Matthew 19:16-17

Frankly, your little group on this board is striking me as being very scary. I think I'll end my conversation with your group now. I've read enough of your false teaching to avoid further interaction with it, for until and unless the Holy Spirit gives you spiritual eyes you won't be open to the truth of God's Word.

May God be gracious to you and your group and rescue you from falsehood.

Ken

 

Some made sacrifices as a sign of their faith in Christ; others made sacrifices blindly because they were under the law. However, the gracious were never required to make animal sacrifices, for God was not pleased with the blood of animals for the purpose of making someone righteous:

"For thou desirest not sacrifice; else I would give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering." - Psalm 51:16

"Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To 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 goats." - Isaiah 1:10&11

"In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure." - Hebrews 10:6

Apparently, the first animal sacrifice on behalf of man was performed by God. For God covered the nakedness of Adam and Eve after they sinned with skins. This was yet another sign of Christ, who would cover our sins with his sacrifice.

Only the offering of sacrifice from those who did so as a testimony of their faith in Christ, was accepted by God, for their hearts were right. But those who sacrificed not in such faith, did not please God.

Animal sacrifice in the old testament days was much like water baptism in the new. For unto the saved it was a sign of their faith in Christ. But unto the self-righteous, both were in vain, just like the washing of the outward man through the written law.

God bless.

 

Becuase it is not what Scripture teaches. Anything that "God shows" will line up with his revelation. Scripture is teh test, not anyone else. I am aware of Clarence Larkin but he is pretty dated and has a number of views (such as this salvation thing apparently) that do not correspond with Scripture. I think Paul made it pretty plain in Rom 4 that even in the OT people were saved by faith alone (the examples of Abraham and David). To add works in any way is to compromise the book of Hebrews teaching on the sufficiency of Christ who came once to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

As for name calling, when people do it, they should be kicked off. I have long been a supporter of that. However, "dispensationalist" is not a name; it is a label for a set of beliefs (a label which I gladly accept and use for myself; I do not complain when someone whips out the "D" word against me; there are other labels I also accept. The "ruckmanitish" delineated a particular breed of dispensationalists though I would question how dispensational they really are. I suppose that they meet the sine qua non and thus are but I would not accept them. I use the term "ruckmanitish" to distinguish between the classical, traditional, progressive, scofieldian, Dallas, Grace, etc. There are a number of different flavors. Yours happens to be of the Larkin/Ruckman flavor. If you can show a personal attack from me, I will publicly apologize for it. I make a studied effort to avoid that.

As for other dispensationalists, there are a few of us on here, though we seem to be in the minority. Myself and Bob Griffin are both dispensationalists, more in the Grace tradition.

[ July 30, 2002, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

I think all versions read the same here. The point has nothing to do with dispensations and everything to do with handling it rightly. Do not distort or twist it. Use it as it stands.

 

On what basis do you make this statement? How have I changed the Bible?

You make a direct statement without any biblical support, a statement that strikes at the very foundation of what I believe. Why?

[ July 30, 2002, 09:41 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

The law was to show the people their shortcomings. The sacrifices were a picture of the blood atonement of Jesus.

The old testament does attest to the fact that people were saved by faith. God is pleased only by faith. The only way I can explain that fact is to say that God knew their hearts, just like He knows our hearts today.

 

How would you then interpret 2 Tim. 3:16, " All scrpiture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine , for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

 

Huh???????

 

Pastor Bob

1.Read 2 Tim. 2:15 first.If the word is rightly divided the doctrine to whom this applies is understood.Remember these groups are dealt with in the Bible. 1.Jew 2.Gentile 3.Church

 

Why do you assume that "rightly dividing" is a reference to time? What is the exegetical evidence for such an understanding?