Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[OMC]

LOL! That sure was a lot of words to express absolutely nothing!

I thought you were smart enough to realize that the texts themselves don't plainly state anything throughout a large portion of the Bible. I've told you from the beginning that you have to pick each chapter and verse apart and piece them together like a puzzle so that they make sense in their entirety.

--

You are proving my point.
I agree that Scripture must be compared with Scripture.
The question is not whether verses should be pieced together, but whether the connections you are making are actually stated or merely assumed.
Every theological system claims it is "putting the puzzle together."
Calvinists, Arminians, Preterists, Futurists, Dispensationalists, and Covenant theologians all say the same thing.
The real issue is whether the pieces themselves require the conclusion.

For example, where does Scripture explicitly say there is a distinction between a general Day of the Lord and a later Great and Terrible Day of the Lord?
Where does Scripture explicitly define them as separate phases?
If that conclusion comes only after combining several passages and adding assumptions about timelines, then it remains an interpretation rather than an explicit teaching.

I have no objection to harmonizing passages.
I object when the harmonization becomes the authority over the passages themselves.
Scripture interpreting Scripture means allowing clear texts to define difficult texts.
It does not mean building a framework first and then requiring every verse to fit that framework.

So instead of telling me that I need to assemble the puzzle, show me the verse that actually states the distinction you're proposing. If no such verse exists, then let's be honest and call it what it is: an interpretation that may be right or wrong, but an interpretation nonetheless.

 

[WayneNSO]

As we can tell by the uprise in anti-semitism, God is definitely allowing people to turn themselves over to the big lie again because they can't accept truth.

--

Have you heard the saying The pot calling the kettle black ? I hear it has been suggested as the new name for Christian Chat

 

[Revelation1v8]

Notice in verse 16 - descend with a shout - voice of the archangel -trump of God - --- This so called secret rapture sounds a very noisy and noticeable event

Also regarding the Thief in the night part, in those days thieves used to be bands of robbers on horseback. They would ride into towns and villages blowing trumpets and causing a lot of noise to scare and confused the people. While this was going on other thieves would then pillage the houses.

Let's too compare the noise of the great trumpet that sounds at Jesus' return versus the great noise that brings about the destruction in 2 Peter 3:10...

The two sounds differ in nature, purpose, and Greek vocabulary:

"The trumpet of God" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) — The Greek is σάλπιγξ (salpinx), a musical instrument. This is a defined, musical, intentional sound — a summons or call. It functions as a signal of Christ's descent to gather believers and raise the dead in Christ, analogous to a king's trumpet calling his people to assembly.

"A great noise" (2 Peter 3:10) — The Greek is ῥοιζηδόν (roizēdon), a hapax legomenon (occurring only once in the NT). The root noun ῥοῖζος describes a roaring, rushing, destructive sound — specifically the whizzing of arrows, the rush of wings, the roar of mighty winds or waters, or the crash of a devouring flame. This is not a musical or melodic sound at all; it is the tumultuous, violent noise of the heavens being torn apart and the elements melting in fire.

--

 

[Revelation1v8]

Have you heard the saying The pot calling the kettle black ? I hear it has been suggested as the new name for Christian Chat

I'm not the one hating on God's original covenant people that the Bible shows God/Jesus having mercy on at a later date. If my words sound mean to other individuals in this conversation, it's because THAT is exactly what is being dished out to me first for believing in God's promises and words.

--

 

[OMC]

Let's too compare the noise of the great trumpet that sounds at Jesus' return versus the great noise that brings about the destruction in 2 Peter 3:10...

The two sounds differ in nature, purpose, and Greek vocabulary:

"The trumpet of God" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) — The Greek is σάλπιγξ (salpinx), a musical instrument. This is a defined, musical, intentional sound — a summons or call. It functions as a signal of Christ's descent to gather believers and raise the dead in Christ, analogous to a king's trumpet calling his people to assembly.

"A great noise" (2 Peter 3:10) — The Greek is ῥοιζηδόν (roizēdon), a hapax legomenon (occurring only once in the NT). The root noun ῥοῖζος describes a roaring, rushing, destructive sound — specifically the whizzing of arrows, the rush of wings, the roar of mighty winds or waters, or the crash of a devouring flame. This is not a musical or melodic sound at all; it is the tumultuous, violent noise of the heavens being torn apart and the elements melting in fire.

--

The fact that the sounds are described with different Greek words does not prove they occur at different times.
It only proves they are different sounds.

In 1 Thessalonians 4:16, Paul describes the Lord's descent with a shout, the voice of the archangel, and the trumpet of God.
In 2 Peter 3:10, Peter describes the heavens passing away with a great rushing roar.
Those are different events within their respective descriptions, so different vocabulary is expected.

The real question is: where does Scripture say that because the trumpet (salpinx) and the roar (roizēdon) are different sounds, they must be separated by years, centuries, or prophetic phases?

That conclusion does not come from either text. It is being inferred.

In fact, both passages connect their events directly to the coming of the Lord.
Paul says, "the Lord himself shall descend from heaven" (1 Thess. 4:16).
Peter says, "the day of the Lord will come" and then describes the heavens and elements being dissolved (2 Pet. 3:10).

So the issue is not whether a trumpet differs from a roar. Of course it does.
The issue is whether Scripture explicitly separates these events into distinct stages.
Pointing out different sounds does not establish different comings, different days, or different prophetic eras.

Scripture must do more than show a difference in vocabulary.
It must explicitly state the timeline being proposed.
Otherwise, the timeline remains an interpretation imposed on the texts rather than something derived from the texts themselves.

By the same reasoning, Christ's coming in Matthew 24 is accompanied by angels and a great trumpet (Matt. 24:31), while Revelation describes heavenly armies following Him (Rev. 19:11-16).
Different details do not automatically create different events.
The burden is to prove from Scripture that they are separate, not merely that the descriptions contain different elements

 

[WayneNSO]

I'm not the one hating on God's original covenant people that the Bible shows God/Jesus having mercy on at a later date. If my words sound mean to other individuals in this conversation, it's because THAT is exactly what is being dished out to me first for believing in God's promises and words.

--

What you just stated to me I consider false and blasphemous doctrine. To me you are siding with Gods enemies and attacking Gods people, while at the same time claiming you have the truth and others have the lie.

Both sides claim they have scripture on their side and both sides refuse to accept the others doctrine, so my statement about the kettle stands.

It is usually accept what I think is the truth and I will not consider anything else no matter how much scripture you use. In fact I will twist scripture or read my doctrine into the scripture rather than consider anything else.

That statement is not an attack on you, it is how 99 per cent of people in here are in my opinion.

 

[Revelation1v8]

According to Scripture alone, much of what you say here is possible, but several key conclusions are being supplied by your end-times framework rather than directly stated by the passages.

What 1 Thessalonians 4 actually says:
The Lord descends from heaven.
The dead in Christ rise first.
Living believers are caught up to meet the Lord in the air.
Believers will forever be with the Lord.
That is what the passage explicitly teaches (1 Thess. 4:15-17).

What the passage does not explicitly say:
That this is one phase of a multi-stage coming.
That a tribulation period follows or precedes this event.
That unbelievers remain alive on earth afterward.
That a millennial kingdom begins immediately afterward.
That this event is separate from the final judgment.
That there are multiple raptures.
Those may be someone's conclusions, but they are not stated in 1 Thessalonians 4.

The statement, "It doesn't mean it's the only rapture either," is a good example.
The text neither says there is only one nor says there are several.
The moment someone starts building a doctrine of multiple raptures from the silence of the passage, he has moved beyond what is written (1 Cor. 4:6).

Likewise, the appeal to Revelation 5 introduces assumptions.
Revelation 5 says the redeemed are before God's throne and "shall reign on the earth" (Rev. 5:10).
It does not explain when they arrived there, how long they have been there, whether they were caught up at different times, or how that relates chronologically to 1 Thessalonians 4.
Those connections come from a prophetic system, not from the explicit words of the texts themselves.

Another framework appears in the statement, "When Jesus returns with ALL of His saints."
Scripture does speak of Christ coming with His saints (1 Thess. 3:13; Jude 14), but proving that every saint seen in Revelation 5 is the same group involved in 1 Thessalonians 4 requires additional interpretive steps that the cited passages do not explicitly provide.

The strongest scriptural point you make is that believers will be with Christ forever.
Paul explicitly says, "so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17). No argument there.

The weakest points are where you fill in details that the text does not state:

Multiple raptures.
Unbelievers surviving Christ's return.
The Sheep and Goat Judgment occurring after 1 Thessalonians 4.
Revelation 5 being a chronological proof of a future millennial sequence.
The redeemed in Revelation 5 being in heaven by a prior rapture event.

Those conclusions may be right or wrong, but they are not derived directly from the cited verses.
They come from a premillennial prophetic framework that is being read into the passages and used to connect them.

1 Thessalonians 4 clearly teaches the resurrection of dead believers, the catching up of living believers, and eternal fellowship with Christ. The rest of the timeline being asserted must be demonstrated from explicit texts, not assumed from an end-times system.

So, you're going to keep talking in circles as a means to show that the Bible can't prove anything and that you don't have an opinion on the matter? Does that mean that we shouldn't speculate on what it means by piecing the scriptures together like they should be? That's not a very encouraging reason for studying the Bible, now is it? In fact, I think you're suggesting that people shouldn't because it will lead them to no conclusions at all.

--

 

[OMC]

So, you're going to keep talking in circles as a means to show that the Bible can't prove anything and that you don't have an opinion on the matter? Does that mean that we shouldn't speculate on what it means by piecing the scriptures together like they should be? That's not a very encouraging reason for studying the Bible, now is it? In fact, I think you're suggesting that people shouldn't because it will lead them to no conclusions at all.

--

No, I'm not saying we shouldn't piece Scripture together.
I'm saying we must distinguish between what Scripture explicitly teaches and what we infer when we connect passages.

 

[Revelation1v8]

What you just stated to me I consider false and blasphemous doctrine. To me you are siding with Gods enemies and attacking Gods people, while at the same time claiming you have the truth and others have the lie.

Both sides claim they have scripture on their side and both sides refuse to accept the others doctrine, so my statement about the kettle stands.

It is usually accept what I think is the truth and I will not consider anything else no matter how much scripture you use. In fact I will twist scripture or read my doctrine into the scripture rather than consider anything else.

That statement is not an attack on you, it is how 99 per cent of people in here are in my opinion.

You say these things because you're not familiar with all of the scriptures, what God/Jesus promises to those who you claim to be His enemies.

People who ignore what the Bible says about the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who the Bible itself says were "called" to continue the seed into the "age to come" are just fooling themselves.

What you are saying is exactly why we need to read God's word the way He sees it and not the way we see it or want to see it.

We need to consider ALL scripture as truth and not just a portion of it like several have tried to do here.

While we are human and it's hard not to include our own biases into the text, it's what we must train ourselves to do if we want to use the power of the Holy Spirit that's been given to us to understand and remember what God/Jesus said.

--

 

[Revelation1v8]

No, I'm not saying we shouldn't piece Scripture together.
I'm saying we must distinguish between what Scripture explicitly teaches and what we infer when we connect passages.

And we both know that the Bible doesn't always use EXPLICIT language, so your points always turn out being moot.

--

 

[OMC]

You say these things because you're not familiar with all of the scriptures, what God/Jesus promises what you claim to be His enemies.

People who ignore what the Bible says about the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who the Bible itself says were "called" to continue the seed into the "age to come" are just fooling themselves.

What you are saying is exactly why we need to read God's word the way He sees it and not the way we see it or want to see it.

We need to consider ALL scripture as truth and not just a portion of it like several have tried to do here.

While we are human and it's hard not to include our own biases into the text, it's what we must train ourselves to do if we want to use the power of the Holy Spirit that's been given to us to understand and remember what God/Jesus said.

--

Saying, "You are not familiar with all the Scriptures," does not actually answer the argument.
Every side in a theological debate believes the other side is overlooking passages.
The real question is whether the conclusion being proposed can be demonstrated from all the relevant texts in their context.

I also agree that we should consider all Scripture as truth.
The difficulty comes when two sets of passages appear to pull in different directions.
At that point, neither of us gets to dismiss one set of verses.
We must explain all of them.

 

[OMC]

And we both know that the Bible doesn't always use EXPLICIT language, so your points always turn out being moot.

--

I agree that the Bible does not always speak with the same level of explicitness on every subject.
That's exactly why we compare Scripture with Scripture.

But if we remove the distinction between what is stated and what is inferred, then every interpretation becomes equally valid simply because someone can connect verses together.

The issue isn't whether inferences exist. They do.
The issue is whether the inference is required by the text or merely permitted by it.

 

[WayneNSO]

You say these things because you're not familiar with all of the scriptures, what God/Jesus promises what you claim to be His enemies.

People who ignore what the Bible says about the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who the Bible itself says were "called" to continue the seed into the "age to come" are just fooling themselves.

What you are saying is exactly why we need to read God's word the way He sees it and not the way we see it or want to see it.

We need to consider ALL scripture as truth and not just a portion of it like several have tried to do here.

While we are human and it's hard not to include our own biases into the text, it's what we must train ourselves to do if we want to use the power of the Holy Spirit that's been given to us to understand and remember what God/Jesus said.

--

And yet I also used to believe what you believe and the scriptures corrected me, not without a struggle wanting to hold onto what I believed on my part, but scripture corrected me.

So when you say to people they do not know scripture, only you know scripture, it is very insulting. But I understand where you are coming from because I have been there.

 

[WayneNSO]

I want a new chat room, like an AA type room for recovering Zionist/Futurist - So I can stand up and say, hello I am Wayne and I am a futurist

 

[Churchgoer]

Actually.....you are not allowed to hate their guts and demand that they cease to exist.

Is this the feeling you have towards them as well as others?
Where did you get this from?

Which many on this thread do anyway, gleefully and with great vigor.

I expect dreadful things to accompany this horrid sentiment BTW. Things like this:

[Rev 3:3 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.

Did I mention that I have great love and feelings of warmth and reverence for Jews every time that I am so fortunate so as to encounter one?

I live among many of them. We have great friendship. I tell them about Jesus. No one is having the feeling you describe. They are just like any ethnic friends we have. None is superior than other. Many of them do not support modern isreal state s bombing, murdering, slaughtering, plundering. ... which you support.

 

[Revelation1v8]

I agree that the Bible does not always speak with the same level of explicitness on every subject.
That's exactly why we compare Scripture with Scripture.

But if we remove the distinction between what is stated and what is inferred, then every interpretation becomes equally valid simply because someone can connect verses together.

The issue isn't whether inferences exist. They do.
The issue is whether the inference is required by the text or merely permitted by it.

So, based on the texts that have already been presented above, are you able to draw any inferences?

--

 

[Revelation1v8]

I want a new chat room, like an AA type room for recovering Zionist/Futurist - So I can stand up and say, hello I am Wayne and I am a futurist

Unfortunately, that's impossible, because the scriptures were written totally around a certain nation and people for which is was originally intended before the Gentile nations and people were included into it.

Sorry!

--

 

[Revelation1v8]

And yet I also used to believe what you believe and the scriptures corrected me, not without a struggle wanting to hold onto what I believed on my part, but scripture corrected me.

So when you say to people they do not know scripture, only you know scripture, it is very insulting. But I understand where you are coming from because I have been there.

How did scripture "correct" you? Care to give an example?

---

 

[OMC]

So, based on the texts that have already been presented above, are you able to draw any inferences?

--

post

• #5,097,
• #5,094
• #5,098
• #5,105

 

[Revelation1v8]

post

• #5,097,
• #5,094
• #5,098
• #5,105

Got it. You're saying that you have no inferences and that you're remaining neutral and moot, making you incapable of drawing any conclusions of your own. Just as I expected.

--