SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Evan Roberts Quote
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
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 )

Joined: 2007/2/3
Posts: 835
Alberta, Canada


Tom wrote:

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.

I appreciated your whole post, Tom.

It's because of the vicious things that get said on some of these threads by those who are right in their own eyes that I often hesitate to participate and share openly... and most likely have nothing further to contribute to this one.

We all need to lay it to heart that our Lord Jesus Christ is the One who has the sharp Sword with two edges coming out of His mouth. (Literally, do you suppose? :) But God safely commits it to Him, because of His priestly heart. He is clothed with that priestly garment "down to the foot" (Rev. 1.13-16). And does any man who lacks such a heart suppose he'll ever be entrusted with such a Sword?

Allan Halton

 2009/12/30 13:54Profile

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


Waltern said:

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

I gave you the BIBLE'S own comentary on Genesis 4. You want to have your own comentary and that of Scofield and McGee.

I also had been taught the view that you hold, but when I looked at it more closely I saw it was not saying this. Nowhere does the bible say Cain was rejected because he did not bring a blood sacrifice (if you disagree you can show me). To the contrary it says it was because he works were evil and he was of the evil one. Take your choice, the bible or Scofield/McGee?

Now don't get me wrong, I fully agree with the scriptures you have put there about the blood sacrifice, but not in the context of Cain and Abel (that is your interpretation).

You see the focus for you guys is that you emphasise the legal position of righteousness at the expense of works of righteousness that God regards as important as well. Both come from and are gifts of God, but one is imputed to us, the other God expects to be manifested in our lives.

I repeat, do you think that God will accept someone who claims to trust in the blood, but lives in wilful sin and unrighteousness?


 2009/12/30 14:08Profile

Joined: 2006/1/31
Posts: 4991


I think the offering was accepted not due to it had blood and one did not, rather one offering was the "best" the finest he had, the other one was just [i]an[/i] offering, just to fulfill a religious duty, it was not "all out for God" , God is worthy of the best from me, rather he kept the best for himself and just brought "an" offering.

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground [b]an offering[/b]unto the LORD. (Gen 4:3 KJV)

And Abel, he also [b]brought of the firstlings[/b] of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering (Gen 4:4 KJV)

and to explain further from scripture why i think this is so. We see here what God thinks of our "second" best choices for offerings.

And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the LORD of hosts. (Mal 1:8 KJV)

And so it is with everything we give the Lord, do i give him the best of my time? best of my money? the best of everything? or do i lay away that for myself and offer that to God which i could have been ok without anyway?

now i leave you to discuss the end times again :-)

God bless you


 2009/12/30 14:22Profile


To Heydave;

The Bible has much to say about this issue. I posted this previoulsy, but you must have missed it as well:

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.[b][color=990000] 4. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock AND THE FAT THEREOF. [/b][/color]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.

The only way to bring the FAT THEROF of the firstlings of one’s flock is to slay it, and get to the fat, that is within the animal.

If we look at leviticus chapter 4, we can see that in the Sin Offering, required by God, that the animal’s fat was God’s portion of the Offering, to be burned on the altar, as a “sweet savor” unto the Lord.

Here, we turn to Leviticus 4:5-13 Lev 6:24-30 and find God’s requirement for 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

Also, if we turn to Leviticus 5:14-19 & 6:1-7 & 7:1-10 we find that the Trespass offering required that Fat of the inner parts, kidneys & liver were GOD’S PORTION OF THE SACRIFICE.

We can see from the above that Abel was offering the required sacrifice, an unblemished first born lamb, as an offering, with the Fat specified as God’s portion in the written requirements later found in Leviticus.



 2009/12/30 14:40


Basically, "You are wrong because you will not bend to my ideas."...kind of thinking.

This is the can of worms that Sola Scriptura always opens up. It elevates each man or woman as their own arbiter of truth. It demands that each person personally reconstruct the entirety of Christian belief from a painstaking search of the Scriptures ALONE. Better get it right too, or you'll burn.

Wouldn't it be better if the entire Church got together like in Acts 15 to allow the Holy Spirit to speak to them corporately so they can have unity?

O...wait...they DID. O...wait...they still DO.


 2009/12/30 14:50


CCC123 Exactly. The catholic church never condradicts itself or bends interpretation to the flavor of the decade.
They never ask their subordinates to bend to their thinking or interpretation.

"Wouldn't it be better if the entire Church got together like in Acts 15 to allow the Holy Spirit to speak to them corporately so they can have unity?"cc123

Unity via confusion is not unity. How many catholics would you say understand the process of canonizing a saint or what is necessary to make them a patron saint? How many do you think know and agree with all of your copy and pasting? My dad is a business manager at a catholic church and he and my mom know nothing of the doctrine you slap on here. Many don't care to know... "they're catholic" and that's all they need to know. I'm not sure why you copy and paste here, you should work on you're own house first.. a house unified by deception or lack of knowledge is not unity it's blind loyalty. There is a difference.

Are you also speaking of the kind of unity Paul and Peter had when Peter was rebuked? Or the unity of Paul and Barnabas?

 2009/12/30 15:05


To CCC123:

Shouldn't we all just get along, and be friends, and forget about sound doctrine?

[b]What does the bible teach us about this issue?[/b]

We are to continue in the apostles’ doctrine (Ac. 2:42).

The apostles filled Jerusalem with doctrine (Ac. 5:28).

We are saved by believing the right doctrine (Ro. 6:17; 1 Jn. 5:20; 2 Jn. 9).

We are to separate from those who teach false doctrine (Ro. 16:17).

We must be careful of winds of false doctrine (Ep. 4:14).

No false doctrine is to be allowed (1 Ti. 1:3).

The preacher is to give himself to doctrine (1 Ti. 4:13).

The preacher is to take heed to doctrine (1 Ti. 4:16).

Preachers who labor in doctrine are to be rewarded (1 Ti. 5:17).

Sound doctrine is to be adorned with godly living (1 Ti. 6:1,3; Tit. 2:1).

The Bible is given for doctrine (2 Ti. 3:16).

The Bible is to be preached with doctrine (2 Ti. 4:2).

[color=990000][b]The last days is characterized by a turning from sound doctrine (2 Ti. 4:3). [/color][/b]

The preacher must be able to use doctrine to protect the church (Tit. 1:9).

Our doctrine is to be uncorrupt (Tit. 2:10).

We abide in Christ by sound doctrine (1 Jn. 2:24-27).

True Christian love is grounded in truth or sound Bible doctrine (2 Jn. 1; 3 Jn. 1).

Those who abide not in sound doctrine are not of God and are not be to received (2 Jn. 9-10).

[color=000000][b]You and I (CCC123) must not read the same Bible. Mine tells me that in order to be approved unto God, that I have to:[/color][/b]

15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
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. (2 Timothy 2:15-18)

The word “doctrine” simply means teaching. Bible doctrine, therefore, refers to the teaching of the Scriptures. [color=990000][b]Since the days of the apostles, Bible-believing people have had an emphasis upon sound doctrine, but today doctrine is often downplayed in favor of [u]ecumenical unity, supported by R2D2.[/u]
The following statement by popular singer Pat Boone, a charismatic, typifies the attitude that is common among ecumenists: “Doctrine divides, experience unites. We don’t all have our doctrine all completely correct, but God doesn’t judge us on our understanding of doctrine.” (August 17, 2001).


According to the Word of God, sound doctrine is extremely important.

1. The two Greek words translated “doctrine” in the King James Bible, didaskalia and didache, are also translated “teacheth” (Ro. 12:7) and “learning” (Ro. 15:4). These Greek words are used more than 140 times in the New Testament, which shows how important doctrine is before God.

2. Doctrine and its companion terms are referred to 59 times in 1 and 2 Timothy alone.

3. “The truth” is referred to 10 times in 2 and 3 John alone. The apostle John said, “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth” (3 Jn. 4).

4. 1 Timothy 1:3 says that no false doctrine is to be allowed, which is a very narrow view of doctrinal purity.


“truth” (1 Ti. 2:4)
“the faith” (1 Ti. 3:9; 2 Ti. 3:8; Tit. 1:13)
“wholesome words” (1 Ti. 6:3)
“sound words” (2 Ti. 1:13).


In the previous quote by singer Pat Boone, we are told that, “We don’t all have our doctrine all completely correct, but God doesn’t judge us on our understanding of doctrine.” The Lord Jesus Christ, though, said that a believer can know sound doctrine.

1. We know sound doctrine through obedience (Jn. 7:17). If a man is open to the truth and willing to obey God, the Lord will give him wisdom so that he can discern sound doctrine from false. In Proverbs 1:23 God says, “Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.” God has promised to make His truth known to those who repent and submit to Him.

2. We know sound doctrine through continuing in God’s Word (Jn. 8:31-32). In 2 Timothy 2:15 the believer is commanded to rightly divide the Word. This refers to interpreting it properly and knowing its doctrine correctly. Would God require a Christian to rightly divide the Word of truth if He did not intend to give him the ability to do that? This verse indicates that God will hold the Christian accountable for this task, because the one who rightly divides the Word of truth is approved. It is implied that the one who does not rightly divide the truth is disapproved. This means that Pat Boone and other ecumenists are wrong when they say that God does not hold the believer accountable to know sound doctrine.

3. We know sound doctrine through the Holy Spirit. 1 John 2:20-21 says, “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.” Verse 27 says further, “But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.” Thus the Scriptures plainly state that the believer has the Holy Spirit to teach him and he can know the truth.

If the ecumenical philosophy is correct and a believer cannot be certain of sound doctrine, the commandments and promises of God make no sense. [/color][/b]



 2009/12/30 15:08


Brother Tom said:

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.

A refreshing thought brother thank you.

 2009/12/30 17:08


You are so true to form, Deepthinker.

Instead of responding to what Scripture has to say about Doctrine, you prefer the words from another flawed human being, that agrees with you, and changes the word from Doctrine to Dogma.

All of us are flawed human beings. God has provided a remedy for our fallen state--HIS WORD (The Bible). His Word is what guides the man of God, not the "words" from other fallen people.

That is what divides us. You place no credibiltiy or value on the Word of God.



 2009/12/30 18:09

Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC


You guys would all do well to humble yourselves and listen to the teachings of Art Katz in regard to all these things. He really illuminates the prophetical writings like few others, and has a great sense of God's eternal purposes. Purposes which most eschatological systems are utterly devoid of knowledge regarding. Best of all, he really brings these themes home to the present, so we aren't just left to quibble about these things in some academic and theoretical way, as many of you are doing. He shows the "what shall we now do" aspect of these things, and how they relate to every day living. They are very edifying messages, and speak right to the heart.

Jimmy H

 2009/12/30 18:22Profile

Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy