SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : End-Time View

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re: End-Time View


Hello Walter,

Late last night I lost the reply I'd started to your last post to me, so I abandoned the attempt until today. This morning, I see you have re-covered the ground in some detail, with quotes from the Old Testament, and, some discussion from the New Testament.

Some more verses have come to mind, which highlight further why I challenged the view which you have been presenting:

Rom 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Rom 7:7 What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. 8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin [was] dead.

9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. 10 And the commandment, which [was ordained] to life, I found [to be] unto death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew [me].

12 Wherefore the law [is] holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. 13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Rom 5:14 [b]Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses[/b],

The Jews would have had a much better idea of how many years these few verses encompass. What I had wanted you to consider, is that the distance in time between Abel and Noah is at least sixteen hundred years, and, the distance in time from Noah to Moses is at least seven hundred and fifty years. (Job's sacrifices fall within that period also.) But, there was no [i]religious ritual[/i] for sacrifice, until the Law had been given. It was between the individual man and God, as it is now.


Nevertheless, God [i][b]was[/b][/i] dealing with sin. He had cursed the ground for Adam's sake. He had altered the serpents terms of reference, and Eve's, and He had given clothes to His children, to cover [i]their sense of nakedness[/i], as much as to protect His own sight from the darkened state of their physical forms.

He challenged Cain about the disappearance of Abel, and put a mark on Cain to preserve his life. Then, a thousand years later (just over), just after Adam had died, Noah was born, who, as the only senior male who would be left, became the first 'type' of Christ, the Saviour, who went [i]through[/i] the great Flood (of death) by which every other living thing died (six hundred years later). This also typifies Christ's death for us, by which everything living in the power of Satan, is overwhelmed by His death, for us, and, potentially, [u]in[/u] us. (We could talk about Seth as a 'type' of second birth, but then we really are straying from 'End-Time View'!)


My research within scripture shows that Abraham had been born before Noah died, and still, there are no 'Jews' in existence. (Job was an Elamite. Gen 10:22; Gen 11:10. Gen 10:22 begs the question of whether Elam and Asshur were born before, or, in the Ark.)

Three generations later, the Hebrews are established in Egypt (and its idolatries) - later known as a 'type' of sin' - for over four hundred years before the Law was given to Moses the Levite, in the wilderness. (And later still, the pattern for the Tabernacle was given, with instructions for the priestly orders). Exo 13:2; Num 3:12


Now, lastly, truthfully, I have not read your other posts in full, but, I am dismayed by your habit of starting a response with an attack on the character or intelligence of the person you're addressing. I wonder if this is because you feel freed from social constraints by the anonymity of the internet, or, this is how also you speak to your acquaintances face-to-face?

Or, you genuinely believe yourself to be more of an authority on absolutely everything to do with biblical faith, than every other Christian alive in your generation? For instance, to me:

Quote:
How do I begin to respond to your post? You have no understanding of who or what God is, and of what His plan has been before creating creation...

This comment was unnecessary, as is mine now. I could have chosen to [i]not comment[/i], in the interests of 'appearing' to be 'spiritual', but the truth is, it may be more spiritual to say something, because, I am offended by the attitude, which, without your having made any attempt either publicly or privately to establish what I may or may not know of 'who, or what God is', permits you to publish such a comment at all. (I came off lightly here, as you have been far ruder to others. For this mercy I am grateful.)

Also, since now I have drawn attention to this for both of us, I'm almost certain (Please note I've left room for error on my part.) this mention would (in the past), automatically bring upon myself further condemnation, long before the words 'I'm sorry. I see that I may have misjudged you', could cross your mind or the published page.

Please note, this isn't about you pretending you don't know all that you do, nor about your acknowledging that I may know God more than you implied I do, but about [i]how[/i] you [i]present[/i] your knowledge to your fellow brethern, and about how you learn what you can from them.

I realise that academics sometimes have to work with people who are full of them[u]selves[/u], who never let up on how clever they are (and by default, how [u]un[/u]clever everyone else is), and how, simply to survive, a retaliatory attitude may develop, but, it is not healthy, and it's not Godly, and it doesn't do His reputation any favours. Therefore, I humbly request you give time and meditation to consider - and where necessary, to revise - your approach to sharing your knowledge, and your love of the word of God, here in these forums.

It is neither shame, nor crime, to allow oneself to benefit from another's God-guided study. It is in fact, psrt of God's design, as Paul described in Eph 4:14, 16, 17. May God really bless your heart, as you consider these things.

 2009/12/30 7:19









 Re:



To Walter,

From your post to Lysa, re Matt 10:34

Quote:
I do not think “sword”, in this text, implies bloodshed.

From Strong's numbers

3162 machaira {makh'-ahee-rah}
from a presumed derivative of 3163; TDNT - 4:524,572; n f
AV - sword 29; 29
1) a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke
2b) a straight sword, for thrusting

Earlier in the thread you referred to the sword in Rev 19:15, 21 Here is Strong's for that 'sword'

4501 rhomphaia {hrom-fah'-yah}
probably of foreign origin; TDNT - 6:993,987; n f
AV - sword 7; 7
1) a large sword
2) properly a long Thracian javelin, also a kind of long sword wont
to be worn on the right shoulder


In other words, I don't think there's any doubt that God still intends the bloodshed of those who refuse His Son and His salvation.


 2009/12/30 7:20









 Re:

I said I wasn't going to reply to you Walter but this will be my final one.

My spirit has only good thoughts towards you Brother. I have prayed for you and will continue to pray for you as the LORD leads.

In response to your attacks, again, the Holy Spirit is telling me to tell you, God Bless You!

My prayer is that if I am in error, I want God's judgement to fall on me to rid me of anything that is not Him. That has always been my prayer and will continue to be so.

I love you Walter!

Your Brother in Christ

 2009/12/30 9:45









 Re: The Sword of The Spirit



To Alive-to-God:


Where did I say anything about bloodshed in my post?


The "Sword" that I referred to is the [b]Word of God, that is found in the Bible, that is the Sword of the Spirit--that is what divides believers from non-believers, and unfortunately today, believers from believers.[/b]

The Sword of the Spirit

" 17. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit,[color=990000] which is the word of God:[/color]" Ephesians 6:17

Heb 4:12
[color=990000][b]For the word of God [/color][/b]is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The Sword of the Spirit, God's Word, is what divides people.

What God has in store for those who refuse His Son, the only source of salvation for mankind, is hell. Hell was originally created for Satan and his demons. Their fate is set, and unchangeable. When man sinned in the garden, God sent a remedy by the shedding of blood of a sinless substitue, an animal, to cover his sin, until, in the fullness of time His Son, Jesus Christ, the Messiah took on the the body of a man and came to the earth to suffer and die and shed His blood on the cross and die for ALL the of sins of humanity, from the beginning of time to the end of time. This is my paraphrase "He who knew no sin, became sin, for all those that believe"

This is the actual verse:
21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
(2 Cor 5:21)

Only those who beleive in the Son, and accept His free gift, are saved. Those that refuse to believe God, and accept this free gift of the Son, are not saved and will join Satan and his demons, and spend eternity with them, in hell.

Sincerely,

Walter

Quote:

by Alive-to-God on 2009/12/30 4:20:55



To Walter,

From your post to Lysa, re Matt 10:34
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not think “sword”, in this text, implies bloodshed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Strong's numbers

3162 machaira {makh'-ahee-rah}
from a presumed derivative of 3163; TDNT - 4:524,572; n f
AV - sword 29; 29
1) a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke
2b) a straight sword, for thrusting

Earlier in the thread you referred to the sword in Rev 19:15, 21 Here is Strong's for that 'sword'

4501 rhomphaia {hrom-fah'-yah}
probably of foreign origin; TDNT - 6:993,987; n f
AV - sword 7; 7
1) a large sword
2) properly a long Thracian javelin, also a kind of long sword wont
to be worn on the right shoulder


[color=990000][b]In other words, I don't think there's any doubt that God still intends the bloodshed of those who refuse His Son and His salvation.[/coor][/b]



 2009/12/30 10:33
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3401
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re: phoney posters??? Who? Waltern?

Quote:
waltern wrote:
How many phony "posters" have you created, to support your heresies, Deepthinker? How many other of your "friends" are also phoney? How about Alive-to-God, is that real? How about the other two that support your heresy? Lysa, is that real, or just you?

You have just created this new "poster" today "CCC123"

How "convenient".




Waltern,

Bro, I say this with all concern for you but you are a crazy as a loon! What heresy are you talking about? What is it with your endless search for a conspiracy?

Let’s go over this s.l.o.w.l.y so that you understand the first time...

[i]Lysa[/i]: is a 50 year old female from East TN! Do I need to give you my facebook page so you can “see” a picture of me? LOL PM me and I will brother!

[i]Deepthinker[/i]: age?? I don’t know but I do know that he’s from Canada (I just got a book from him! And thank you DT!)

[i]Alive-to-God[/i]: age?? (none of our business!) She is from England, I think.

Waltern, in my heart of hearts, I truly think that it is YOU who has many false nicknames. I say that b/c of all the accusing you do of others. I think Freud called it, “projection.” You even accused DT and I of being married!! Are you and a mysterious poster on here married?

And you silly, it was “I” that responded to you, “Well, isn’t that convenient?” Not Deepthinker!

Oh and by the way, [i]CCC123[/i] is a catholic poster; none of “us” would dare go to the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s website and copy and paste! I’m surprised that this has actually gotten past you!

From the fasting thread, I wanted to see where he/she was getting their info and lo and behold:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/tenth.html

Waltern, God bless you brother!


_________________
Lisa

 2009/12/30 10:39Profile
Heydave
Member



Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK

 Re:

Genesis ch 4 - Cain and Abel.
3And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

Note v.7 - 'If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door'. This is the key to understanding why Cain's offering was rjected.

What is the bible commentary on this?.....

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

1 John 3 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.

So we can see the focus is on the person and NOT the offering. Cain and his offering was rejected BECAUSE cain was of the wicked one and his works were evil.

If you think it is only the offering that is important, you have to ask the question, if Cain had brought a lamb would he have been accepted? NO because his works were evil. If someone claims the blood of Jesus as their offering, but by their actions they show they are of the evil one does God accept them? NO.

Isaiah 1:11-15
11To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. 12When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? 13Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. 14Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. 15And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

16Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 17Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Dear Waltern, If you want to take scripture literally you need to consider 1 John 3:11 (you are in damger of being of the spirit of Cain, who slew his brother). See also 1 John 4:7-8; 1 John 4:20-21


_________________
Dave

 2009/12/30 11:48Profile









 Re:




Hello, Heydave:

I would like to post this again. It was buried in a previous post, and maybe you did not see it.

Let me know what you think about it.

There are two types of people on this planet. Those that believe God, and those that refuse to believe God. Those that believe God keep His commandments. Those that do not believe God will not keep His commandments

I will post this again, that shows when the blood sacrifice was required by God (Genesis 3::15-21), in the beginning, in the Garden, to cover the sin of Adam & Eve and all creation, until the Seed of the Woman would come to take away the sin of believers.

Throughout God’s Word in the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament, we find the shedding of innocent blood. Hebrews tells us that “without the shedding of blood is no remission (forgiveness) for sin.” (Hebrews 9:22).

In the Old Testament man was commanded to shed the blood of an animal, a sinless substitute, including the fat, upon the altar. This is first explained for us in Genesis chapter 3:21-- just after God admonishes Satan and prophesizes of the coming Redeemer, the Seed of the Woman.:

Genesis 3:14-15
14. And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15. And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it (Messiah, Jesus Christ, the “Seed of the Woman”) shall bruise thy (Satan’s) head, and thou (Satan) shalt bruise his (Messiah’s) heel.

[color=990000][b]Next, God slays an animal, and sacrifices it before Adam and Eve, and then makes clothes for them, from the skins of the slain animal.[/color][/b]

“21. Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” Their sins were covered up and forgotten, but "not without blood" (Hebrews 9:7) “7. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:”


[color=990000][b]In Chapter 4 we have the continuation and a greater understanding of the Scarlet thread that runs through the Bible.[/color][/b]

Cain & Abel

2. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. 4. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock AND THE FAT THEREOF. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: 5. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

Here, at this point, if we know our Bibles, we turn to Leviticus 4:5-13 Lev 6:24-30 and find God’s requirement for the sin offering:

THE SIN OFFERING:
The type of animal required: Bull, Lamb, Goat, Dove or Pigeon
Offerers Work (Family Priest, the Father of the house): Lay on Hands to become one with the animal, and kill the animal
Priests Work: Puts Blood on the Altar
God’s Portion of the Sacrifice: FAT of the inner parts, kidneys, & liver.
Priests portion of the sacrifice: If blood taken into the tabernalcle, flesh burned outside the camp, otherwise flesh was the Priests.
Offerers Portion: NONE

[color=990000][b]Noah, took the animals into the ark two by two. However, the clean animals, used for sacrifice, were taken aboard seven by seven. The "clean beasts" were to be used as a blood sacrifice to the Lord.[/color][/b]

Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."

When the earth finally dried after the flood and Noah disembarked from the ark, he brought all of the animals off the Ark and BUILT AN ALTAR UNTO THE LORD AND SACRIFICED ONE OF EVERY “CLEAN” ANIMAL TO THE LORD:

20. And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
21. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.
22. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

God, in his foreknowledge provided a way to cover the sin of man with the shedding of innocent blood, on the altar, in the Old Testament, to only cover the sins of the people who believed in Him. In the New Testament his Son would take care of the sin problem forever, for all those that believe.

In the New Testament, God sent His Son, God the Word, to become sin for all of mankind, from the beginning of time to the end of time. All of those that were covered by the blood in the Old Testament were waiting in Abraham’s bosom, for the Messiah to take care of the sin problem forever. He did that when He resurrected from the dead and took control of the keys of death and hell, and took “captivity captive” (those in Abraham’s bosom) back to heaven. All of those before the cross, that believed God, and in shedding the blood of a sinless substitue, for their sin are now in heaven, waiting for their glorified bodies at the Resurrection. That will be Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, and all of believers who believed God in His prophecy in Genesis 3:15 (the seed of the woman, Messiah).

Also in heaven right now are those after the cross, who believed in Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Seed of the Woman, that came and paid the price for their sin in full.

The Blood pictured in the Old Testament

The scarlet thread running through the Bible is a picture of the Blood of Jesus Christ, shed on the Cross to wash away sin. The Old Testament Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, gives us the earliest picture of the Blood. God Himself killed an animal and clothed Adam and Eve with skin. Blood had to be spilled for our first parents to have the nakedness of their sins covered, "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them" (Genesis 3:21). Their sins were covered up and forgotten, but "not without blood" (Hebrews 9:7).

Our first parents had two sons, Cain and Abel.
"And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect" (Genesis 4:2-5).

[b]Some modern commentators miss the point here. Charles C. Ryrie incorrectly says, "A bloodless offering was perfectly appropriate; it was Cain's attitude of unbelief that displeased God" ( Ryrie Study Bible, note on Genesis 4:3).[/b]

[color=990000][b]But the Bible says, "Unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect" (Genesis 4:5). God did not respect Cain's offering. Why? The reason is obvious: because no blood had been shed. The Scofield Reference Bible makes this clear, "This type is brought into prominence by contrast with Cain's bloodless offering of the fruit of his own works, and proclaims, in the very infancy of the race, the primal truth that 'without shedding of blood is no remission' (Hebrews 9:22)" (note on Genesis 4:4). Dr. Ryrie was not correct when he said that Cain's offering was "perfectly appropriate." [/color][/b]

Dr. J. Vernon McGee correctly says of Cain's offering:
And the offering he brought denied that human nature is evil. God said, "Bring that little blood sacrifice which will point to the Redeemer who is coming into the world"… The difference between Cain and Abel was not a character difference at all, but the difference was in the offerings which they brought (J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, volume I, p. 29).

Abel brought a blood offering. Cain did not bring a blood offering. "But unto Cain and to his offering he [God] had not respect" (Genesis 4:5). No blood - no respect - end of argument! Cain's offering was rejected. Abel's offering was accepted, but "not without blood" (Hebrews 9:7).
After the Great Flood, the first thing Noah did was to offer a blood sacrifice.

[color=990000][b]"Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake…" (Genesis 8:20-21).

Just as Abel brought a blood sacrifice, so did Noah. The scarlet line of blood, pointing to the Blood of Christ, continued.

With the call of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3), God began forming the nation of Israel to serve Him. But Abraham had to understand the importance of a blood sacrifice for sin. When Abraham took his son Isaac and went up to Mount Moriah, the boy Isaac said, "Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?" (Genesis 22:7). The little boy knew they had to have a blood offering. He had learned it. God had told Abraham to offer Isaac (Genesis 22:2). But when Abraham raised his knife, God said:Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

 2009/12/30 12:15
Heydave
Member



Joined: 2008/4/12
Posts: 1306
Hampshire, UK

 Re:

Yes Walter, I did see it and that is why I posted what I did.
I understand the blood covenant and it's importance, but the point I was making was about Cain and Abel and that the bible teaches that it was because Cain's actions were evil that he was rejected. Read it again.

The other point I was making is that the way that you speak to your bretheren is close to (if not fully) of this spirit of Cain that John in his epistle tells us.

'AND THOUGH I...UNDERSTAND ALL MYSTERIES AND ALL KNOWLEDGE...,BUT HAVE NOT LOVE, I AM NOTHING. 1 Corinthians 13:2

May the Lord our God give you a heart and spirit to know Him more.


_________________
Dave

 2009/12/30 12:28Profile









 Re: END TIME DOGMA

dogma:
"An authoritative principle, belief or statement of opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true regardless of evidence, or without evidence to support it."
Wictionary


I imagine there are hundreds and hundreds of different end time views that could be discussed and brought to light. Probably most of us have a differing view, which obviously means that someone is wrong.


The problem comes, however , when we become willing to destroy and annihilate everyone who opposes our view. Then, our dialogue and communion becomes a war; not an edifying communion. This is what the Crusades were all about, and it is connected to our lust for power and self righteousness. Basically, "You are wrong because you will not bend to my ideas."...kind of thinking.


Yes, there are heresies and false doctrines, and they should be confronted, but most conversation, particularly about this subject, is speculative, due to much symbolic language as the Lord spoke through the prophets.


Maybe we should have a spirit that would help all of us actually be there in that DAY, in the favor of the Lord, and enter in to His Heaven, as we discuss these relevant issues of hope with His family, and realize that none of us actually have it all together. we are still growing, and learning of Him and His faith.

 2009/12/30 13:02









 Re:





Hello, Dave:

Yes, I did read your post in detail, as well as the commnentary.

My post, that you responded to, was a little different. I started in the Word of God, in the Book of Genesis, with an overview of other books, and then finished my analysis with two entirely different commentary views. One supporting your view, and then one supporting my view.

This commentary supports your view, Dave:
‘Some modern commentators miss the point here. Charles C. Ryrie incorrectly says, "A bloodless offering was perfectly appropriate; it was Cain's attitude of unbelief that displeased God" ( Ryrie Study Bible, note on Genesis 4:3).

My response to the commentary you support, Dave:

But the Bible says, "Unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect" (Genesis 4:5). God did not respect Cain's offering. Why? The reason is obvious: because no blood had been shed.[color=990000][b]The Scofield Reference Bible makes this clear, "This type is brought into prominence by contrast with Cain's bloodless offering of the fruit of his own works, and proclaims, in the very infancy of the race, the primal truth that 'without shedding of blood is no remission' (Hebrews 9:22)" (note on Genesis 4:4). [/color][/b]

Dr. Ryrie was not correct when he said that Cain's offering was "perfectly appropriate."

[color=990000][b]Dr. J. Vernon McGee correctly says of Cain's offering:
[u]And the offering he brought denied that human nature is evil.[/u] God said, "Bring that little blood sacrifice which will point to the Redeemer who is coming into the world"… The difference between Cain and Abel was not a character difference at all, but the difference was in the offerings which they brought (J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, volume I, p. 29).

Abel brought a blood offering. Cain did not bring a blood offering. "But unto Cain and to his offering he [God] had not respect" (Genesis 4:5). No blood - no respect - end of argument! Cain's offering was rejected. Abel's offering was accepted, but "not without blood" (Hebrews 9:7).
After the Great Flood, the first thing Noah did was to offer a blood sacrifice. [/color][/b]

[b]"Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake…" (Genesis 8:20-21).

Just as Abel brought a blood sacrifice, so did Noah. The scarlet line of blood, pointing to the Blood of Christ, continued. [/b]

With the call of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3), God began forming the nation of Israel to serve Him. But Abraham had to understand the importance of a blood sacrifice for sin. When Abraham took his son Isaac and went up to Mount Moriah, the boy Isaac said, "Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt-offering?" (Genesis 22:7). The little boy knew they had to have a blood offering. He had learned it. God had told Abraham to offer Isaac (Genesis 22:2). But when Abraham raised his knife, God said:Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
xxxxxxxxxxxxx


This is why I was asking for a response from you. You must not have read the entire post.[b] If you disagree with my position, as well as Scoffield & J. Vernon McGee, I would like to know why you disagree[u] Biblically.[/b][/u]

God bless,

Walter

 2009/12/30 13:17





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy