Questions on the End Times after reading Letters to the Thessalonians

Readers of the blog know I have been reading through the letters to the Thessalonians. These letters are written after Paul’s brief stay in the city, having been chased out by rioters protesting the spread of the Gospel. These letters are probably best known for their references to various events that will occur in the end times.

The information provided in these letters address the specific concerns that the Thessalonians have about the end times. As we read them we have to remember that we are only seeing one half of the conversation. We don’t have a full picture of what misconceptions these new believers had. Complicating things further, Paul’s responses provide summarized pieces of information that are meant to help the Thessalonians remember the details that he had already imparted (1 Thess 5:1-2; 2 Thess 2:5-6).
Paul
In the first letter, after expressing his joy regarding the firm faith of the new, persecuted believers, Paul addresses the concern that Timothy brought to his attention. It seems that the Thessalonians are concerned about the fate of loved ones who are in Christ but have died. What will happen to them when Christ returns? Paul explains that both those who are alive and those who have died will all meet Christ at His coming and be with Him forever (1 Thess 4:13-18).

Another concern is addressed in the second letter. Here Paul informs the Thessalonians that the coming of the Lord has not come yet. It seems that misinformation was being spread that the day of the Lord was upon them (2 Thess 2:1-12). Between the two letters the challenge facing the young church seems to have shifted from worrying about dead believers who will miss a future event, to a concern that living believers had missed a recently past event.

In this post, we will make some observations and ask some questions based on what Paul writes in these letters.

Imagery from NASA

Imagery from NASA

Does Jesus gather the elect in one major event or two?

Paul describes an event in chapter 4 of the first letter, which many consider the same event described in 1 Cor 15:50-57. This event is often called the rapture. Paul describes another event in chapter 5 and chapters 1 and 2 of the second letter. This event is called the the day of the Lord, and has several events that will precede it, including the apostasy and the revelation of the Antichrist, who Christ will slay at His coming. The question is does Paul describe two separate events (a rapture and the 2nd coming) or are these all descriptions of the same event (the 2nd coming). Continue reading

Grace for All: John Wesley challenges Reformers on Reprobation

Just as Pinson examined the theology of Arminius Grace for All, Vic Reasoner explores the theology of John Wesley. Reasoner is the president of Southern Methodist College (link) and an author, having written a Wesleyan commentary on Romans (link).

415xXkjORGLReasoner starts off surveying the various scholars who have studied and interpreted John Wesley over the last 50+ years, highlighting Thomas Oden recently published 4 volume set that is considered “the first systematic exposition” of Wesley’s theology (amazon).

Reasoner, exploring numerous aspects of Wesleyan theology, starts off the affirming God’s sovereignty.

Wesleyan-Arminians affirm God’s sovereignty, but believe that God has the prerogative of not always exercising total sovereignty. Thus we have true libertarian freedom. Yet God never surrenders the consequences of our free choices to us. … God is so sovereign he can allow human rebellion, yet that rebellion does not thwart his ultimate purpose.

Continue reading

One Does Not Simply Fall Into a Tale: a Reformed Theologian’s take on the Script Analogy

In his essay on predestination, appearing in Grace for All, I. Howard Marshall compared divine determinism (see this post) to an author writing a script. A concept that was explored in this post using the Star Wars movies (link). At the end of the post, I asked readers, both proponents and opponents of meticulous sovereignty, if they thought Marshall’s analogy is accurate? A member of the Reformed Pub Facebook group affirmed the analogy was useful for understanding the idea, pointing me to a paper by Dr. James N. Anderson. Anderson (blog) is the Associate Professor of Theology and Philosophy (link) at Reformed Theological Seminary.

The article is entitled “Calvinism and the First Sin”, (available for download until it is published) and it explains the Reformed view of divine determinism and its relationship to theodicy (why God permits evil). It also compares it to other views (Molinism, Simple Foreknowledge, and Open Theism), before advocating it as the best option. A conclusion I would not agree with.

LOTR_ScriptHere is how Dr. Anderson describes divine determinism (emphasis added): Continue reading