Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[OMC]

Correct. IDF is related to that history.

This is why we pray for our leaders to make the right choices, but also why we don’t support any political system, as they often don’t have God’s interests at heart.

 

[Churchgoer]

This is why we pray for our leaders to make the right choices, but also why we don’t support any political system, as they often don’t have God’s interests at heart.

Absolutely
Jesus did not back up any political system. He could have, if it is up to the crowd.

 

[OMC]

Absolutely
Jesus did not back up any political system. He could have, if it is up to the crowd.

I'm pretty sure Jesus backed his own movement and wouldn't change his mind just because the crowd wanted too. But I have a feeling thats not what you meant so ill go back to my corner lol

 

[cv5]

None of that actually answers the exegetical question; it just asserts dispensationalism by calling dissent “psychikos,” which is not an argument but a category mistake — Paul uses psychikos in 1 Cor 2:14 to describe the unregenerate man who rejects the gospel, not Christians who disagree with a 19th‑century interpretive system.

My posts are voluminous, Biblically accurate, comprehensive, quite lengthy, and at this point present a remarkably complete thesis.

And as it stands, no one has refuted them with with anything close to comparable vigor.

It never was much of a skirmish much less a war.

The futurist dispensationalists walk away with another easy victory.

 

[Beekeeper]

The entire goal is to find a biblical support to advocate Christian blessings to secular state doing evil things.
But there is none in Bible to tell that.

Even in the days of Noah, did God said to Noah to dump water to add to flood? In the days of resurrection, did God say to Mary Peter to put Jesus on cross? In the days of Joseph, did God tell the brothers to sell Joseph?

Jesus just command us to obey His commandments. .....

God don't need our help, God just need our obedience.

Yes I think they are putting the cart before the horse, in that loyalty to modern Israel comes first.
The Bible is then made to be subservient to this loyalty by whatever is has that sounds useful.
The passage in Galatians 4:21-31 speaks of old Jerusalem as a thing done by the will of man and representing bondage.
Is modern Jerusalem different?
Our business is with Jerusalem above, and the liberty found therein.
Jesus lets us know as much in Acts 1:7.

 

[OMC]

My posts are voluminous, Biblically accurate, comprehensive, quite lengthy, and at this point present a remarkably complete thesis.

And as it stands, no one has refuted them with with anything close to comparable vigor.

It never was much of a skirmish much less a war.

The futurist dispensationalists walk away with another easy victory.

calling your thesis “unrefuted” doesn’t make it exegetically correct; it simply means you’ve asserted a system with confidence, not that you’ve demonstrated it from the text — and the appeal to “futurist dispensationalists walk away with another easy victory” is rhetoric, not argument, because none of the passages you’ve cited actually teach dispensational eras, a pre‑trib removal of the church, two peoples of God, or a millennial reinstitution of temple sacrifices.
The issue is not your volume but your categories: you keep treating covenant progression as proof of dispensationalism, but covenants are unified redemptive stages, not parallel programs; you treat Pauline “mysteries” as dispensational secrets, but Paul defines them as the revelation of Jew‑Gentile unity in one body (Eph 3:6); you treat disagreement as “psychikos,” but Paul uses that term for the unregenerate man rejecting the gospel, not believers rejecting a 19th‑century system.
Victory isn’t measured by who writes more, but by who handles the text with precision — and the text simply does not teach the architecture you’re defending. Which proves your handling of scripture is less than basic.

 

[Beekeeper]

I offer a proper Good Morning to you and hope you are well.
Ephesians 2:8 does teach that salvation is a gift, but the grammar does not say that faith itself is the gift;
Paul’s neuter demonstrative “τοῦτο” (that) cannot grammatically refer to the feminine noun pistis (“faith”),
nor to the feminine grace, nor to the masculine participle “saved.”
It refers to the entire saving event—salvation by grace through faith—not to faith as an isolated object.
Scripture does teach that God enables faith (Phil 1:29; Acts 13:48), but it never says believers “do not possess” faith; Jesus repeatedly rebukes or commends people for their faith, which only makes sense if it is truly theirs.
The biblical pattern is this:
salvation is God’s gift,
grace is God’s gift,
the ability to believe is God’s gift,
but the exercise of faith is genuinely ours.
You are right that we “owe” it—Romans 1:5 calls it the “obedience of faith”—but the text itself does not support the idea that faith is a loaned substance we never possess.

Yes, the neuter ending would probably be best attributed to the whole phrase that came before "touto".

 

[Beekeeper]

Mustard plants need very high volume levels. And even this is ineffective most of the time.

Mustard plants just need food and water.

 

[cv5]

calling your thesis “unrefuted” doesn’t make it exegetically correct; it simply means you’ve asserted a system with confidence, not that you’ve demonstrated it from the text — and the appeal to “futurist dispensationalists walk away with another easy victory” is rhetoric, not argument, because none of the passages you’ve cited actually teach dispensational eras, a pre‑trib removal of the church, two peoples of God, or a millennial reinstitution of temple sacrifices.
The issue is not your volume but your categories: you keep treating covenant progression as proof of dispensationalism, but covenants are unified redemptive stages, not parallel programs; you treat Pauline “mysteries” as dispensational secrets, but Paul defines them as the revelation of Jew‑Gentile unity in one body (Eph 3:6); you treat disagreement as “psychikos,” but Paul uses that term for the unregenerate man rejecting the gospel, not believers rejecting a 19th‑century system.
Victory isn’t measured by who writes more, but by who handles the text with precision — and the text simply does not teach the architecture you’re defending. Which proves your handling of scripture is less than basic.

The fact is that the preterists and amils suffered an epic train wreck on this thread.
Yes it was ugly, but at the same time glorious in terms of the truth prevailing.

It wasn't even close friend. Despite the stiff, uninspired, inadequate and biblically illiterate efforts to the contrary.

 

[OMC]

The fact is that the preterists and amils suffered an epic train wreck on this thread.
Yes it was ugly, but at the same time glorious in terms of the truth prevailing.

It wasn't even close friend. Despite the stiff, uninspired, inadequate and biblically illiterate efforts to the contrary.

Precision wins, not bravado

 

[cv5]

"But Revelation 19 never says that."

But you don't know that there is an entire Bible that needs to be consulted to obtain the correct solution.

BTW the last few pages of posts prove that the Churches today are doctrinally kaput. And to say that I am glad it's not me is an understatement.

And you need to be aware that there is only ONE CHURCH out of seven that is guaranteed to NOT suffer thru the 70th week tribulation.

And thank God that I'm in it. The Church of wisdom, knowledge and fidelity to sound doctrine.....and certain deliverance from the wrath to come.

1Th 1:10 - And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.

Oh and BTW, you would do well to comprehend what these passages allude to friend. A warning that there are indeed Churches that WILL suffer the horrors of the tribulation.

Rev 3:3 - 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.

Sardis is not necessarily teaching that regenerate members of Christ's Body lose their place in the Rapture. It warns that a church can possess a Christian name while containing spiritually dead professors who are utterly unprepared for the Day of the Lord. When that day arrives “as a thief,” those people are precisely the kind who will be caught in it.

And Laodicea is even more severe​

Laodicea has substantial precedent in dispensational interpretation.

Christ says:

“Because thou art lukewarm… I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
— Revelation 3:16

Unlike Philadelphia, Laodicea receives no commendation whatsoever. They regard themselves as prosperous and spiritually secure:

“I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing.”

Christ's assessment is the opposite:

“wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.”

That vocabulary raises a very serious question about whether the dominant body described is genuinely regenerate at all. Christ stands outside and says:

“Behold, I stand at the door, and knock.” — Rev. 3:20

A number of dispensational interpreters therefore treat Laodicea typologically as the apostate end-time professing church—Christian in name, but largely devoid of genuine spiritual life.

One dispensational treatment states it in especially strong terms: Philadelphia represents the true Church removed before Daniel's 70th week, while Laodicea represents the apostate religious body left behind and entering the Tribulation.

So there is a fascinating progression:

Sardis:
“You have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.”
→ Wake up or Christ comes upon you unexpectedly as a thief.


Philadelphia:
“You have kept My word and have not denied My name.”
→ “I will keep you from the hour that comes upon the whole world.”


Laodicea:
“You think you are rich but are actually poor, blind and naked.”
→ Christ threatens to vomit the church out of His mouth and is pictured standing outside seeking individual fellowship/response.

That makes Philadelphia the conspicuous exception among these spiritually deteriorating churches.

And notice something even more striking. The same thief/watchfulness vocabulary appears again during the Tribulation itself:

“Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth…”
— Revelation 16:15

That does not automatically prove Revelation 3:3 means the identical event, but it demonstrates that John associates failure to watch + thief-like coming + eschatological judgment very naturally.

 

[OMC]

Sardis is not necessarily teaching that regenerate members of Christ's Body lose their place in the Rapture. It warns that a church can possess a Christian name while containing spiritually dead professors who are utterly unprepared for the Day of the Lord. When that day arrives “as a thief,” those people are precisely the kind who will be caught in it.

And Laodicea is even more severe​

Laodicea has substantial precedent in dispensational interpretation.

Christ says:



Unlike Philadelphia, Laodicea receives no commendation whatsoever. They regard themselves as prosperous and spiritually secure:



Christ's assessment is the opposite:



That vocabulary raises a very serious question about whether the dominant body described is genuinely regenerate at all. Christ stands outside and says:



A number of dispensational interpreters therefore treat Laodicea typologically as the apostate end-time professing church—Christian in name, but largely devoid of genuine spiritual life.

One dispensational treatment states it in especially strong terms: Philadelphia represents the true Church removed before Daniel's 70th week, while Laodicea represents the apostate religious body left behind and entering the Tribulation.

So there is a fascinating progression:

Sardis:
“You have a name that you are alive, but you are dead.”
→ Wake up or Christ comes upon you unexpectedly as a thief.


Philadelphia:
“You have kept My word and have not denied My name.”
→ “I will keep you from the hour that comes upon the whole world.”


Laodicea:
“You think you are rich but are actually poor, blind and naked.”
→ Christ threatens to vomit the church out of His mouth and is pictured standing outside seeking individual fellowship/response.

That makes Philadelphia the conspicuous exception among these spiritually deteriorating churches.

And notice something even more striking. The same thief/watchfulness vocabulary appears again during the Tribulation itself:



That does not automatically prove Revelation 3:3 means the identical event, but it demonstrates that John associates failure to watch + thief-like coming + eschatological judgment very naturally.

Your entire construction collapses because you’re treating the seven churches as prophetic dispensational eras instead of what John explicitly says they are — real first‑century congregations addressed pastorally, not eschatological timelines dividing Christians into “raptured Philadelphians” and “left‑behind Laodiceans.”

 

[Bible_Locket]

Mustard plants just need food and water.

I love the scent of Mustard Greens.

 

[Beekeeper]

My posts are voluminous, Biblically accurate, comprehensive, quite lengthy, and at this point present a remarkably complete thesis.

And as it stands, no one has refuted them with with anything close to comparable vigor.

It never was much of a skirmish much less a war.

The futurist dispensationalists walk away with another easy victory.

The fact that people become bored with your voluminous posts and stop bothering to address the voluminous error in them should not be interpreted as a victory to you.

 

[cv5]

The fact that people become bored with your voluminous posts and stop bothering to address the voluminous error in them should not be interpreted as a victory to you.

Silence is certain proof that.....they have no answer....

Obviously.

Psa 63:11 - But the king shall rejoice in God; every one that sweareth by him shall glory: but the mouth of them that speak lies shall be stopped.

 

[cv5]

The fact that people become bored with your voluminous posts and stop bothering to address the voluminous error in them should not be interpreted as a victory to you.

You have no answer, your mouth is stopped. To this or anything else that I post. Frankly it would be a waste of ink to even try.

Oh and BTW, @OMC blithely (and ignorantly) opined earlier of how the Revelation 19 host were exclusively angels. This is far from the Biblically accurate truth of course.

The exegetical case that the "armies in heaven" (\tau\dot\alpha\ \sigma\tau\rho\alpha\tau\epsilon\acute\upsilon\mu\alpha\tau\alpha\ \tau\dot\alpha\ \grave\epsilon\nu\ \tau\tilde\omega\ \mathrm{o}\dot\upsilon\rho\alpha\nu\tilde\omega) in Revelation 19:14 include the glorified Church—rather than exclusively angels—rests on five primary textual arguments within dispensational scholarship:

1. The "Fine Linen" Exegetical Link (Rev 19:8 vs. Rev 19:14)
Just six verses before the armies descend, John explicitly defines fine linen: "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints" (Rev 19:8). In verse 14, the heavenly armies return clothed in this exact same garment (bussinon, white and clean). Nowhere in Revelation are angels described as wearing the bussinon of saintly righteousness; that specific attire is the structural signature of the redeemed Bride.

2. Revelation 17:14 Directly Names the Companions
In the parallel victory passage of Revelation 17:14, the army accompanying the Lamb is explicitly identified: "Those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful." Across the New Testament, angels are never designated as "called" (klētoi) or "faithful" (pistoi)—these are exclusive designations for redeemed human believers (Romans 1:6, Revelation 2:10).

3. The Plurality of "Armies" (Strateumata)
John specifically uses the plural noun ta strateumata ("the armies in heaven"). While angels certainly accompany Christ (Matthew 25:31, 2 Thessalonians 1:7), the plural form allows for distinct divisions within the heavenly host—encompassing both the angelic ranks and the translated, resurrected Church.

4. Clear Epistolic Promises of Returning With Christ
New Testament epistles explicitly promise that the glorified Church will accompany Christ at His Second Coming appearance:
* Colossians 3:4: "When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory."
* 1 Thessalonians 3:13: "At the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints."
* Jude 14: "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints."

5. Chronological Sequence in Revelation 19
In Revelation 19:6–9, the marriage of the Lamb occurs in heaven before the rider on the white horse sets out in verse 11. Having already been raptured, judged at the Bema Seat, and clothed in fine linen, the Bride is already present in heaven and naturally accompanies the Bridegroom as He descends to establish His kingdom.

 

[OMC]

You have no answer, your mouth is stopped. To this or anything else that I post. Frankly it would be a waste of ink to even try.

Oh and BTW, @OMC blithely (and ignorantly) opined earlier of how the Revelation 19 host were exclusively angels. This is far from the Biblically accurate truth of course.

The exegetical case that the "armies in heaven" (\tau\dot\alpha\ \sigma\tau\rho\alpha\tau\epsilon\acute\upsilon\mu\alpha\tau\alpha\ \tau\dot\alpha\ \grave\epsilon\nu\ \tau\tilde\omega\ \mathrm{o}\dot\upsilon\rho\alpha\nu\tilde\omega) in Revelation 19:14 include the glorified Church—rather than exclusively angels—rests on five primary textual arguments within dispensational scholarship:

1. The "Fine Linen" Exegetical Link (Rev 19:8 vs. Rev 19:14)
Just six verses before the armies descend, John explicitly defines fine linen: "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints" (Rev 19:8). In verse 14, the heavenly armies return clothed in this exact same garment (bussinon, white and clean). Nowhere in Revelation are angels described as wearing the bussinon of saintly righteousness; that specific attire is the structural signature of the redeemed Bride.

2. Revelation 17:14 Directly Names the Companions
In the parallel victory passage of Revelation 17:14, the army accompanying the Lamb is explicitly identified: "Those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful." Across the New Testament, angels are never designated as "called" (klētoi) or "faithful" (pistoi)—these are exclusive designations for redeemed human believers (Romans 1:6, Revelation 2:10).

3. The Plurality of "Armies" (Strateumata)
John specifically uses the plural noun ta strateumata ("the armies in heaven"). While angels certainly accompany Christ (Matthew 25:31, 2 Thessalonians 1:7), the plural form allows for distinct divisions within the heavenly host—encompassing both the angelic ranks and the translated, resurrected Church.

4. Clear Epistolic Promises of Returning With Christ
New Testament epistles explicitly promise that the glorified Church will accompany Christ at His Second Coming appearance:
* Colossians 3:4: "When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory."
* 1 Thessalonians 3:13: "At the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints."
* Jude 14: "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints."

5. Chronological Sequence in Revelation 19
In Revelation 19:6–9, the marriage of the Lamb occurs in heaven before the rider on the white horse sets out in verse 11. Having already been raptured, judged at the Bema Seat, and clothed in fine linen, the Bride is already present in heaven and naturally accompanies the Bridegroom as He descends to establish His kingdom.

Your five‑point case looks impressive until you actually read Revelation in its own literary flow, because every one of your “proofs” depends on importing a pre‑trib framework into the text rather than letting John define his own symbols.

 

[cv5]

Your five‑point case looks impressive until you actually read Revelation in its own literary flow, because every one of your “proofs” depends on importing a pre‑trib framework into the text rather than letting John define his own symbols.

Go ahead. Deny as you will.
This hardly affects the truth of the matter.

Oh and BTW, can you confirm or deny that you are a post tribber?

So many here choose dodge these kinds of doctrinal commitment affirmations.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

Only a fool or the damned take a "wait and see" attitude as regards eschatology. Jesus Himself warns accordingly and profusely.

Therefore, since you reject the biblical doctrine of the pre-trib rapture, enjoy the horrors of the tribulation friend. And just remember this: you condemned you own self. With no help from me whatsoever.

Oh and BTW, @OMC got all weepy and self righteous last time I said this. He declared that I was condemning believers to the tribulation.

Which is patently absurd on its face, because you see he is in fact ALSO a post-tribber! Consequently he ALSO condemns HIMSELF, yet cast the blame for his condemnation upon me, the one who believes in the pre-trib rapture and preaches it continuously!

Truly I pity those who are brainwashed into denying their blessed hope and are deceived into self-condemnation.

You can't scare me that I'd be left behind by the non-existent pre-trib rapture. I know what Jesus said:

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

We're all going to go through the great tribulation. But if you don't want to gear up your faith in Christ to endure it (even unto death), that's your problem. You've already been warned so many times.

 

[2ndTimeIsTheCharm]

The fact that people become bored with your voluminous posts and stop bothering to address the voluminous error in them should not be interpreted as a victory to you.

He doesn't like to receive correction and probably missed this verse in his Bible Study:

Proverbs 29:11 A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise person quietly holds it back."

So everyone has stepped back to let him make a fool of himself.