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.
To add to that, ot shadow points to Jesus, nt the real deal Jesus is here.
Melchazedec brought out bread and wine too.
Ot sprinkle lamb, ox blood over tabnacle.
All points to Jesus.
No one is saved without Jesus, applies to both ot, nt.
You not addressing the matter of John 6:63 and the Holy Spirit leads me to believe that you come from a Catholic background and I think Psalm1 was on to something there. This may be why you don't understand scripture or refuse to look at it in any other way than the way you've been taught.
--
Word on the street is that you are a "professor of theology". Supposedly. Supposedly teaching at university.
If this is true, then you are burdened with GREAT responsibilities, a far greater burden than us sad ignorant hayseeds and common yokels.
So then, as a pathetic unschooled bumkin, I hereby beg your indulgence oh greatly exalted one.
Please, I beg you, LIST if you can 3-5 significant "eschatological heresies" that you have identified on this thread.
I do NOT ask for "proofs". No proofs. Simply a "list" of 3-5 eschatological heresies that you have identified.
Disclaimer: I already know that you WILL NOT produce this list.
You WILL NOT commit to ANY particular eschatological doctrine whether Biblically codified or not.
And understand this: if you fail to produce this list WHEN YOU KNOW in your heart that there are indeed heresies floating around on this thread, then you stand accused of dereliction of duty.
BTW, I stand firmly with Christ and Paul in the matter so noted below.
Where do you stand? Somewhere far off away from the field of battle?
*****************************************************************
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.
If I come from Judaism background, will that make your statement true?
If....
Jesus do not care earthly background. Only God centered, not human centered.
Yes, Scripture identifies genuine heresy.
Yes, Jesus hates false doctrine (Rev. 2:6).
Yes, Paul pronounces a curse on another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9).
Yes, Peter warns about destructive heresies (2 Pet. 2:1).
But notice something important: every example you cited involves a clearly identifiable doctrinal error.
The Nicolaitans promoted practices Christ condemned.
The Galatians were abandoning justification by faith.
The false teachers of 2 Peter denied the Lord and brought destructive heresies.
John was dealing with those who denied Christ's coming in the flesh.
In each case, the error was first identified and then condemned.
If you ask me for a list of heresies, I can give you what Scripture explicitly identifies: denying Christ, preaching another gospel, denying the resurrection, denying Christ's incarnation, and introducing destructive teachings contrary to apostolic doctrine.
What I cannot do is simply take brothers who affirm Christ's deity, His death, burial and resurrection, His return, the future resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith, then automatically place them in the same category because I disagree with their prophetic conclusions.
Scripture requires more than that.
The apostles didn't merely label people heretics; they demonstrated from doctrine why they were heretics.
So where I stand is exactly where I have stood all along: expose genuine heresy, contend earnestly for the faith, but prove the charge from Scripture before applying the label.
That is the pattern I see in Christ, Paul, Peter, Jude, and John.
Which of course is a direct contradiction to these laws.
For reasons that are patently obvious. To those who rightly grasp the "Jewish mindset".
Lev 17:14
For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off.
Eze 33:25
Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land?
Here is proof you are not reading anything, I have already provided the list you asked for in the post you are responding to,
"I can give you what Scripture explicitly identifies: denying Christ, preaching another gospel, denying the resurrection, denying Christ's incarnation, and introducing destructive teachings contrary to apostolic doctrine."
I think that's where you have to read between the lines such as:
"What I cannot do is simply take brothers who affirm Christ's deity, His death, burial and resurrection, His return, the future resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith, then automatically place them in the same category"
--
Because Scripture identifies heresy as the denial or corruption of foundational truths of the faith, not merely disagreement over prophetic details; therefore, if a person affirms Christ's deity, death, resurrection, future return, future resurrection, and salvation by grace through faith, the charge of heresy must first be proven from Scripture rather than simply assumed (Gal. 1:8-9; 2 Tim. 2:17-18; 2 Pet. 2:1).
I requested that he post what he has identified as ESCHATOLOGICAL HERESIES that he has recognized as circulating on this thread.
And as usual, there was no answer provided, despite the massive overwhelming evidence to the affirmative that
has been illuminated by methodical concise well reasoned Biblically grounded arguments on this thread.
What we DID get is another dash to the door.
So then we must ask: is this refusal to take a firm stand on doctrine the difference between those who get spewed, and those who do not? I mean I already posted the requisite proof passages of same. Does @OMC want me to repost them again and again?
Who decides that it does not apply to Gods people?
Does the book of romans have the same lmitations?
Only applies to romans ?
I did answer your question.
What I refused to do was label fellow believers as heretics without first proving from Scripture that they are teaching a damnable error.
That is not a refusal to take a stand.
It is a refusal to bear false witness.
You ask whether my caution means I will be "spewed out."
Yet Revelation 3:16 does not define lukewarmness as refusing to use the word "heretic" often enough.
The passage says:
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
The question is whether a person is faithful to Christ, not whether he is eager to condemn everyone who disagrees with him.
If you want a direct answer, Scripture clearly identifies as heresy things such as preaching another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9), denying the resurrection (2 Tim. 2:17-18), denying Christ (2 Pet. 2:1; 1 John 2:22), and rejecting apostolic doctrine concerning His incarnation (2 John 7-11). Those are not difficult to identify because the apostles themselves identified them.
What I have not seen demonstrated on this thread is that every person holding a different eschatological position is guilty of those errors.
So my position remains the same:
That is not running to the door.
That is asking for the same thing Paul, Peter, Jude, and John provided when they exposed false teachers: a clear doctrinal case from Scripture.
I would say you landed on a "safe interpretation".
You can "safely" park there.
The "saved the best for last" is not pointing to that, but you do whatever the masses instruct.
I tend to go with the obvious where possible.
I agree that Ezekiel 37-48 cannot simply be brushed aside as insignificant prophetic details.
Those chapters contain major covenant promises concerning Israel, the nations, God's sanctuary, and His everlasting covenant of peace. If someone ignores them, that is a serious interpretive problem.
But before I call it heresy, I must first show that the interpretation corrupts the faith itself rather than merely mishandling a prophetic passage.
Scripture requires me to make that distinction.
The solution is not to minimize Ezekiel 37-48, but to wrestle honestly with what those chapters actually say and how they fit with the rest of Scripture.
"What I refused to do was label fellow believers as heretics"
Oh no Mr. Professor Sir, you are greatly mistaken as regard my request.
I did NOT ask you to single out ANYBODY or ANY specific person or any BELIEVER as an heretic. Not at all.
What I DID ask for was as follows:
Please, I beg you, LIST if you can 3-5 significant "eschatological heresies" that you have identified on this thread.
May I please resubmit my question?
I earnestly plead that you indulge the board with your insights as regards this important matter.