Like I said, there is a wide sense and a narrow sense use of the term Day of the Lord.
If you are really interested, Stallard has done a good job for the Pre-Trib Study Group of highlighting how Van Kampen and Rosenthal incorrectly interpret the cosmic sign passages.
http://pre-trib.org/articles/view/an-analysis-of-use-cosmic-sign-passages-by-proponents-pre-wrath-rapture-theory
Thanks for the linked article. I read it, looked up the Biblical references, and read them also. The only argument in it I find convincing is showing how God’s fury was carried out in Old Testament prophecy through events similar to some of the earlier seal judgments. Unfortunately, this is not adequate to demonstrate that these events ARE part of the Day of the Lord, just that that Day COULD include those events.
While I felt the author was evenhanded in dealing with the topic, I was disappointed with the approach of allowing for every various camp of interpretation of passages like Matthew 24. The problem is that it is possible to respond to one point of debate using one view point and then use an entirely contradictory viewpoint to defend a different argument. For example, he allows for disagreement as to whether this passage refers to the rapture or the second coming.
I do not subscribe to the author’s view that Isaiah 13 places the specific signs of the sun and moon within the Day of the Lord. Clearly, in multiple passages, there are signs in the heavens both before and during the Day of the Lord. However, the nature of these signs are distinguished from one another. The author does have an excellent point though that similarity does not mean identification, and it is possible for God to even cause the same exact signs to happen more than once. This does allow a little opening for narrow range of alternative viewpoints on the contents of the Olivet discourse.
None of these things are, however, ideas I did not personally explore before coming to embrace the pre-wrath view. There simply is no other view that is more well-supported by scripture. If there is, I have not personally heard the tenets explained or the particular problems of the established views (such as pre-trib) adequately defended. I have heard some pretty good ones, and Marv Rosenthal was previously one of the most persuasive.
The least persuasive aspect of the article was the attempt to make two definitions for the Day of the Lord. The problem with these two definitions is that the only reason for them is to find a loophole to make the pre-trib view workable. That is simply not a basis for interpreting the Bible. And it fits in the same general category as the other overly-flexible approaches to passages such as Matthew 24 in which it means whatever the arguer needs it to mean for the given point of argument.
The handling of 2 Peter 3 is a perfect example. This is a clear reading into the passage, not from other scriptures to arrive at the correct meaning, but from the pre-trib viewpoint in order to make sure whatever the passage says, it is not allowed to contradict this sacred cow. You would really need a third definition of the Day of the Lord in order to make this chapter work.
The article does not even address how, in both letters to the Thessalonians, an equivalence is established between the return of Christ and the arrival of the Day of the Lord. Nor does it answer the timing of this event in relation to believers entering into rest and those on earth being judged with fire from holy angels WHEN Christ returns as described in 1 Thessalonians 1.
And in the second chapter of the epistle we see that Paul addresses their concern that the Day of the Lord had already arrived. Paul indicates that two events had to happen first.
On every one of these passages I have found that pre-trib views are all over the place as to the particular meaning and details. There no singular, cohesive, systematic pre-trib view which can be arrived at exegetically. If there is I really, truly do want to hear it, because I would actually prefer to be raptured out of this world sooner rather than later. But alas, it appears that watchful readiness must be tempered with endurance and patient waiting for Christ’s return.
In spite of not being persuaded by the arguments of the article, I do appreciate your sharing of it as I did learn some things and become more familiar with certain passages of the Bible. I certainly do not intend to be overly harsh or dogmatic toward you or the author. I see you both as brothers headed for the same goal. We all share the same blessed hope in Christ’s return. And I am sure we will come to a deeper understanding of these things as the time comes closer.