|
| |
Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's? |
|
|
|
Heb 11:4
|
| |
The idea that the problem with Cain's offering not being a blood offering is interesting, but not supported by the text. In fact, the Genesis account states, "And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering; but for Cain and for his offering He had no regard"(Gen 4:4-5). It appears that the emphasis is not upon the offering, but on the person. |
| |
Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's? |
|
|
|
Heb 11:4
|
| |
Heb. 11:4 says that Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain. That is a clear statement in Scripture. We next need to ask, "Why was Abel's offering better?" It is clear from the Gen 4 account that first each person's offering is described and then the text says the LORD had regard (or did not have regard) for that person AND their offering. So, the person was connected to the offering because -- as Hebrews points out -- the kind of offering brought was a clear demonstration of the person's faith. Finally, if one studies the nature of sacrifices made throughout Scripture, it is clear that God requires a blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of His people. It is completely a sound inference to say that Abel's offering was pleasing because it was a blood sacrifice. In the previous chapter, God kills an animal (blood) to get the skins for Adam and Eve's clothes. Later, Abraham is about to make a blood offering of his son Isaac, (though he substitutes a ram instead). This is the most important reason for understanding that - IN CONTEXT - Abel's offering was preferred was because it was a blood offering: because it was a type of the ultimate blood sacrifice and substitute, Jesus Christ. Abel's blood even cried out from the ground! Abel himself was a picture of Jesus Christ: though innocent he was killed, and the Lord replaced him, "resurrecting" the line of the promised Seed of the woman, by causing Eve to give birth to Seth. Just like the word "trinity" is not in the Bible but is clearly taught, so it is legitimate to infer the meaning of something like this when so much of the rest of Scripture in totality is in support of it.
|
| |
Is Lamec a descendant of Seth or Cain? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
GE 4:24 If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times."
GE 4:25 Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." 26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.
At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD. (NIV) ...................
It look's like reading this passage that Lamech was born before Seth, so maybe Lamech is a descendant of Cain. |
| |
How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
I can think of two posiblities.
1) Less than 128 years (and probably not too much less than that).
When Adam and Eve left Eden, they had Abel and Cain. When Adam was 130 Years old, they had Seth.
2) Who really knows? It could be that they didn't start counting Adam and Eve's age until after they left Eden (after all they didn't age in Eden) so it could be they had Seth 180 years after leaving and had abel the first year upon being forced out.
I tend to believe the second option but really can't say for sure. |
| |
Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
Were there any other people in the beginning besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? Of course, I am omitting the slain Abel. Genesis mentions that whoever slays Cain will reap the Lord's vengeance sevenfold. But it doesn't say anything about anyone else being around to slay him. Am I missing something? |
| |
Was there any other human being in Node |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
Adam and Eve had more children than just Cain and Abel. They just weren't recorded in the Bible. God, even in their sin, did not want them to stop reproducing (if God were sure to end it there, He would have, but even then He was demonstrating His grace and His mercy!) Of course, He handled things with Noah and the flood, but that's another story for another time. Anyway, Cain married one of his siblings. |
| |
angels have no forgiveness when they sin |
|
|
|
1 Pet 3:18
|
| |
I am not sure the nature of your question. Do the angels have a chance to repent? Possibly.
1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the
spirit;
19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison,
20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
It is believed by some that this passage refers to fallen angels who became men at the time of Noah. If so, then they did get a chance to repent.
Did Adam and Eve get a chance to repent?
Yes, four simple evidences:
First, the Gospel was preached to them in Genesis 3:15.
Second, God shed blood for them immdiately.
Genesis 3:21 The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife, and clothed them.
The garments were of skin. An animal had to die.
Matthew 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Third, they knew how to sacrafice. Cain and Abel were taught the proper way - shed blood. See Genesis 4.
Fifth, Adam lived to be 935 (Genesis 5:5). He was around when Noah was born. From Adam to Noah (Adam, Seth... Noah), if you put the meaning of their names together, it is the Gospel.
Adam and Eve knew God would provide a savior. |
| |
Wise Debate? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I agree with almost everything you wrote in your answer. As far as Lockman monitoring this Forum, I'm not so sure that would be a good idea. It may not be a bad idea either. I'm just saying that I am not convinced one way or the other.
. . . I agree that the ideal Forum would be one in which people for the most part limited their postings to Bible questions that can be addressed with Bible answers. Like you, I don't care for all the arrogance, arguing, quibbling, hairsplitting over every jot and tittle, everyone calling everyone else everything from heretic to apostate, etc. I usually don't take the time to read the theological, hypothetical, philosophical, speculative debates that go on and on with insufficient Scripture to support what the authors assert.
. . . The type of questions that I feel are inappropiate to this Forum and its format are those that want an explanation for WHY God did this or that? Is God fair? Does this passage really mean what it says? Where did Cain get his wife? (I would love, just once, to answer this question by asking the questioner: "More importantly, where did YOU get YOUR wife?") Also inappropriate are questions asking someone to explain the unexplainable; questions like Where is the garden of Eden?; Is there intelligent life on earth?; Is there life after high school?; as well as questions that clearly ask for a speculative answer, i.e. ones where everybody knows the Scripture is silent on the subject.
. . . In general, I try to support my answers with relevant and clear passages of Scripture. When giving my opinion I try to remember to come right out and label it as my opinion, not as doctrine or dogma. Where the Bible is silent on a subject, I prefer to remain silent, too, unless known archaeological, medical, historic or cultural *evidence* can shed some light on the question. Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has the right to be wrong.
. . . Every man has a right to an opinion, but I do not come to the Forum either to look for or to post questions and comments unsubstantiated by Scripture. Or to look for those comments that can only quote one verse, usually out of context, to support the author's answer. Or those postings that shed no light on the subject, but instead quibble over the other person's wording of his question or comment. When people build a doctrine based on one word or one punctuation mark in one sentence, I'm just not interested. I don't have time for that. (See Deut 29:29.)
. . . Thank you, EdB, for a very thoughtful and well-written answer. God bless. --JVH0212 |
| |
Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's? |
|
|
|
Heb 11:4
|
| |
abel's was a blood sacrifice and cain's was a grain offering. |
| |
How much should we give? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
We are still required to give a tithe under the new covenant. The law of tithing was not introduced as a law of Moses. This law has been in effect since Genesis. Of course, we know that Cain and Abel gave an offering. More specifically, Abraham gave Melchizedek a tenth (Heb. 7:2). This happened way before the Law was written. Since the Law that we have been released from is the ceremonial law, we are still require to tithe. |
| |
Christ dying only for elect? |
|
|
|
Rom 5:6
|
| |
There are no verses that actually state that Christ dies only for the elect. But this isn't really a problem since there are very few doctrines that are stated as in their popular conception in Scripture. But there are many verses that indicate that Christ came to save/die for only some. Examine the following:
John 10:14-16, 25-30; 13:18; 17:2, 6, 9-12
II Tim. 2:19
But I really don't like giving proof texts. I'd rather talk about the patterns in Scripture. Like God's unmistakable pattern of choosing some individuals over others. Abel and Seth over Cain. Noah and his family over the rest of humanity. Abraham and his seed over the rest of the world. Isaac over Ishmael. Jacob over Esau. Judah over the rest of the brothers, even over Joseph. Etc. I think that this is a much better indicative of God's sovereign election than any single verse.
Ryan Davidson
|
| |
Did God create wives for Cain and Abel? |
|
|
|
Not Specified
|
| |
Where did Cain and Abel find women to
marry? |
| |
Did God create wives for Cain and Abel? |
|
|
|
Gen 4:17
|
| |
Where did Cain and Abel find women to
marry? |
| |
Did God create wives for Cain and Abel? |
|
|
|
Gen 4:17
|
| |
Please go to Search at the top left of the home page, type in "Cain" and you will be able to read a large number of entries on this subject. --Hank |
| |
Is whate'er my God ordains right? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Brother, charis,
Let me try to add a little clarity
Responsible defined:
1. Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
2. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority: a responsible position within the company.
3. Being a source or cause.
This come from the American Heritage Dictionary. These are not all the definitions, but do you notice the first one? In a dictionary, the first definition is either the most used meaning or the original meaning. Now, I understand that the word can be used to mean cause, but the first definition is to be required to give an account. The first definition, of course does not apply to God. He answers to no one. And that's why in my above posting I said that God is not responsible.
And that is also why I asked JV how he was defining the word. How can anyone disagree that God is the first cause of all things? Granted, God didn't cause Satan to tempt Eve, He didn't cause Cain to murder Abel, or the low lifes to bear false witness against Naboth the Jezreelite. God is not the author of sin, but why don't people understand that had there been no creation there would have been no serpent and Eve, no Cain and Abel, and no Ahab and Naboth?
To put it in another way, God is the cause of evil, the ultimate cause, not the immediate cause.
Yours in the Sovereign Christ,
Lionstrong
|
| |
When is the World not the World? |
|
|
|
1 John 2:2
|
| |
You cannot understand individual verses apart from the whole of Scripture.
1) Your original assertion was that there is no other way to read "world" than "every individual person in the world," even though that isn't actually what the text says. I suggested a few viable options, which would render your original assertion, that there is only one way to read this verse, invalid.
2) It sounds clear to me, and it clearly doesn't mean that everyone is atoned for. How? Other passages in Scripture. You can't just pick out a single verse and say that it is decisive. And there really isn't a "plain meaning of the text" any more than there are brute facts. _Everything_ is interpretation, the trick is to make sure that your interpretation is Biblical.
3) If the atonement is an accomplished fact for every individual, why doesn't everyone go to heaven? Because they didn't receive the gift of salvation? Is refusing the gift sin? Wouldn't that sin be atoned for?
4) I don't think that the unforgivable sin is a problem for me it all. It clearly states that God does not forgive everyone. If the atonement is an accomplished fact, something you have already admitted, this means that he did not die for everyone.
Actually, this is a good illustration of why individual verses _cannot_ be allowed to define our doctrine. Your reading of this verse is in direct contradiction with the following verses:
Rom. 9:12-15
Jude 4
Eph. 1:11-12
Rev. 20:15
and many others as well. Your interpretation also stands in direct contradiction to God's pattern of election in all of history. God chose Abel, not Cain. Noah, not the rest of the people. Abraham, and no one else. Isaac, not Ishmael. Jacob, not Esau. Judah, not Reuben, Simeon, Levi, or Joseph (or any other of the brothers). Moses, not Aaron. David, not Saul. And the elect, not everyone. It is also in stark contrast to God's covenantal language. It is _he_ that placed emnity between the serpent and the women; it is _he_ that provided the lamb in place of Isaac; it was _he_ who brought the Israelites out of Egypt; it is _he_ who was struck that the Israelites might drink; it is _he_ who is both the promise and the keeper of the promise. There is absolutely nothing left for us to do.
Plus, you still have to come up with a way of making the atonement both an accomplished fact and somehow conditional upon something other than God. |
| |
Did Adam die lost? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
I believe that Adam went to heaven. In Genesis in the story of Abel and Cain it tells us that Abel obeyed God's teaching by tithing and that he was a good servant. The Lord had regard for him (Gen 4:4b). He also had a great faith as he is the first member of the hall of faith in Hebrews 11. In order for Abel to feel this way and to honor God as he did he had to of been taught about God by Adam. If Adam had taught him this he must of known of God's love and forgiveness. I am sure that Adam, knowing he had done wrong, asked for God's forgiveness and was forgiven because He is a loving and forgiving God. prayon |
| |
Who is Lucifer/ why was heson of morning |
|
|
|
Isaiah
|
| |
Is.14:12 Lucifer; Brillient Star? light bearer? Why was Lucifer called son of the morning? Did He make Cain kill Abel?
Was He still in Heaven at the time of Cain and Abel? Was the King of Babylon (Lucifer?) Thanks |
| |
Who is Lucifer/ why was heson of morning |
|
|
|
Isaiah
|
| |
Lucifer is the English translation of the Hebrew word meaning "light bringer" or "shining one", sometimes designating the morning or day star. In Isa 14:12 the Babylonian ruler is compared to a "Day Star" (the NIV bible says morning star), which has fallen from heaven and has been felled like a stately tree. In the Christian Church this passage came to be connected with Jesus saying in Luke 10:18 "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". It was here that the connection was made between Lucifer and Satan.
Satan was in the Garden of Eden therefore he had to of already been on the earth when Cain and Abel were born. Satan cannot make us do anything that God does not allow him to do. He can only tempt us. Therefore he did not make Cain kill Abel but he was a definite influence on Cain.
The King of Babylon was not Lucifer but he. too, was influenced by him. prayon |
| |
What???????????????????????????????????? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Is what this aurthor writes about dispensationalism, of which Scofield is a representative (is he not?), accurate? Was this ever their view? Or has their view been modified since the days of Scofield to make it more Scriptural?:
"It is implied, however, that Adam was to observe the Sabbath day and worship God. And, after the fall at least, he was to offer certain sacrifices. Moreover the story of Cain, and Abel requires us to believe that God had forbidden murder. It would seem likely therefore that God had given Adam all the Ten Commandments. Later, after the flood, these commands were repeated.
"Now, unfortunately, among the fundamentalists a certain group talks so as to give the impression that God gave no laws before the days of Moses. These people divide time into several dispensations which are distinguished by different plans of salvation. They speak of a dispensation of conscience, a later dispensation of human government; and only with Moses is the dispensation of law supposed to begin. This dispensational view, in addition to being inconsistent with Genesis, is directly contradicted in Romans 5:13,14. These verses say, "until the law (here Paul refers to the Mosaic law) sin was in the world"; that is to say, people before the time of Moses were sinners. "But," continues Paul, "sin is not imputed where there is no law. Nevertheless (sin very obviously was imputed before the days of Moses because) death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over (infants) that had not sinned (voluntarily) after the similitude of Adam's transgression." Accordingly, there must have been law between Adam and Moses because the penalty for disobedience was exacted....
...................
The dipensationalists go on and place a dispensation of grace after the dispensation of law. In this dispensation, i.e., the present age, law has no place. But once again the Scripture contradicts such a view. The three chapters of Romans where our freedom from the law of sin and death is most emphasized are far from disparaging the law. In addition to the strong insistence on the necessity of a righteous life (Rom. 6:2,6,12,15; 8:1,4,13), Paul asserts that the law is holy and good (Rom. 7:12), spiritual (7:14), a delight to the godly man (7:22), and the rule of service (7:25)."
Gordon Clark, "What Do Presbyterians Believe?” p. 181, 182.
|
| |
Are the "sons of God" pre-Fall children? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:2
|
| |
JenkinsDE, I appreciate your 'insight', but I disagree with its conclusions.
First of all, you introduced the 'possibility' that Eve could have had children before the Fall, and cited Genesis 3:20 in support of this premise. However, I believe that this premise cannot be considered since there is no natural break or period of time between Genesis 2:25 and 3:1, which begins the fall of mankind. Also, I believe that if there were any children preceding the fall, then they would have surely been mentioned in the text since the author of Genesis was so careful to mention that Adam 'had relations' with his wife in Gen. 4:1, 25 and 5:3-4, and paid painstakingly close attention to the children that were the result of the first human births, which were Cain and Abel. I also believe that if there were any children at the time of the fall, then God would have surely addressed them also in Gen. 3:8-24. If there were children who were born prior to the fall, then we could conclude that these children were not banished from the Garden of Eden as their parents were, thus forever being separated from any fellow human being ever again. This premise creates more problems than it engenders. Also, when the Lord speaks of 'man' in verse 22, He is speaking all inclusively, meaning both the man and his wife (and anyone else for that matter), and ending with judgment upon 'man'. Adam did not even name his wife until they had fallen from grace (v. 20), so this (along with the weight of the above observations) shows that Cain and Abel were indeed the first human births.
When God said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth", it cannot be deduced that there was already pain in childbirth for Eve. Nowhere can it be derived from exegesis that it is 'assumed' that Eve had already given birth as a consequence of this verse. If you assume that, then you are reading something into the text that simply is not there, and wasn't meant to be there.
There is a great deal of time between the events of Genesis 4 to Genesis 6, as shown by the geneaologies that are presented in 4:17-5:32.. So we can see that just by studying the geneaologies, there is absolutely no mention of a 'line of Adam' that existed before the fall, only Adam's offspring through Cain, Abel, and Seth are presented here. So this is even further evidence against there being any children before the fall.
I believe that you are correct in interpreting the 'sons of God' in Genesis 6:2 and 4 as humans, but humans who were from the Godly line of Seth, who was the 'new' seed (5:3), or substitute for the slain Abel in the geneaological line that would eventually lead to Christ (Luke 3:23-38). |
| |
who did cain marry |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
His sister. Generally daughters are not mentioned in the generations. Only sons. Which is why I think daughters were probably born to Adam and Eve AFTER Cain and Abel were born, but BEFORE Seth was born. The genealogy of Genesis begins with Adam to Seth and continues from there.
And the biblical genealogies seems to only follow a certain "line", from Adam to Noah, then to Abraham, then to David, then to Christ. Every "son's" line is not listed in Genesis or after. Only those that were applicable to the birth of the Messiah.
And one thing that I overlooked when first reading Genesis 4:16,17 is that it doesn't state that Cain MET his wife while wandering east of Eden (which I used to think). Simply that he went wandering, and then "knew" her and she conceived. Cain quite probably was married before he killed Abel and was driven away by the Lord. |
| |
Cain was first? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:1
|
| |
Genesis 4:1 implies that Cain was the first son and Abel was born later (vs 2). He did have other sons and daughthers (5:4).
Steve |
| |
Did Adam die lost? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
That's a good point about the name. Do you have a reference that you could show me where you got that information? I ask because I looked up the names of Cain, Abel, and Seth in the original Hebrew. To me, the meanings don't imply what you mentioned.
Cain, name of 1st child, (an affinity to "a sense of fixity, lance, spear").
Abel, son of Adam, (same as emptiness, or vanity).
Seth, substituted, appoint.
I do agree there were many more who were saved by faith in ancient times than just those Paul listed. But I'm not sure we can assume that Adam was saved since the Bible doesn't say he was.
I think Adam and Eve definitely told all they knew about the Lord God, and their time in the garden of Eden to their sons and daughters. [Please note that God even spoke with Cain in Genesis 4.] But talking the talk, and walking the walk aren't the same thing. I'm not trying to "judge" Adam, but another thing just crossed my mind. It wasn't until after Seth gave birth to Enosh that it says "then men began to call on the name of the Lord" (4:26).
Adam would have been about 235 years old at that time, when men "began" to call upon the name of the Lord. Was Adam among them? I don't know. But I guess I can't assume that he was for two reasons. 1)The Bible doesn't say he was; and 2)after having a walking/talking relationship with God in the garden, he apparently did not "call on His name" after leaving the garden which was AT LEAST the first 150 years they lived outside the garden. |
| |
Did Adam die lost? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
I suppose I should let this drop since you seem to be a bit bored with the subject, but I want to make a short comment.
I heard that too about Seth. But that doesn't seem to be what the Bible says. Genesis 4:25 "And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, 'For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.'"
They didn't name him Seth because they thought he was the Messiah, nor a substitute for sin, but because they saw him as a substitute for Abel.
It sounded good to me at the time though too. :) God bless. |
| |
Possibly a niece? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:1
|
| |
Genesis 5:4 states that beside Abel, Cain and Seth that Adam had "other sons and daughters." If you read on through chapter 5 this phrase qualifies every other person listed. The point of the information is not to show the intracies of human relationships but to trace the genealogy of the Messiah (as evidenced by the genealogies in Matthew and Luke) and the nations in general.
Since Adam was alive all the way up through Lamech's birth (the father of Noah) it could be argued that Cain's wife might have been a much more distant relative than an immediate niece or sister. Just because the genealogy comes in chapter 5 AFTER the information about Cain marrying in chapter 4 does not mean all those people came after. He could have married someone that was several generations descended from Adam.
|
| |
Possibly a niece? |
|
|
|
Gen 1:1
|
| |
From "Hard Sayings of the Bible"...
"Up to this point in Genesis we only know about Adam and Eve, and Cain and Abel. But the most obvious answer to this common question must be that Adam and Eve had other children, including daughters. Indeed, Genesis 5:4 plainly says as much, “[Adam] had other sons and daughters.”
Cain must have married his sister. But to admit this is to raise a further difficulty: was he thereby guilty of incest?
At least two things can be said in response to this reproach. First, if the human race was propagated from a single pair, as we believe the evidence indicates, such closely related marriages were unavoidable. The demand for some other way of getting the race started is an unfair expectation.
In the second place, the notion of incest must be probed more closely. At first the sin of incest was connected with sexual relationships between parents and children. Only afterward was the notion of incest extended to sibling relationships.
By Moses’ time there were laws governing all forms of incest (Lev 18:7-17; 20:11-12, 14, 17, 20-21; Deut 22:30; 27:20, 22, 23). These laws clearly state that sexual relations or marriage is forbidden with a mother, father, stepmother, sister, brother, half brother, half sister, granddaughter, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, aunt, uncle or brother’s wife.
The Bible, in the meantime, notes that Abraham married his half sister (Gen 20:12). Therefore, the phenomenon is not unknown in Scripture. Prior to Moses’ time, incest in many of the forms later proscribed were not thought to be wrong. Thus, even Moses’ own father, Amram, married an aunt, his father’s sister, Jochebed (Ex 6:20). In Egypt, the routine marriage of brothers and sisters among the Pharaohs all the way up to the second century made the Mosaic law all the more a radical break with their Egyptian past.
The genetic reasons for forbidding incest were not always an issue. Close inbreeding in ancient times was without serious or any genetic damage. Today, the risk of genetic damage is extremely high. Since the genetic possibilities of Adam and Eve were very good, there were no biological reasons for restricting marriages to the degree that it became necessary to do later."
Nicodemus |
| |
Is gospel in names of Adam and sons? |
|
|
|
Gen 5:1
|
| |
Greetings clarks4mom!
Good question. According to Genesis 5:1 and following, the first 9 descendants of Adam whose names are listed in the Bible are:
1. Cain - "a possession; a spear." (1)
2. Abel - "a breath, or vanity" (1)
3. Seth - "appointed; a substitute" (1)
4. Enosh - "man; or mortal" (2)
5. Kenan - "possession; smith, fixed" (1,2)
6. Mahalalel - "praise of God" (1)
7. Jared - "descent" (1)
8. Enoch - "initiated" (1)
9. Methuselah - "man of the dart" (1)
(1) - Easton's Bible Dictionary
(2) - Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
--Nolan |
| |
Forgiveness, is it conditional? |
|
|
|
Matt 6:14
|
| |
Dear Tim,
Please let me respond to your questions and, if you could add anything further, I would be interested and most appreciative.
1) Yes, I believe that forgiveness was obtained through the animal sacrifice in the OT. However, did God just issue a, for lack of a better word, 'blanket forgiveness' for everyone? Or did He actually look at individual's hearts and accept the offering based upon their attitudes? I am not honestly 100 percent sure here. I know that He told Saul, "Obedience is better than sacrifice." I.e. 'Don't just do what YOU want to do, and then come to Me with a sin offering and think that I HAVE to accept it.' I'm not sure where the scripture reference is (help me out here), but in one place God said something to the effect of, 'Stop your offerings, they are making Me sick because your hearts are far from Me.' Sorry that I can remember the reference or exact wording. So, I think a strong case can be made that, just like in salvation, the people needed to exercise faith in what God provided and God honored and responded to that faith. Is this way Christ told them to, basically, check their hearts before offering their sacrifice? Obviously, in the OT, the sacrificial system required that the offerings be made, but did everyone place their faith in them? Probably not. So was everyone forgiven just because they brought an offering? I don't think so. There was even a problem between Cain and Abel's offerings (I know, different type).
But you know, Tim, I can't count the times in the past that I have gone to the altar (under the New Covenant obviously) to seek forgiveness when my own heart was not right? I just wanted forgiveness without being changed. God always sees my heart. And He KNOWS if I am sincere. As you know from my infamous 1 John 1:9 post, I no longer ask for forgiveness. It is not faith to ask for what God has already given me. But it is faith to thank Him for it and ask Him to show me where I am not walking in the Spirit, where I sin, where I am still walking in the flesh. So, yes I 'confess', I agree with God, but I don't ask for forgiveness.
2) I still don't feel that forgiveness is conditional. I do believe in concept of unlimited atonement (but I wouldn't use that word. Atonement is no where found in the Greek NT and I think that it reinforces that Christ's blood only 'covers' as opposed to takes away our sins). But you and I disagree as to what folks call 'eternal security' for reasons that we have already discussed. I see a way too many scriptures in the proper New Covenant (after Christ's death) that substantiate that we are baptized into Christ, united with Him, made a new creation, adopted by God, made alive with Him, born again, called children of God, citizens of heaven, made complete in Him, heirs of God, indwelt by His Spirit, partakers of the Divine nature, reconciled to God, redeemed, made righteous, called saints, saved, sealed, translated out of darkness into light, etc. (What a mouthful) If it is true that we can stop being all these things and remove ourselves from God and His forgiveness, I sure wish He would have prodded the NT writers to discuss it more fully and with greater clarity. If you can 'lose your salvation' or whatever label you want to stick on it, it seems like something with such dire consequences (ending up in Hell) would have been addressed much more than 2 or 3 verses of 'if you continue.' :) I'm not poking fun, but I do recall our prior interaction and, no, I still don't have an answer. Well, my fingers are getting tired...
Thanks again, Tim. Grow in grace.
In Him, Bill Mc |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
