Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Cameron143]

You are not answering my position, you are creating one for me and then attacking it.

Yeah, but his motive is pure and his character is stellar.

 

[OMC]

"Before you can invoke Hymenaeus, Philetus.....against me..."

Well then please disclose your view on the pre-trib rapture and either exonerate or condemn yourself.

Oh wait: you don't know, and/or you are not sure.

Did I get that right?

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.

 

[cv5]

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.

 

[OMC]

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.
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.

 

[cv5]

You are not answering my position, you are creating one for me and then attacking it.

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.

 

[OMC]

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.

 

[cv5]

Certainty is not the issue.
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.

Ohhhh.....so you are saying that YOU don't really know for sure because YOU didn't conduct the multiple inferential steps. Fine. Well you had better get a move on buddy.

But don't ever assume that others suffer from these same failings of biblical illiteracy, ignorance and sloth.

 

[cv5]

Yeah, but his motive is pure and his character is stellar.

Finally....a right answer. Good job buddy....

 

[OMC]

Ohhhh.....so you are saying that YOU don't really know for sure because YOU didn't conduct the multiple inferential steps. Fine. Well you had better get a move on buddy.

But don't ever assume that others suffer from these same failings of biblical illiteracy, ignorance and sloth.

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.

 

[OMC]

But don't ever assume that others suffer from these same failings of biblical illiteracy, ignorance and sloth.

You are the one who accuses folks of these things not me.