Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Psalm1]

You're still asserting the conclusion rather than demonstrating it from the text.
I agree Revelation 7 presents an innumerable multitude.
I agree Revelation 13 says the beast is permitted to make war with the saints and overcome them.
But neither passage says those saints are people who previously missed a pretrib rapture.

Look at the actual chain of evidence:
Revelation 7 says they came out of great tribulation and washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 13 says the beast overcomes the saints.
Matthew 25 says the foolish virgins are shut out and hear, "I know you not."

The question is: where does Scripture connect those three groups together?

You say the martyrs "mirror" the foolish virgins.
But a parallel is not an identification.
Two groups can share similarities without being the same group.

Your point about dirty robes also has a problem.
Revelation 7:14 does not emphasize dirty robes.
The emphasis is that their robes have been washed white in the blood of the Lamb.
The text presents them as redeemed, not as second-class believers who finally got right after being left behind.

More importantly, the five foolish virgins are not described as tribulation martyrs.
They are not described as overcoming saints.
They are not described as washing robes in the Lamb's blood.
Those details must be imported from elsewhere.

So the issue is not whether a pretrib model can be constructed.
The issue is whether the passages themselves teach it.

Right now the argument looks like this:
The foolish virgins are left behind.
Therefore they become tribulation saints.
Therefore they are the multitude of Revelation 7.
Therefore Revelation 13 refers to them.

But every step in that chain is an inference.
None of those identifications are explicitly made by the text.

The burden is not on me to disprove the connections.
The burden is on you to show where Scripture actually makes them.
Until then, what you have is a theological model built from inference, not an explicit biblical teaching.

QUOTE
"More importantly, the five foolish virgins are not described as tribulation martyrs.
They are not described as overcoming saints.
They are not described as washing robes in the Lamb's blood.
Those details must be imported from elsewhere"

Then show US the impossibility.

It is all no brainer.

My model is vivid and FROM SCRIPTURE.
Fits like a glove.

 

[OMC]

That's like saying nothing in the bible means anything.

Just jettison all typology and every sight post.

Whatever you do, do not read Hebrews or revelation.
Both are loaded with typology.

You keep saying "the burden is on you".
Not at all.
I report what is there.
The burden is on you to accurately CHALLRNGE IT.
Not throw spitballs and say nobody but you can connect the dots.

See, that is what you guys do.
You don't have a single postrib rapture verse.

Then when a accurate model is presented, VIA STUDY AND EXEGESIS, Of verses you never looked at, you just go to " the burden is on you" default since you can not accurately challenge.

Concerning the robes that needed to be washed, well there you go, just throw in some kind of inference and guess work at it.

if you read earlier, the martyrs were handed robes and they were already clean, and then they were told that they had to wait under the altar.
So there's an added twist, that I'm sure you won't be able to challenge as well, in that those martyrs were previously confined to under the altar, but now, in the enumerable number verses, they are in the general population of heaven.
That's pretty easy to unpack. But I don't know if the post trib work book has ever even bothered to look at that.

What is the significance of all that? ??

Are we allowed to look at "signifigance" , or is that another dynamic only you can use?
we are not allowed to connect any dots.
Only you can do that huh?

I'm not rejecting typology or connecting dots.
I'm asking why these dots should be connected.
I agree Revelation 6, 7, 13, and Matthew 25 can be compared.
The question is where Scripture identifies the foolish virgins as the tribulation saints or the multitude of Revelation 7.
The issue isn't whether inferences exist.
We both make them.
The issue is whether the text itself makes those connections or whether the model does.
Saying I'm not allowed to challenge the links because they fit your system isn't an argument.
If the connections are really there, then showing them should be easier than accusing me of refusing to see them.

 

[OMC]

QUOTE
"More importantly, the five foolish virgins are not described as tribulation martyrs.
They are not described as overcoming saints.
They are not described as washing robes in the Lamb's blood.
Those details must be imported from elsewhere"

Then show US the impossibility.

It is all no brainer.

My model is vivid and FROM SCRIPTURE.
Fits like a glove.

The problem is that I'm not claiming your model is impossible. I'm asking why it's required.
A model can fit well and still not be the only explanation.
You say it "fits like a glove." Fine.
But lots of prophetic systems claim that.
The question is whether Scripture explicitly makes the identifications or whether you're making them based on patterns you see.
I have no problem discussing significance, typology, or connecting dots.
My point is simply that "these groups look alike" is not the same thing as "these groups are the same."
So I'm not asking you to prove your model is possible. I agree it's possible.
I'm asking you to show why Revelation itself requires me to conclude that the foolish virgins, the tribulation saints, and the multitude of Revelation 7 are all the same group.
That's the step I still don't see demonstrated from the text itself.

 

[Revelation1v8]

You're misunderstanding my objection.
I'm not asking you to repeat the pattern until it sinks in.
I've already acknowledged the pattern.
I've explicitly agreed that exile-restoration themes run throughout the prophets and that later restoration language often appears greater than the return from Babylon.

What I'm asking is much simpler:

Where does the text tell us that the existence of a pattern requires two distinct fulfillments of Isaiah 54?

Those are not the same claim.

You keep saying, "Look at Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Revelation."
I understand that argument.
The issue is that you're no longer deriving your conclusion from Isaiah 54 itself.
You're deriving it from a synthesis of multiple prophetic books.
That's perfectly legitimate as a theological argument.
But it is different from saying Isaiah 54 itself proves it.

You say the problem is that I see only one event in Isaiah 54.
My response is: where in Isaiah 54 do you see two?

The barren woman is identified as Zion.
The forsaken wife is identified as Zion.
The restored wife is identified as Zion.
The chapter reads as one continuous movement from desolation to restoration.

If your argument is that the Babylonian restoration was incomplete and that later prophets expand the hope into a greater future restoration, I can follow that reasoning.
But you're making a stronger claim.
You're saying Isaiah 54 itself is deliberately structured as a repeating cycle that points to both the Babylonian restoration and a future tribulation-millennial restoration.

That's the step I'm still asking you to demonstrate from the text.

In other words, I'm not disagreeing that the pattern exists throughout the prophetic canon.
I'm asking why that pattern necessarily means Isaiah 54 contains two fulfillments rather than one restoration that becomes the model for later prophetic hope.
Those are not the same thing, and I think you're treating them as though they are self-evidently identical when that is precisely the point under debate.

You asked: "Where does the text tell us that the existence of a pattern requires two distinct fulfillments of Isaiah 54?"

My answer: Common sense should tell you that. If the events of those scriptures haven't happened yet, then they have a separate fulfillment in the future.

Isaiah 54:

8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.

9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.

13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.

 

[OMC]

You asked: "Where does the text tell us that the existence of a pattern requires two distinct fulfillments of Isaiah 54?"

Common sense should tell you that. If the events of those scriptures haven't happened yet, then they have a separate fulfillment in the future.

Isaiah 54:

8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.

9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.

13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.

You're actually making a different argument now, and I think it's a stronger one.
If your point is that Isaiah 54 cannot be exhausted by the post-exilic return because verses 8-10 describe an everlasting covenant relationship and verses 13-14 describe universal righteousness, peace, and freedom from oppression, then I agree there is a real case to be made that the chapter reaches beyond the return from Babylon.
What I would not grant automatically is that this proves a second fulfillment of verse 1 specifically.
Rather, I would say the latter part of the chapter appears to contain promises that exceed the historical restoration.
In other words, you're no longer arguing merely from a pattern.
You're arguing that parts of the prophecy remain unfulfilled.

That's a much stronger argument than simply saying, "history repeats itself."

The question then becomes: are verses 8-14 describing a future condition that extends and completes the restoration described earlier in the chapter, or are they evidence of a distinct future fulfillment cycle?
I agree the promises you cited seem bigger than what happened after Babylon.
That's the point that needs to be argued from the text, not merely the existence of a pattern.

 

[Revelation1v8]

You're actually making a different argument now, and I think it's a stronger one.
If your point is that Isaiah 54 cannot be exhausted by the post-exilic return because verses 8-10 describe an everlasting covenant relationship and verses 13-14 describe universal righteousness, peace, and freedom from oppression, then I agree there is a real case to be made that the chapter reaches beyond the return from Babylon.

I'm not making a different argument, I'm answering your question the way you asked it and I answered it.

What I would not grant automatically is that this proves a second fulfillment of verse 1 specifically.
Rather, I would say the latter part of the chapter appears to contain promises that exceed the historical restoration.
In other words, you're no longer arguing merely from a pattern.
You're arguing that parts of the prophecy remain unfulfilled.

First of all, we have to identify WHO is being spoken to in verse 1 to understand who is being spoken about in the latter verses of that chapter. I'm showing you a pattern that is happening to the SAME people identified in verse 1.

--

 

[OMC]

I'm not making a different argument, I'm answering your question the way you asked it and I answered it.




First of all, we have to identify WHO is being spoken to in verse 1 to understand who is being spoken about in the latter verses of that chapter. I'm showing you a pattern that is happening to the SAME people identified in verse 1.

--

What I'm still asking is: does Isaiah explicitly present two restoration cycles for the same woman, or does he present one restoration whose full realization extends beyond the first historical return?
That's the step I'm still not seeing demonstrated from the text itself.

 

[HeIsHere]

I can see why you'd take that position.
The branches in Romans 11 are indeed individual Jews and Gentiles who either remain in, are broken off, or are grafted into the olive tree through faith.
My hesitation is that Paul explicitly distinguishes the remnant in verse 5 from "all Israel" in verse 26. If "all Israel" means only the remnant that already existed in Paul's day, then verse 26 seems to add little beyond what he had already established.

That's why I think the argument has to explain why Paul changes terms.
If the remnant and "all Israel" are identical, what new point is Paul making in verse 26?

I agree that whatever "all Israel" means, it must remain consistent with Paul's teaching elsewhere, especially Galatians and the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ.
The question is whether that consistency points to the remnant alone or to the completed people of God.

Here is your answer:

God’s redemptive purpose always advanced through promise, election, and divine calling rather than through ethnicity considered by itself.

I just wonder this line is not the goto line?

"For not all who are descended from Israel are truly Israel" comes from Romans 9:6

Arnold Fruchtenbaum seems a little cluless to me since it obvious what Paul is explaining to his audience....

Paul's is not to reassure his readers that physical Israel will someday reclaim prominence, but to explain why God’s promises remain trustworthy even when the majority stand hardened in unbelief.

 

[OMC]

Here is your answer:

God’s redemptive purpose always advanced through promise, election, and divine calling rather than through ethnicity considered by itself.

I just wonder this line is not the goto line?

"For not all who are descended from Israel are truly Israel" comes from Romans 9:6

Arnold Fruchtenbaum seems a little cluless to me since it obvious what Paul is explaining to his audience....

Paul's is not to reassure his readers that physical Israel will someday reclaim prominence, but to explain why God’s promises remain trustworthy even when the majority stand hardened in unbelief.

I think that's a fair point, and Romans 9:6 is one reason I hesitate to make "all Israel" in Romans 11:26 simply mean ethnic Israel as a whole.
Paul begins this entire section by explaining why God's word has not failed even though many ethnic Israelites are in unbelief:
"For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6).
From there, Paul repeatedly emphasizes election, promise, calling, and faith rather than physical descent alone.

So when I ask why Paul moves from "remnant" in Romans 11:5 to "all Israel" in Romans 11:26, I'm not assuming a future ethnic prominence.
I'm asking what explanatory work the phrase is doing in Paul's argument.

Your point is a strong one: the burden of Romans 9-11 is not primarily, "Don't worry, national Israel will be important later."
Rather, it is, "God's promises have not failed because God's true Israel has always been defined by His saving purpose, not mere ancestry."
The question then becomes whether "all Israel" refers to the full company of those whom God saves, or whether Paul is describing a future large-scale turning of ethnic Jews.
That's the point under debate.

But I agree that Romans 9:6 cannot simply be pushed aside.
Whatever Romans 11:26 means, it has to fit Paul's earlier statement that not all who are descended from Israel are truly Israel.

 

[cv5]

@OMC

If you need me to point out the specific verses in Isaiah 54 AGAIN showing how there is yet another future event, here they are, but we've already discussed them before.

Isaiah 54:

8 In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer.

9 For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee.

10 For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee.

13 And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

14 In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it shall not come near thee.

It doesn't matter what the text says. @OMC has "his own" doctrine to sell.

 

[OMC]

It doesn't matter what the text says. @OMC has "his own" doctrine to sell.

Prove it.

 

[cv5]

Here is your answer:

God’s redemptive purpose always advanced through promise, election, and divine calling rather than through ethnicity considered by itself.

I just wonder this line is not the goto line?

"For not all who are descended from Israel are truly Israel" comes from Romans 9:6

Arnold Fruchtenbaum seems a little cluless to me since it obvious what Paul is explaining to his audience....

Paul's is not to reassure his readers that physical Israel will someday reclaim prominence, but to explain why God’s promises remain trustworthy even when the majority stand hardened in unbelief.

The fact that neither of you two understand Romans 9 is patently obvious.
The reason that neither of you two understand Romans 9 is ALSO patently obvious.

And no, neither of you are "true Jews".

 

[OMC]

The fact that neither of you two understand Romans 9 is patently obvious.
The reason that neither of you two understand Romans 9 is ALSO patently obvious.

And no, neither of you are "true Jews".

Claiming that others "obviously" don't understand Romans 9 is not an argument from the text.
Paul instructs us to give reasons from Scripture, not simply declare our opponents ignorant (Acts 17:2-3).

More importantly, judgment about who is or is not a "true Jew" belongs to the Lord and must be based on Scripture, not personal insults.
Paul says, "He is a Jew, which is one inwardly" (Rom. 2:29), and in Romans 9 he carefully distinguishes between physical descent and the children of promise (Rom. 9:6-8).
That requires exegesis, not accusations.

If you believe Romans 9 has been misunderstood, then show from the text how Paul's argument about election, promise, and the remnant corrects the interpretation being offered.
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient" (2 Tim. 2:24).

Simply saying, "Neither of you understand Romans 9," proves nothing. Demonstrating it from the text would.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Claiming that others "obviously" don't understand Romans 9 is not an argument from the text.
Paul instructs us to give reasons from Scripture, not simply declare our opponents ignorant (Acts 17:2-3).

More importantly, judgment about who is or is not a "true Jew" belongs to the Lord and must be based on Scripture, not personal insults.
Paul says, "He is a Jew, which is one inwardly" (Rom. 2:29), and in Romans 9 he carefully distinguishes between physical descent and the children of promise (Rom. 9:6-8).
That requires exegesis, not accusations.

If you believe Romans 9 has been misunderstood, then show from the text how Paul's argument about election, promise, and the remnant corrects the interpretation being offered.
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient" (2 Tim. 2:24).

Simply saying, "Neither of you understand Romans 9," proves nothing. Demonstrating it from the text would.

I could be wrong, but I think he's talking about these verses:

Romans 9:4-8

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

 

[OMC]

I could be wrong, but I think he's talking about these verses:

Romans 9:4-8

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Let him speak for himself.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Let him speak for himself.

You can't give me your thoughts on the verses I posted above?

 

[OMC]

You can't give me your thoughts on the verses I posted above?

Later, right now he has my attention. If he thinks I have my own doctrine I want to hear it.

 

[Revelation1v8]

Later, right now he has my attention. If he thinks I have my own doctrine I want to hear it.

Sure, I'll give you time to gather your thoughts on it before I bring it up again.

 

[cv5]

Claiming that others "obviously" don't understand Romans 9 is not an argument from the text.
Paul instructs us to give reasons from Scripture, not simply declare our opponents ignorant (Acts 17:2-3).

More importantly, judgment about who is or is not a "true Jew" belongs to the Lord and must be based on Scripture, not personal insults.
Paul says, "He is a Jew, which is one inwardly" (Rom. 2:29), and in Romans 9 he carefully distinguishes between physical descent and the children of promise (Rom. 9:6-8).
That requires exegesis, not accusations.

If you believe Romans 9 has been misunderstood, then show from the text how Paul's argument about election, promise, and the remnant corrects the interpretation being offered.
"The servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient" (2 Tim. 2:24).

Simply saying, "Neither of you understand Romans 9," proves nothing. Demonstrating it from the text would.

LOL. We have already covered the core message of Romans 9. Many times.
And its quite straightforward. But as is usual, the CT's and RT's contort it so that it becomes another endless fruitless pointless debate.
Which is their objective to begin with. Always searching, never knowing.

Luckily, my searches ARE fruitful and I DO know. The truth of settled, inerrant Biblically based doctrine that is.

BTW, your AI replies are entirely obvious.

 

[OMC]

Sure, I'll give you time to gather your thoughts on it before I bring it up again.

Sigh, I apologize. That was improper of me, yes ill answer you.
Romans 9:4-8 is precisely why simply appealing to ethnic descent cannot settle the question.
Paul explicitly says, "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6).
He then explains that not all Abraham's physical descendants are counted as the promised seed: "In Isaac shall thy seed be called" (v.7). His conclusion is unmistakable: "They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed" (v.8).

So before anyone claims Romans 11 must refer to ethnic Israel as a whole, they must reckon with Paul's own definition in Romans 9. Paul's concern is to defend the faithfulness of God's promises despite widespread Jewish unbelief.
His argument is that God's word has not failed because God's promises were never guaranteed to every physical descendant, but to the children of promise.

Therefore, any interpretation of "all Israel" in Romans 11 must be consistent with Paul's earlier statement that not all who are descended from Israel are truly Israel (Rom. 9:6).
That's not importing theology into the text. That's following Paul's argument where he himself begins it.