) the Sabbath was a distinctively Jewish sign (Exo. 31:12-18) with no meaning or significance for anyone outside of that nation and the promises to it. This all being said, it is the traditionalist view of the Lord’s Day that I wish to speak to primarily—and not so much the Christian Sabbath. Next week, I will offer part two of this series with a review of this traditionalist position held by Dr. Beale, Thomas Overmiller, and Lewis Sperry Chafer. I will attempt to better define this term next time.

One of the more interesting areas of Christian faith and life concerns Sunday, also known as the Lord’s Day. This is a weekly day when Christians all around the world meet as local churches. This weekly day is a challenge to understand, when one studies the Scripture. It is not to say that the gathering on a weekly day is unusual, but it is the combination of what the Bible does not say about Sunday and what the Bible does say about Saturday, the Jewish sabbath, that make its consideration difficult. Some tend to link Sunday with Saturday in some way, but that is not the right approach. The real question is this: “Why does the church practice Sunday at all?” I recently read some interesting literature on this topic, and these writings have helped me to some degree on this. Below is a list for reference:

• Committed to Lord’s Day Worship by Thomas Overmiller, a fundamental Baptist pastor in New York City.

• “The Sabbath Day: Christian Views from New Testament Times to the Present” by Dr. David Beale in Historical Theology in-Depth: Part 2

• “The Sabbath: A Test Question” by Lewis Sperry Chafer, in his work Grace (available here).

I suppose that many of us may think about the Lord’s Day in terms that are more Jewish in origin. Instead, it is not a stretch that the early church tied the idea of the Lord’s day more to a commemoration of the day Jesus rose from the dead (c.f. Overmiller and Chafer, section II. A. 2. of Chapter 4 Section 6 on the Sabbath). But most of us, may link the Lord’s Day with the idea of rest (fitting to the Jewish purposes of Saturday). I myself have practiced Sunday as a day of rest, not even doing my seminary studies on Sunday.

These resources were of interest and at this time, they helped me reach some clearer thought about the true Biblical understanding of Sunday. What will follow are share some of my musings on this topic. First, I will share concerning the idea of a Christian Sabbath and how it does not find support in church history or in theology. Second, I will summarize the case made by these three authors for a traditionalist understanding of the Lord’s Day—by traditionalist is meant the idea that the Lord’s Day is a divinely intended day of worship and Christian activity without reference to the Jewish Sabbath. Third, I will offer several counters where I remain unsatisfied by this traditionalist position. At the end of the series, I will summarize my approach to Sunday at this time, explaining the Biblical rational for why I continue to worship on Sunday, indeed why it is the best day of the week in my life!

Today I offer the second part of my synopsis of Forged from Reformation. The second section of the book is on "The Five Solas of the Reformation." I will be focusing on the five chapters covering sola Scriptura.

Chapter 8: The Protestant Reformation: An Important and Yet Incomplete Hermeneutical Reformation by Dr. Andy Woods.This chapter overlapped to some degree with prior content and in fact covered material that will be familiar to dispensationalists. It does though give a good summary of the way that the Reformers failed to apply their new hermeneutics to the areas of eschatology and ecclesiology. I would espeically recommend and desire that covenant theologians read it to understand where dispensationalism is coming from!

Chapter 9: The Protestant Hermeneutic and the Revival of Futurism by Dr. Ron J. Bigalke. This chapter is a very interesting historical essay about In a word, it seeks to demonstrate the complex connections found through church history between the two related areas of the when of prophecy's fulfillment (preterism, historicism, idealism, and futurism) and the timing of Jesus' return with respect to the Millennium (amillennialism, postmillenialism, and premillennialism). The essay is very helpful in giving a comprehensive overview of how we got to where we are now, and clarifies why today's categories of futuristic premillennialism and preterist or idealist amillennialism are not to be superimposed on historical figures. The author, for example, concludes that many early church fathers were imminent intratribulational premillennialists, believing they were in the era of prophetic fulfillment in a historicist model while still believing the return of Christ was imminent. The main point of the chapter seems to be a recognition that since eschatology wasn't the main issue in the Reformation, the topic was left to later dispensationalists to develop a Biblical eschatology.

Chapter 10: Sola Scriptura: Return to Literal Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutics by Dr. Thomas S. Baurain.The third chapter was a short, but excellent exposition of the proper hermeneutical system that happens to be espoused by dispensationalists, and I can especially recommend it to almost anyone for its clarity and simplicity in presenting the topic.

Chapter 11: The Hermeneutical Foundations of Sola Scriptua: A Critical Examinatino of Luther's Christocentric Method of Interpretation" by Dr. James I. Fazio. This chapter was a good summary of the primary ideas of interpretation that lie behind sola Scriptura. The author helpfully tied together many important ideas such as the role of reason in interpreting the Bible, the sufficiency of Scripture, the clarity of Scripture, and more. All this is to lead to a criticism of the principle of Christocentricism in Luther's thought. It helpfully concludes that one does not violate the preeminence of Christ across Scripture if one does not find Christ in every passage in the way that Christocentricism does.

Chapter 12: Neither Woodenly-Literal Nor Allegorical: The Dispensationalist Legacy of the Refomrers' Doctrine of Sola Scriptura by Dr. Jeremiah Mutie. While not exactly what I was expecting, this chapter is essentially a historical analysis of four streams of thought from the Reformation--the Reformed, Lutheran, Millerite, and dispensational. These streams of thought are analyzed as it their faithfulness the principle, both in its literal terms and its spiritual intent, of sola Scriptura. Following the preceding chapter by Dr. Fazio, it actually overlaps a bit since they are both ordered around a similar conception of what principles entail sola Scriptura. The analysis of the Reformed and Lutheran streams were somewhat predictible, and good. The Millerite discussion though seemed to not adequately explain how that group was implementing a woodenly-literal hermeneutic to me. But, it did add more information by placing the Millerite group in the stream of historicism that was discussed by Dr. Bigalke in his earlier chapter. I was overall disappointed that the woodenly-literal aspect was not better dealt with in the section, since I tend to move in that hermeneutic direction. But, perhaps it is harder to deal with that topic since fewer groups are comitted to wooden-literalism explicitly. To conclude the chapter, the dispensational stream is placed in a positive light by its faithfulness to sola Scriptura.

The most important three takeaways I have are (1) The important connection that exists between sola Scriptura, the perspicuity of Scripture, and the literal grammatical-historical method of interpretation. (2) The very real reality that the Reformers did affirm both a historicist approach to prophecy and a Christocentric hermeneutic practically. (3) The real need to deal with adequately the subjective element of clarity in interpretation and the objective element of clarity in interpretation. In regards to #3, this found its fullest expression in Dr. Fazio's chapter on the Christocentric hermeneutic. There, it was clearly explained how Luther delineated the internal clarity that is provided to the true Christian by illumination from the external clarity in the text as written and inspired by God. I follow an approach that focuses the Spirit's illuminating work as pertaining to receiving the truth interpreted by the literal hermeneutic and not understanding it in the sense of arriving at the meaning of a passage. I'm not certain that Luther is entirely on the same page with me on this, but he was close. I still remain interested in trying to better understand the interplay of the Spirit's work in my life as I seek to understand the Bible and the following of my rational faculties in seeking the clear meaning of Scripture.

In conclusion, this section was a bit more historically focused than I expected. I confess my need to study further the issues of Scripture's clarity, the defense of Biblical authority, and the difference between woodenly literal and grammatical-historical. However, this is definitely a section worth reading for me and especially for non-dispensationalists. It does indeed show how dispensationalism is the true advance of the Reformed legacy.

1. There are two foundational issues that should be accepted in defense of the Bible's inspiration:

1. It is proper to expect that humans can verify the historical elements of the Bible and that this provides a basis for trust in the spiritual elements that men can't verify. Ref: John 3:12, pg. 14.

1. In a Biblical perspective of the human condition, it cannot be ignored that there is a Satanic method of inducing doubt (e.g. Gen. 3:1ff). This may put in proper perspective any kind of questions or apparent errors in the Bible, pg. 15.

1. Because humans are fallible, then it is possible that things that are alleged as errors are simply a mistaken conclusion and in fact such a conclusion could be itself an error.

1. We cannot expect an explanation for every Bible difficulty, and we should not approach Bible difficulties with the perspective that such a difficulty is an error unless proven to be true. (see list in the section "Bible Difficulties: Yes", mistakes 1 and 2). The book cites that a scientist studying a system as large and complex must permit unexplained phenomena, and we accept systems frequently without having all explanations. True, a point could be reached where the system is overturned, and rejected, but that is not an easy point to reach.

1. An underlying premise supporting this is point 2 above (our own fallibility).

1. Also, perhaps the idea of reasonable doubt can give the underlying basis for this (see discussion of rational evidentialism by H. Wayne House and Dennis Jowers Reasons for Our Hope, pp. 81-89). The idea is that one's justification for the inspiration of the Bible cannot be overthrown entirely by unresolved difficulties, though one can reach a point where the justification is overthrown.

1. At this juncture, the role of the Spirit is important in that He can use various means to convict us of the truthfulness of the truth, and the means may differ from person to person (see B. B. Warfield on Faith). I need to better fit in a theology of the Holy Spirit on this manner, and I plan to be reading An Absolute Sort of Certainty: The Holy Spirit and the Apologetics of Jonathan Edwards by Stephen J. Nichols. This may not be an entirely helpful book given its Reformed and presuppositional orientation, but I hope to glean something useful from it.

1. Sometimes, especially in OT I would add, there are words that may be hapaxlegomena (words that occur only once in the Bible with little to none attestation in other literature) or words consisting of letters that are unclear that make it more likely for misunderstanding or for discrepancies in names. (mistake 6, pp 18-19 and Appendix 2)

1. Issues concerning narratives, such as partial reports or divergent accounts, can be justified on the idea of the Bible's humanness. It is not humanness in the sense of humans being prone to error, but humanness in the sense of a single person's understanding/perspective. (mistake 7 is being viewed as a basis for mistakes 8 and 10). These kinds of things may require some creative analysis that remains faithful to the contextual meaning of the passages in question. A contextual hermeneutic can successfully synthesize the accounts in a way that woodenly literal can't.

1. I need to still read a chapter in Forged From Reformation that discusses the woodenly literal issue from a dispensational perspective. My temptation is to be woodenly literal, and perhaps that has caused me a lot of trouble over the years.

1. Non-technical language (mistake 12) and round numbers (mistake 13) are examples of imprecision, but not error. This too is answered by a proper contextual, but non-woodenly literal, hermeneutic.

In conclusion, these are important ideas for me to build a framework to justify the inspiration of the Bible in view of Bible difficulties. I may not know everything or have an answer for every Bible difficulty, but these will help build the framework to justify inspiration in spite of that. May I learn to be more humble in dealing with this and to not be woodenly literal in my dealing with Scripture. May the Lord work in my heart in these matters to better trust His Word.

The first session was by Dr. Ken Endean, of International Baptist College and Seminary in Arizona. He preached on the classic holiness text of 1 Peter 1:13-17. This text is very simple to understand, and it was a good reminder to me. Are we pursuing holiness for the sake of victory or for the sake of living in fellowship with Christ? The wrong approach is to pursue it just for the sake of victory.

The second session mid-morning was from a local pastor, Steve Thomas. In demonstration of the fundamental ideal of the local church’s importance, he followed a pattern of preaching that involved (1) examining the text of Eph. 3:20-21, (2) drawing a doctrinal point, (3) answering objections, and (4) discussing the implications. The tone of this message was one of warning about what will happen if the proper role of a local church—that of worship toward God—is neglected by the coming generation. While an unusual approach to the issue, I will think about it more potentially.

After lunch, we had a general session that was a discussion of the Southern Baptist Convention by Dr. Larry Oats, one of my teachers at Maranatha and the author of The Church of the Fundamentalists reviewed by me early in this blog’s life. His discussion was enlightening as to several operational aspects of how the SBC works, and it concluded with repeating the concern that at best the group practices an incomplete obedience to the imperatives of separation in Rom. 16:15-17.

After that session, I attended a workshop seminar on dispensationalism by Dr. Matt Postiff, a pastor in Ann Arbor, MI. His presentation was excellent, and I agreed with him substantially in his presentation with his distinctive contributions to the conversation about this system. While I write about the topic frequently, He also gave me some good bits of further nuancing my positions. He helpfully explained how dispensationalism can be seen as a system of continuity because of the ultimate goal of history, the glory of God in the fulfilled kingdom. Another helpful idea he offered was that our present citizenship in the kingdom, implied by some NT passages in the epistles and Acts, in no way requires that the kingdom be a present reality.

Following this breakout session, there was a panel discussion of four “older generation” leaders and four “younger generation” leaders. At some times, not everyone had a lot to say but it was still good. One of the more meaningful discussions one of the younger guys had for me was a discussion of the criteria for church membership in the context of people who may not hold to exactly the same standards in certain areas. The pastor’s heart was wanted to enable a church to embrace those with a high view of Biblical authority as there are fewer and fewer churches holding that. As one who recently joined a church for the first time, due to challenges I faced in the process, the sensitivity and concerns expressed were good to hear from a pastor.

After this session, we had the dinner break and this led to the final evening service. Two pastors from the Greenville, SC, area preached. The first session was from Joshua Crockett, preaching on Preserving Our Heritage for the Next Generation. His key point was that we must follow the Godly examples and avoid the bad examples. Finally, the meeting concluded with Mark Minnick, preaching from Jude on Preserving the Gospel. His message was profound, and moving me to continue to deepen my faith and to cultivate a proper contention of the faith as a means to keep the gospel pure. He called for preachers to not only do application-centric preaching, but to preach what the text says and means. This is the foundation for preserving the gospel. Then, once taught, the preacher must warn and contend for the truth against error in proportion to the seriousness of the error. He concluded with an example of some neo-evangelicals (Iain Murray and John MacArthur) who are realizing their strategy failed while the fundamentalist’s strategy has succeeded. This alone makes me feel good that I am in the right direction.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that I had a couple good brief conversations with several pastors and professors I had read but never had a chance to meet in person. I am very glad to have come to this meeting. While there remain some questions in my mind about the future for this group and my place in it, I am thankful for what I got to see this week. May I continue to share it though informally as a church member and on this blog. Praise the Lord.

After a brief continental breakfast, there was an initial service with two sessions. The first session was from Pastor Mark Brock, a “younger-generation” pastor from California. His sermon was on Biblical Preaching in the Next Generation. This message, from 2 Cor. 4:1-6, was a challenge for sharing the truth without resorting to un-biblical methods that produce reactions from people that are not from the truth. A helpful application was on the need for those ministering to not shape a ministry so that everyone fits the minister’s comfort zone—the Biblical precepts should be primary. The second session was titled “A Biblical Understanding of Culture and How We Should Respond,” and given by Dr. Mark Snoeberger, a Detroit Seminary professor. He gave a helpful description of evangelicalism in four idea, traced evangelicalism’s changing views of the kingdom as pertaining to social action, and ultimately summarized Niebuhr’s Christ and Culture with its five models of relationship between culture. A fast and meaty sermon, he concluded by seeing the paradox model of Niebuhr as the one closest to the Biblical paradigm of “in the world but not of the world.”

After lunch, there was a single session from Dr. Dave Saxon, a professor at Maranatha where I am purusing an M.Div. He discussed 8 characteristics of millennials, and proceeded in general terms to give advice for millennials who may be entering the pastorate—with helpful suggestions for the “non-millennials.” I came away challenged, being of the millennial generation, to be careful to not be too “full of myself” in my own views.

The afternoon concluded with a breakout session. The one I attended was by Dr. Mark Ward on “The Legitimate Concerns of the Next Generation (An Objective Analysis).” In this presentation, he presented the concerns in four questions. While I didn’t agree entirely with some that Dr. Ward said, it was still helpful food for thought. Really, this conference has been beneficial in that way—it has just added more for me to think about in the on-going challenges we are facing inside the church and with reaching the lost. After dinner, there were two evening sessions. Dr. Kevin Schaal, the president of this fellowship preached from Acts 2 on characteristics of a healthy church. There was good reminders in this message of how we must be engaging people in evangelism and then once saved, in discipleship through such things as teaching, grace giving, etc. He gave a helpful challenge for pastors who may be introverts to be out going. I need to attend to this. Before the last session, there was a presentation of an award to Dr. Bob Jones III for his life of service, an award that has been handed out to many but never to Dr. Bob Jones. To conclude the evening, Dr. Jim Tillotson, president of Faith Baptist Bible College, spoke on the Great Commission. His personal illustrations from a life of ministry in Canada were moving, and brought tears thinking of the dynamic evangelistic ministry he had there. This pales in comparison to the kind of churches I have spent most of my life in, churches where a lost person getting saved seems to be so much rarer. He carefully noted that we need to strive for effort to reach the lost, and if no one gets saved then we have done our job. The combined message from both messages them is that if we are faithfully evangelizing, we can and should expect the gospel to be powerful and to save people leading to the growth of the church.

We have one more day of the conference ahead of us today, so I have several more sessions today. The one session that attracted me to this conference is what Dr. Larry Oats of my school will be speaking on, namely the Southern Baptist Convention. I will report on today’s sessions later today or tomorrow!

Upon arrival, we were greeted by a large and beautiful facility. After registration and entering the auditorium, we found a heavy use of wood on the ceiling and at the front—it reminded to me of similar design in a church I went to for several years. As the service started, we participated in mighty congregational singing. We were also blessed by a couple of songs sung by a large choir with orchestra. There was of course a short announcement period as well, as the host church pastor, Mike Harding, gave us an overall introduction.

After the initial singing, Dr. Bob Jones III, current chancellor of Bob Jones University, preached a message titled “Our Desperate Condition: The Spirit Needs for All Generations”. Dr. Bob was clear, and passionate, preaching Psalm 78:1-8 and the great need today in our efforts to reach the future generations. The primary issue, as identified by Dr. Bob, is that the fathers of the generation to come did not value God or the life of faith. He firmly expressed the point that the issue today with the current generation is that their fathers did not properly teach them. Truly, it was an encouraging message. Fathers must be training the children…It is a major reason for where we are today and we must work harder to invest in fathers so that they can invest properly in their children.

After a special music solo, Pastor Harding preached a message from Acts 20:17-38 titled “Our Daunting Challenge: The Next Generation of the King’s Mighty Men.” a title from the Old Testament life of King David and his mighty men. The message was overall a good exposition and challenge to pastors to serve faithfully. While I am not a pastor, the most important things I took away were the “predisposition of humility” and the “power of an earnest testimony.” Regarding humility, we must all study the Word for ourselves and reach our own conclusions, but the greatest humility should be had especially toward those who are our fathers. Regarding my testimony, I know my story is still being written—I have shared some of my own story on this blog and I want to share what the Lord is doing. As a small aside, he did have an anecdotal mention of a certain type of free grace teaching, and cast it in a very negative light. While hardly the point of his message, the whole discussion was enlightening to me by confirming some general impressions I've already had. I look forward to a later conference message that will be on the topic of the gospel to see what may or may not be said by the speaker.

Overall, it was a good evening, and I will continue to share some brief thoughts over the next day or two. The sessions will be posted online shortly after the meeting concludes.

I purchased the volume Forged from Reformation back when it was released last year at the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. This is a work written by dispensational scholars aimed to show how the Reformation is part of the trajectory in theology that led to the dispensationalism of today. I have slowly working through it as I have been able since I got it. Today, I finished the first major section of the work on "Historical Development." There was a wide variety of essays focused on Luther, and other Reformation figures, in relationship to dispensational thought. Below is a quick and rudimentary summary on each chapter (skipping the introductory chapter):

Chapter 2: Dispensationalism and the Reformation by Thomas Ice. This chapter is an overall historical summary of key ideas and figures from the Reformation period as they were pertinent to what later developed as Dispensationalism.

Chapter 3: Martin Luther: An Evaluation of the 95 Theses by Patrick Belvill. This was a very interesting introduction to the actual historical document of the 95 theses. It attempted to show proto-dispensational ideas through his interpretive approach. I also found interesting the degree of which repentance is found in his 95 theses. It seems though to be important to note that he seemed to be opposing the Catholic idea of penance in this work, and trying recover a proper notion of repentance without a major reference to the kind of issues we face today in soteriology about the nature of repentance. I think more study could be had on this.

Chapter 4: John Nelson Darby: The Unknown and Well Known Nineteenth Century Irish Reformer by James I. Fazio. This was a very helpful discussion about John Nelson Darby, the one often regarded to be the father of modern dispensationalism. I grew to appreciate his stature as a refomer in Ireland, though centuries after Martin Luther. I recommend it!

Chapter 5: Luther Meets Darby: The Reformation Legacy of Ecclesiastical Independence by Cory M. Marsh. This brings together the previous two chapters to some degree by noting how both Luther & Darby were opposed to the divide between the clergy/laity, and how it produces an independent church rooted in the idea of the priesthood of the believer.

Chapter 6: The Doctrine of Local Church Autonomy: Its Loss, Recovery and Influence on Dispensationalism by Kevin D. Zuber. This chapter is one I found a bit questionable. In it, the author traced the mindset of an independent church from Calvin and other Reformers to the heritage of dispensationalism, which is primarily located today in the independent church movement. As a Baptist and one who has held that Calvin practiced more of a state church in Geneva, this seemed strange and I wasn't entirely convinced. Further study and comparison with other historical works would need to be done before I would entirely accept his assessment of John Calvin. He may be right, and I could be mistaken. I just was not so sure.

Chapter 7: How Dispensational Thought Corrects Luther's View of Israel by Brian Moulton and Cory M. Marsh. This attempts to deal with an "elephant" in the room when it comes to dispensationalism and the Reformation -- the toxic views held by Luther about Israel. Like other chapters, it is an informative historical analysis. In my view, it rightly points out that the larger basis for Luther's views of Israel were an inconsistent literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic and really an ignorance of the historical sense of certain passages, and not any societal or personal background basis.

With having completed this section, I now look forward to in the coming summer months diving into the "solas" section, and especially several essays on the foundational "sola"--"sola scriptura."

The second paper was similar to the paper given yesterday on the Psalms in that it was a book-level examination of the glory of God. This presentation was titled "The Book of Revelation and the Glory of God," and given by Dr. Elliott Johnson (Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary, TX). It was a blessing in its laying forth the glory of God in multiple ways as found in Revelation, taking one all the way to the new heavens and the new earth. A very profitable discussion followed his presentation about several things, but especially about dispensationalism as a biblical theology versus a systematic theology. 

Dr. Stallard spent a short period before lunch telling the council about plans for the future. He shared that the council was now officially incorporated, and would be seeking tax exempt status. There are hopes to expand the council to more locations with some local meetings. Some books and a new website are also in the works. There is definitely a strong commitment on the part of the council to seek to expand its influence to defend traditional dispensationalism in the broader world. 

After lunch, Dr. Wayne Slusser (Associate Professor of New Testament at Baptist Bible Seminary) presented an exegetical paper on Paul's Prison Epistles, titled "Imprisoned for the Glory of God: Considering Ryrie’s Third Aspect of the Sine Qua Non of Dispensationalism – in Paul’s Prison Letters." He summarized the instances of glory in Paul's Prison epistles (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians). In each book, he looked at the structure surrounding each instance, the syntax of each portion that used the word "glory", and then synthesized what each epistle had to say about glory. These syntheses were then fit together into a summary of each item. 

The final paper presented at the Council was by Dr. David Mappes (Adjunct Professor at Baptist Bible Seminary as well as an assistant professor at Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA), titled "A Biblical and Theological Overview of God’s Glory through the Institutions of Government and Church.” This paper aimed to discuss the New Testament teaching about the church and human government with view to determine if the kingdom age descriptions in the Old Testament match the New Testament teaching. There was also some discussion of civil disobedience worked into the presentation. This paper generated a lot of discussion about some of the practical issues pertaining to the church relationship to government, both with reference to historical situations as well as current issues. 

After dinner, the Council concluded with two evening events. First, there was a brief memorial for Dr. Bill Arp, a former council member who this summer went home to be with the Lord after having been a faculty member at Clarks Summit University for decades. Two faculty colleagues of Dr. Arp shared some personal memories, commenting on his character, his care for people, and his careful scholarship. Second, there was a pastor's panel discussion of the impact of the glory of God on local churches. Five pastors were on the panel, four of them from churches in Northeast Pennsylvania and one of them being a council member from outside the area. The discussion was moderated by Dr. Mike Stallard and included questions from Dr. Stallard as well as questions from council members and observers. Many pastors expressed thoughts about how they need to emphasize the glory of God in their ministry and to encourage their churches to do the same. 

The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics 2017 was a blessing for me to attend. I was challenged to think more deeply about the glory of God from a dispensational viewpoint. I look forward to being able to attend future councils as well! 

The meeting began with a brief welcome from the president of Clarks Summit University, Dr. Jim Lytle. He noted how many students even in his own school would come to his institution knowing little to nothing about dispensationalism, even though they may come from dispensational circles. He expressed pleasure at the goals of the meeting and welcomed the council for this event. His welcome was followed by a greeting from the current dean of Baptist Bible Seminary, Dr. Lee Kliewer. He expressed that "great theology leads to doxology," and to that end he led the group in a brief singing of the Doxology. Given that the Library is a part of an old Roman Catholic facility with great acoustics and aesthetic qualities, this was a good way to begin.

After a brief introduction from Dr. Mike Stallard, the founder of the council, the morning kicked off with three papers presented. The first was presented by Dr. Bruce Baker (Pastor of Washington County Bible Church, TX) on "A Biblical and Theological Examination of the Glory of God." This paper sought to better define what is meant by the term "glory of God" especially with reference to Ryrie's point and with reference to broader theological issues with the doctrine of God.

The second paper was present by Dr. Doug Brown (Dean of Faith Baptist Theological Seminary, Ankeny, IA), titled the "Glory of God and Dispensationalism." His presentation focused on 7 premises intended to show and defend that the glory of God in dispensationalism is unique, especially with reference to how the fulfillment of promises to Israel in the coming kingdom brings God glory.

The third paper of the morning was presented by Dr. Christopher Cone (President of Calvary University, Kansas City, MO). Dr. Cone aimed to give a historical and theological discussion of Reformed and Dispensational theologians in their treatment of the theme of the glory of God and how it relates to redemption. It was a very interesting paper!

The morning concluded with a panel discussion of each of the three preceding presenters, discussing various issues and questions amongst themselves about their papers and answering questions from other council members. Topics included the distinction between the means and the end, the difference between theory and practice, the relationship of Calvinism to dispensational theology, and considerations about why students seem to be leaving dispensational theology.

After lunch, the afternoon featured two more presentations with more exegetically focused papers. The first presenter was Dr. Mark McGinninss (Professor of Old Testament at Baptist Bible Seminary) who presented a paper on "Israel's Relationship to the Glory of God in the Psalms." His presentation systematically summarized references to the word "glory" with reference to God. His goal was to summarize the OT as a whole by using the psalter as a summary in this regard. Some question and answer followed.

The final session of the day was by Dr. Dave Frederickson (Professor at Western Seminary's Sacramento Campus, CA). His presentation was on "The Power of Micro-Progressive Revelation: Jesus’ ‘Middle Apocalypse’”, an exegetical discussion of Luke 17:26-37. His presentation was focused on interpreting this passage on its own terms, rather than using the later Olivet Discourse to interpret it. This presentation generated the most question and answer of all thus far, giving the council members an opportunity to seek clarification and gain a better understanding of his position.

The council then had a dinner break, and would return for a final session that evening. Dr. Mike Stallard (Director of International Ministries for Friends of Israel, Bellmawr, NJ) presented a paper on an early dispensationalist titled "Prophetic Hope in the Writings of Arno C. Gaebelein: A Possible Demonstration of the Doxological Purpose of Biblical History.” Stallard summarized how Gaebelein saw four areas in which the plan for the ages was worked out, viz. creation, the nations, Israel, and the church. There was a good time of discussion as well.

This concluded the first day of the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics. Tbe second day there would be more, and I will share that again later!

Consequently then, we should not sleep, as the rest of them, but we should stay awake and be self-controlled; for those sleeping sleep during nighttime, and those becoming drunk become drunk during nighttime. But we being day should be self-controlled, clothed by a breastplate of faith and love and a helmet, [namely] hope of salvation, because God did not appoint us to wrath but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ who died concerning us in order that if we should stay awake or should sleep we will live with him together. Therefore, encourage one another and build up one [to] one, as even you do.

The Thessalonians Should Live Properly in Light of the Coming Wrath of God (vv6-8)

v6 begins with a connecting words that indicate Paul is drawing a conclusion from the preceding verses (vv4-5) where it is said the Thessalonians are sons of light and sons of day. In light of this, Paul exhorts them that they should not sleep but rather stay awake. There seems to be an interesting play on words in vv6-8 regarding the ideas of day and darkness. While Paul affirms that the Thessalonians are light and of day, he still needed exhort them to act like they were people of the light and day. There is an important challenge here to recognize that while Christians are sons of light, that does not guarantee that they will live as sons of the day. This does have some significance to the Lordship salvation controversy and related soteriological issues. What does it mean to live as sons of light? Well, Paul identified self-control as the key idea, though expressed in our clothing ourselves with the breastplate of faith and love and a helmet of the hope of salvation. These three things may call to mind Ephesians 6 and the "armor of God", but note some differences. First, here the breastplate is of faith and love instead of righteousness. Also, the helmet is actually the hope of salvation, not just salvation itself. These are all qualities that help us live for God as we wait for the rapture.

The Sure Salvation from the Day of the LORD Wrath through Christ (vv9-10)

Having mentioned the hope of salvation, Paul then reaffirms the pre-tribulation rapture by affirming that we are not appointed "to wrath but to obtain salvation." (v9a) It is important to recognize that in v10, Paul ties this hope of salvation to the work of Jesus Christ. However, I agree with many dispensationalists here that the reference is not to salvation from the wrath of God in an ultimate sense, but from the wrath coming on the earth in the day of the LORD (c.f. v3). We also should not miss that His work of salvation is the basis of our salvation from the awful wrath coming on the earth in the future. We can praise Jesus for our salvation from all of God's wrath. Since we have previously linked the Day of the LORD in v3 to the beginning of the Tribulation, this does demonstrate the pre-tribulation Rapture in context though we should be careful to explain the preceding context carefully (and admittedly there are some challenges to that passage, as I previously outlined). It is also telling (c.f.. Vv4-5) that Paul says that this is assured whether they should wake or sleep (v10b). It is difficult to tell for certain whether Paul is referring to his spiritual exhortation to be awake or if it is a reference to dieing before the Rapture or not. I don't believe we should take it as a double reference, but we should avoid such unless we have contextual reasons to do so. Here, it is tempting to focus on the nearer context of the spiritual exhortation. However, if we regard this passage as continuous with the preceding 4:13-18 (as does Mike Stallard in his article "When Is It?" in Israel My Glory January/February 2018), then it becomes more likely that the phrase is referring to death. Today, I am more inclined to look at it this way, but it is hard to be certain. Either way, we can apply this statement to either condition—we will be saved in the Rapture whether we die or are alive at the Rapture and we will be saved whether we are faithful or unfaithful.

Concluding Exhortation (v11)

Paul concludes by telling them to "encourage" and "build up" each other. While this parallels the exhortation in 4:18, a contrast can be noted. There, the exhortation is of a personal and emotional nature, but here it is practical. We should not neglect either aspect as we seek to minister to each other, and neither should pastors. In conclusion, the goal for the Thessalonians is to have a sure hope of being reunited with the Lord and their loved ones before the start of the LORD's wrath in the 7 year Tribulation. That is surely an encouragement for them, and it can be for us! I have gained a better apprecaition for the pre-tribulation position in studying these two chapters. I don't have everything figured out though, and while I have come out gaining some decent support for myself for pre-tribulationism I believe I can still work a bit more on this as time goes on!