Replacement theology? Yes or No.
- Thread starter Gideon300
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Not necessarily.
Revelation frequently shifts between heavenly scenes and earthly scenes without always moving in strict chronological order.
So the fact that Revelation 19 shows saints in heaven does not automatically prove they arrived there seven years earlier, nor does it automatically prove a pretrib rapture.
My point is simpler: if Revelation 13 does not explicitly say all believers are gone by Christ's return, then that conclusion has to come from putting several passages together.
Likewise, if Revelation 19 is being used to prove all believers were removed earlier, that also has to be demonstrated from the text rather than assumed.
In other words, both sides are harmonizing passages.
The question is which harmony best accounts for all the data.
You see Revelation 14's firstfruits and Revelation 19's heavenly saints as pointing back to a pretrib gathering.
Posttribbers see Matthew 24:29-31 and Mark 13:27 as placing the gathering at Christ's visible return.
So the real issue is not whether Revelation 19 contains heavenly saints.
Everyone agrees it does.
The issue is whether the text explicitly tells us when they arrived there.
That's the step still under debate.
Now I can see why the Bible mentions the wheat harvest being gathered together into His barn before He burns the tares in Matthew 13.
This is what makes interpreting the Bible so difficult. In some chapters, it shows us the big picture, but it never tells you the time or the stage in which each even happens until another book or chapter comes along to see the smaller picture within the bigger picture that includes more details.
Again, the timing is never mentioned. It just shows us images to try and help us get to a timing conclusion.
That's why it's been pointed out before that Revelation 5 could be pointing to a pre-trib rapture just because of the fact that they appear in Heaven before Jesus even starts to release the seal judgements. Now, that doesn't prove the timing, it could just be showing us an overall view, but I think we can see where people think it points to a pre-trib rapture. I'm liking how Psalms1 is pointing to other verses I haven't considered before as pointing that same direction too.
That's a fair observation, and I think it actually cuts both ways.
Revelation is full of visions, heavenly scenes, flashbacks, previews, and symbols.
Simply seeing redeemed people in heaven before the seals are opened does not automatically prove a pretrib rapture.
But neither should those scenes be dismissed without consideration.
I can absolutely see why someone would look at Revelation 5, Revelation 14, the 144,000 as firstfruits, and the heavenly armies of Revelation 19 and conclude they point toward a pretrib gathering.
My only caution is that possibility is not the same as certainty.
The same book contains passages that many interpret differently, especially Matthew 24:29-31, Mark 13:27, and Revelation 20.
So I think the strongest argument is not, "This one verse proves pretrib," but rather, "How do all these passages fit together into the most coherent picture?"
That's where the real debate is.
You're right that Revelation often gives images that point us toward conclusions rather than explicitly stating every timing detail.
The question is which conclusion best accounts for all the images, not just one of them.
@OMC , I see all of us working this out much like the Apostles. Some things Jesus said isn't going to make sense to us until AFTER we see it happen and then it's going to dawn on us.
--
I think there's wisdom in that.
The apostles repeatedly misunderstood things Jesus said until after the events occurred.
Jesus spoke of His death and resurrection plainly, yet they did not fully grasp it until afterward.
Luke 24 even says their understanding was opened later.
That doesn't mean prophecy is unknowable.
It does mean we should hold some prophetic conclusions with humility.
We should study diligently, compare Scripture with Scripture, and defend our views from the text, but also recognize that some details may become clearer only when the events themselves unfold.
In that sense, pretribbers, posttribbers, and others may all discover that certain passages fit together more clearly in hindsight than they do now.
The important thing is to be faithful to what is clearly revealed while remaining teachable about what is still debated.
The apostles were sincere before the fulfillment and understood much more after the fulfillment.
We may find ourselves in a similar position regarding some prophetic details.
Right you aren’t instructed to submit to god of satans already bound ……. We can overcome through christ this enemy who’s not bound ….but actively trying to destroy people
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour
he isn’t bound and he’s actively working to destroy ) whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.”1 Peter 5:8-9 KJV
to be clear Christian’s can overcome the very real and very active enemy they face in the world through Christ
If your focus was on God and His people I think you would be closer to the truth.
In the time of the second temple restoration there was a spiritual darkness over the world, and a small reflected light in Jerusalem.
Nations on all sides were at different times motivated by their greed to attack at different times, and God dealt with many of them in a similar manner to His dealing with Haman the Agagite in the book of Esther.
The Ezekiel prophesy also applies to those that attacked Jerusalem and the Israelites during the captivity.
The similarity that I see to the Revelation 20 prophesy is that the attack against God and His people comes from all parts of the map, and is motivated by Satan.
I do not look at the future through the same lens as you do, because the gospel of Christ has already gone out to the nations.
This means that the people of God are dispersed around the world, and not gathered in one location.
The objection to this would be that John in v.9 says that they "compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city",
but I am reading that as a prophetic vision, and in a modern or future world it would play out against the saints wherever they may be.
I really dont believe anyone on this thread agree with any of your comebacks, this is fruitless and rather grieving so will not acknowledge another one of your rants. Your conclusions draw a concern of how you discern what's being siad....totally baffling.
I think we see the battles for the land many times and now today it still goes on.
Gog and Magog is the battle of wealth so how does a nation have wealth when in captivity?
You are taking us back to a conversation on the identity of the "man of sin" in 2 Thess 2.
My suggestion was that the second beast i.e. of Rev. 13 ticks a lot more boxes than the first.
He is the one called "the false prophet" in Rev.19.
I have already mentioned his deceitful lamb like appearance and his literal miracles aka "signs and lying wonders".
His destruction at the coming of white horse Jesus is of course spoken for.
While the gospel of Christ has already gone out to the nations, it doesn't mean that every nation and person has heard it yet. That's why we see an angel preaching the gospel to the world during the time of Great Tribulation in Revelation 14:6-7. God/Jesus is going to bring all kinds of signs and wonders to reach the rest of the world who didn't listen or have the chance to listen before the times of the very end.
Personally, I see the first battle of Gog & Magog as the battle that's going to entice the last Anti-Christ figure to come out of the woodwork and try to negotiate another fake peace treaty with Israel before he/they start the battle of Armageddon. This is probably where Jesus returns to put an end to it and remove them by placing the wrath of God on everyone who tried to use it as a means to end Israel. So, the Great Tribulation period may be going on during this whole battle.
Once Jesus puts an end to it, and He restores everything, we'll see that period of peace finally (1,000 years) while Satan is bound to the Abyss. Once Satan is released from the Abyss after the 1,000 years are over, and attempt to deceive the whole world again, that's when Jesus will shut Him down forever and judge him.
The whole history of battling Israel is on repeat until Jesus returns.
Speaking of which, let's not forget either that the beast and the false prophet get thrown into the Lake of Fire after the final Great Tribulation and before the 1,000 years of peace. Satan doesn't get thrown into the Lake of Fire until after the 1,000 years are over.
You kind of have a weird way of arranging appointments and time slots, yet I know you say the same of me.
I have considered that Rev. 19 could have been fully played out in the first century, and white horse Jesus coming in judgement could have not been His final second coming to judge the whole world.
None the less both these interpretations would cut the sea and earth beasts out of the action in the final tribulation, and in that case they would both fall short of qualifying as a final one man "The Antichrist".
As to whether or not there will be one evil man ruling the world shortly before it ends, I can not use the Bible to prove either way.
I am guessing that you are expecting the "man of sin" to come during or after your pre-trib rapture, while I see him as a character of the past.
Putting the first Gog/Magog battle any time in the future is far too convoluted.
It really does not fit anything in Ezekiel 38 and 39.
If we set aside all systems and simply ask, "What does Scripture actually say?", then the answer is more limited than either futurists or preterists sometimes admit.
Scripture clearly teaches that there is a "man of sin" or "man of lawlessness" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.
Scripture also clearly teaches that there is a beast in Revelation 13 and a false prophet associated with him in Revelation 13:11-18 and Revelation 19:20.
Scripture further teaches that there are many antichrists and that the spirit of antichrist was already present in John's day (1 John 2:18; 1 John 4:3).
What Scripture does not explicitly say is that all of these figures must be one and the same individual.
Likewise, Scripture does not explicitly say, "There will be one final world ruler called The Antichrist."
In fact, John never uses the term "antichrist" for the beast of Revelation.
That connection is an inference made by comparing passages, but the text itself never states it.
Regarding the timing of the man of sin, Scripture says he would be revealed before the day of the Lord (2 Thess. 2:3).
Whether that revelation is still future or already occurred is the very point under dispute.
The passage itself identifies the character and actions of the man of sin, but it does not directly say, "This occurs after a pre-tribulation rapture," nor does it say, "This was fulfilled in the first century."
As for Revelation 19, the text certainly presents Christ riding the white horse in judgment.
The question is whether that vision describes His final universal return or a historical judgment.
The chapter itself calls Him "King of kings, and Lord of lords" and depicts the beast and false prophet being cast alive into the lake of fire (Rev. 19:20-21).
The text records the event but does not directly answer every timing question people ask about it.
So if we stay with Scripture alone, the safest conclusion is:
The Bible teaches a man of sin.
The Bible teaches a beast and a false prophet.
The Bible teaches many antichrists.
The Bible never directly states that all of these are the same person.
The Bible never explicitly uses the title "The Antichrist" for the beast.
The Bible does not plainly state that there will or will not be a single evil world ruler immediately before the end.
Therefore, unless additional passages can be shown to directly connect these figures, neither "there must be one future world dictator" nor "there definitely cannot be one future world dictator" can be established by explicit biblical statements alone.
That is where interpretation begins and where certainty should be held with caution.
So If a Jew becomes a Christian that is like an apple becoming an oat?