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.
My view is not built around the labels pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib, preterist, or otherwise.
My conviction is that Christ will return, the dead in Christ will be raised, and believers will be gathered to Him (1 Thess. 4:16-17).
I also believe that the resurrection, the gathering of the saints, and the coming of Christ are inseparably connected in the passages that explicitly discuss them (Matt. 24:29-31; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:16-17).
What I do not see is a passage that explicitly says, "The Church is removed seven years before Christ's visible return."
Therefore I would not teach that as certainty.
At the same time, I would not call a brother a heretic for holding a pre-trib view, because the gospel is not "Christ died for our sins, was buried, rose again the third day, and also you must hold a pre-trib rapture position."
The gospel is clearly defined in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. If you want my answer directly, I believe the rapture is real, the resurrection is real, the return of Christ is real, and I want my conclusions to come from the passages that explicitly discuss those events rather than from a system I must first assume in order to read them.
In other words: "you don't know, and/or you are not sure."
However, I do know and I am sure. Of the certainty of the prophesied end of the Church Age pre-trib rapture.
And yes, I am well aware of the fact that you do not rightly comprehend these passages either. Which is why I keep bringing them forward.....
[2Ti 2:17-18 KJV]
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
Certainty is not the issue.In other words: "you don't know, and/or you are not sure."
However, I do know and I am sure. Of the certainty of the prophesied end of the Church Age pre-trib rapture.
And yes, I am well aware of the fact that you do not rightly comprehend these passages either. Which is why I keep bringing them forward.....
[2Ti 2:17-18 KJV]
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
The issue is whether the certainty is grounded in what the text actually says.
Hymenaeus and Philetus were condemned because they taught that "the resurrection is past already" (2 Tim. 2:18).
Paul identified a specific doctrinal error and showed why it was destructive.
That is very different from saying, "I am certain about a pre-trib rapture, therefore anyone who is not certain is like Hymenaeus."
If I say the resurrection is future, Christ is returning, the dead in Christ will rise, believers will be gathered to Him, and final judgment is coming, then I am affirming the very truths Hymenaeus denied.
The question of whether the gathering occurs seven years before Christ's visible return is a separate question that must be proven from Scripture itself.
You say, "I know and am sure." Fine.
Then show the passage that explicitly says the Church is removed seven years before Christ's return.
Not a system, not an inference, not a chain of deductions, but the passage itself.
Scripture repeatedly says Christ will return, the saints will be gathered, and the dead will be raised (Matt. 24:29-31; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; 1 Thess. 4:16-17).
I can read those texts directly.
The burden is not on me to prove your conclusion false; the burden is on the one claiming certainty to show where Scripture explicitly teaches it.
Paul never condemned believers for admitting, "I am not fully persuaded on a difficult prophetic detail."
He condemned those who overthrew the faith by teaching error as established truth.
Ironically, the greater danger is often not humility before difficult passages, but claiming absolute certainty where Scripture itself requires multiple inferential steps to reach a conclusion.
Confidence may be admirable, but confidence is not exegesis. Scripture is.
Like @Cameron143 , you really don't have any committed eschatological position. Mostly denials, prancing pony foppish feints, and vague vacuous notions of the lukewarm spew-out-of-your-mouth kind.
Refusing to claim certainty where Scripture has not explicitly spoken is not lukewarmness. It is caution.
I have repeatedly affirmed the return of Christ, the resurrection, the gathering of the saints, the final judgment, and God's faithfulness to His promises.
The fact that I refuse to elevate a particular prophetic framework to the level of unquestionable doctrine does not mean I have no position.
It means I am trying to distinguish between what Scripture explicitly states and what must be inferred.
You call that weakness.
I call it letting Scripture set the limits of my certainty.
If I am wrong, show from the text where I am wrong.
But mocking someone as "foppish" or "lukewarm" is not exegesis.
Elijah was certain.
The prophets of Baal were certain.
The Pharisees were certain.
Certainty itself proves nothing.
The question has always been: what do the Scriptures actually say?
Until you address the passages under discussion rather than the person discussing them, you are arguing against a caricature rather than engaging the argument itself.
Scripturally, Proverbs 15:1 is relevant: "A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger."
And James 3:17 says: "The wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated."
The irony is that a person can be completely correct in doctrine and still be completely wrong in the way he treats others (1 Cor. 13:1-2). The Bible consistently calls us to defend truth with humility, not contempt.
What I said is that if a doctrine requires multiple inferential steps, then those steps should be demonstrated from Scripture rather than assumed.
There is a difference between saying, "I have not seen sufficient biblical evidence to be certain," and saying, "I have not studied the issue."
The Bereans were called noble because they searched the Scriptures to verify claims (Acts 17:11), not because they accepted every confident assertion.
That is not a deflection, because all the eternal promises to Israel really are fulfilled in Jesus, and they are spiritual, not earthly.
Character is seen in actions. You clearly can't tame your own tongue. It doesn't matter what one says is true of them. It only matters what God says is true.Finally....a right answer. Good job buddy....
Instead of maligning others, perhaps try loving them. Then we will know God is operating within you as love is the fruit of the Spirit.
Indeed, the wisdom from above IS pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated. BUT only for those with honest hearts who sincerely lambano/dechomai the message and hold it in integrity. And are careful to guard it and proclaim it accurately.
Having said that, Christ who is the Prince of Peace is going to absolutely wreck the heretics, frauds and posers.
Did you actually think that He was going to welcome those that Paul, Peter, Jude and John excoriated and warned us about?
[Rev 3:3, 16 KJV]
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. ...
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
[Mat 8:12 KJV] – 12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[Mat 22:13 KJV] – 13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast [him] into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[Mat 24:51 KJV] – 51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[Mat 25:30 KJV] – 30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[Luk 13:27 KJV] – 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all [ye] workers of iniquity.
[Luk 13:28 KJV] – 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you [yourselves] thrust out.
To postulate that we must love heretics and their heresies without restrictions and then greet them warmly and welcome them into the congregation is NOT biblical.
To say any thing different makes a person.....an heretic....
Despite your earnest desire to say otherwise, the gate remains narrow and way is hard. And oh yes there are MANY heretics who are trying in vain to be gate crashers.
[Mat 7:13 ESV]
13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
[2Jo 1:10-11 KJV]
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
A promise does not become everlasting because it was made to Abraham, it becomes everlasting when God says so.
There were promises made to Abraham that effect the children of Jacob particuarly, but they were not everlasting promises.
What every true Christian has in common with Jacob is that we all inherit the same EVERLASTING promises.
Who exactly are these "others" that you speak of who you feel are being maligned?
Hymenaeus? Philetus? Simon Magus? Diotrephes? Hermogenes & Phygellus?
Dude, I'm through the gate already encouraging you to come through. Even if you believe someone is heretical, that should emit from you a sorrow for the individual. Nowhere in scripture are you exempted from loving others. Love fulfills the law. You cannot be unloving and be either walking in the Spirit or be pleasing to God. You deceive yourself.To postulate that we must love heretics and their heresies without restrictions and then greet them warmly and welcome them into the congregation is NOT biblical.
To say any thing different makes a person.....an heretic....
Despite your earnest desire to say otherwise, the gate remains narrow and way is hard.
[Mat 7:13 ESV]
13 "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.
[2Jo 1:10-11 KJV]
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Despite your woeful and Biblically illiterate yearnings to the contrary, the New Testament posture toward heresy remains uncompromising.
Revelation 2:6 & 2:15–16 (Jesus Hates Heretical Doctrines)
"But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate."
Jesus directly affirms the church at Ephesus for sharing His personal hatred toward the practices and teachings of a specific heretical sect (the Nicolaitans).
Galatians 1:8–9 (Pronouncing a Curse on Heretics)
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed [anathema]. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."
Paul uses the strongest legal language available in the New Testament to damn any teacher, human or angelic, who distorts core Christian doctrine.
Titus 3:10–11 (Handling a Heretic)
"Reject a divisive man [Greek: hairetikon anthrōpon - a heretical man] after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned."
The term heretic comes directly from this Greek text. The command is explicit: warn them twice, and if they persist in false teaching or division, reject/cut them off completely.
2 John 1:10–11 (Refusing Hospitality to Heretics)
"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds."
John, often called the "Apostle of Love," strictly forbids believers from giving platform, hospitality, or even a greeting of endorsement to teachers of false christological doctrine.
Romans 16:17 (Avoiding False Teachers)
"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them."
2 Peter 2:1–3 (Exposing Destructive Heresies)
"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction."
Peter characterizes heresy as "destructive" (apōleia - damnation/ruin) and warns that those promoting it bring condemnation upon themselves.
Oh but truly the gate you have on offer is very wide indeed. At least as wide as the Ishtar gate and just about as appealing to a legit Christian. If you know what I mean......