PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Jesus, God's plan "B" for the human race



Brits Van Wyk
Jan 10th 2012, 08:13 AM
Something went terribly wrong with God's plan "A" in Adam. Then He had to make a new plan... Plan "B".

2 Tim 1: 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,


So, what was the idea with Adam then ?

shepherdsword
Jan 10th 2012, 01:15 PM
Since God,in his foreknowledge,knew Adam would fall we see that Yeshua is the lamb "slain from the foundation of the world"

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Yeshua is not plan B.

David Taylor
Jan 10th 2012, 02:22 PM
Something went terribly wrong with God's plan "A" in Adam. Then He had to make a new plan... Plan "B".

2 Tim 1: 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,


So, what was the idea with Adam then ?

The scripture you quoted contradicts your summary premise.

It states that the Father's "own purpose" to give us through Christ Jesus was 'before the ages began'. Therefore, it was a plan A long before God created Adam. Adam was created by God with the understanding that Adam would fall and was never intended to be a perpetual perfect prodigeny for humankind.

Christ as the redeemer of mankind was always plan a, for God making man with the volition to choose, God knew that man (Adam and afterward) would sin; and would need a saviour to redeem them.

That's why Revelation reminds us that Jesus was slain before the foundations of the earth, because His plan-a for us, long preceeded the Adam initiation of the mortal human race.

Brother Mark
Jan 10th 2012, 03:04 PM
Why do we think that salvation is Plan A? B? or C? Could it be that God wants something more from man and that salvation makes that possible after the fall? Could it be that what God wanted from man was the same before the fall as after the fall and that whether man fell or not didn't change God's purpose for man?

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 10th 2012, 04:50 PM
The scripture you quoted contradicts your summary premise.

I know... done on purpose :saint:

It states that the Father's "own purpose" to give us through Christ Jesus was 'before the ages began'. Therefore, it was a plan A long before God created Adam. Adam was created by God with the understanding that Adam would fall and was never intended to be a perpetual perfect prodigeny for humankind.

OK, that is also my thoughts on this... However,.... what was the tree of Life doing there. ( God set a guard there to protect the tree "lest they become like Us and live forever" ?????

Christ as the redeemer of mankind was always plan a, for God making man with the volition to choose, God knew that man (Adam and afterward) would sin; and would need a saviour to redeem them.

That's why Revelation reminds us that Jesus was slain before the foundations of the earth, because His plan-a for us, long preceeded the Adam initiation of the mortal human race.

I hear you. Just wondering if you can explain the "long preceeded" section please


This is very interesting. thanks. I will also ask a question from the post just after yours. Please feel free to respond to that as well.

Love
Brits

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 10th 2012, 04:58 PM
Why do we think that salvation is Plan A? B? or C? Could it be that God wants something more from man and that salvation makes that possible after the fall? Could it be that what God wanted from man was the same before the fall as after the fall and that whether man fell or not didn't change God's purpose for man?

Brother Mark

Stoked with your post !:pp

You have 100% of my attention. Please do explain.


Perhaps you can also touch on the time period following Adam till the cross and resurrection of our Lord Jesus... I would like to know what the possible reason could be for this "delay" as it will make sense that it could have rather happened earlier. ????


Love
Brits

Brother Mark
Jan 10th 2012, 05:09 PM
Brother Mark

Stoked with your post !:pp

You have 100% of my attention. Please do explain.


Perhaps you can also touch on the time period following Adam till the cross and resurrection of our Lord Jesus... I would like to know what the possible reason could be for this "delay" as it will make sense that it could have rather happened earlier. ????


Love
Brits

IMO, God wanted a vast family of sons that were like Jesus. That is a sanctification process. We are called to be like Jesus.

Rom 8:29-30
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
NASU

Those that are foreknew are to be conformed to the image of Jesus. This does not happen at salvation! It just begins at salvation!

The first Adam was tested. He could have said no, ate from the Tree of Life, and been transformed. Then, IMO, another test would have come where he needed to say no, to embrace the cross, then to eat from the Tree of Life. And so on. At which point, like Enoch, 7th from Adam (7 being perfect, Enoch is a type of the mature Adam), Enoch was not, so God took him. Adam too could have been taken when he matured.

So then the embracing of the cross was found even in Genesis. Adam should have said no to his flesh but he did not. In Genesis, the seed is mentioned. Jesus says that if the seed does not die, then it cannot bear fruit! So death was even part of creation prior to sin. Not the kind of death that comes from sin, but the kind of death that brings life! Or said like Jesus says "He who seeks to save his life will lose it. But he who loses his life for my sake will save it."

In the end, God wanted a vast family that was conformed to the image of his Son. When man fell, salvation/redemption was needed in order to fulfill that purpose. Prior to man's fall, sanctification was needed to perform that purpose. The cross has always been in Christ. Even before there was a need, he lived as if crucified, dead to self but alive to God. It's part of who He is.

As for the resurrection happening earlier, I have no thoughts on that at all. It happened at the right time. Yet, IMO, salvation is only the beginning of what God desires from us. Had Adam not sinned, we still would each have to learn to "take up our cross and follow Him". Though it would have happened without spiritual death, and physical death, there still had to be a "death to self" for sanctification to occur. For us to experience the "power of his resurrection" there must of necessity be an experience of "his sufferings". Does that mean I die on a cross physically? No. It does mean that I take up my own cross and follow him and die to myself and live unto Him!

IMO, this plan was the same whether man fell into sin or not. For maturity towards God still requires saying no to our flesh which even Jesus had to do, though he had no sin. And God's ultimate intention for us, is to be conformed to the image of His Son. Salvation starts the process but there is more after salvation that God still desires from us! Much more! It is to His glory and our blessing that such is the case!!!

Hope I made a little bit of sense.

Grace and peace,

Mark

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 10th 2012, 05:43 PM
IMO, God wanted a vast family of sons that were like Jesus. That is a sanctification process. We are called to be like Jesus.

Rom 8:29-30
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
NASU

Those that are foreknew are to be conformed to the image of Jesus. This does not happen at salvation! It just begins at salvation!

OK... just tell me if restoration at acceptance on Jesus is a "partial" thing - i.e partially holy, partially restored, partially righteous etc... or am I bundling different stuff in to a single concept? - IMO, it is a completed work. I do however understand that there is a process that follows but I am not convinced that it speaks of the same "restoration/reconciliation - can we discuss this pls?

The first Adam was tested. tested or tempted ? He could have said no, ate from the Tree of Life, and been transformed. Then, IMO, another test would have come where he needed to say no, to embrace the cross, then to eat from the Tree of Life. And so on. At which point, like Enoch, 7th from Adam (7 being perfect, Enoch is a type of the mature Adam), Enoch was not, so God took him. Adam too could have been taken when he matured.

"when he matured" Any scripture for this, even deducted from scripture?

So then the embracing of the cross was found even in Genesis. Adam should have said no to his flesh but he did not. In Genesis, the seed is mentioned. Jesus says that if the seed does not die, then it cannot bear fruit! So death was even part of creation prior to sin. Not the kind of death that comes from sin, but the kind of death that brings life! Or said like Jesus says "He who seeks to save his life will lose it. But he who loses his life for my sake will save it."

I agree. Never thought about death in this way. (never got to that to start off with.. too much other meat ;)

In the end, God wanted a vast family that was conformed to the image of his Son. Scripture or further explination to confirm this pleaseWhen man fell, salvation/redemption was needed in order to fulfill that purpose. Prior to man's fall, sanctification was needed to perform that purpose. The cross has always been in Christ. Even before there was a need, he lived as if crucified, dead to self but alive to God. It's part of who He is.

As for the resurrection happening earlier, I have no thoughts on that at all. It happened at the right time. Yet, IMO, salvation is only the beginning of what God desires from us. Had Adam not sinned, we still would each have to learn to "take up our cross and follow Him". Though it would have happened without spiritual death, and physical death, there still had to be a "death to self" for sanctification to occur. For us to experience the "power of his resurrection" there must of necessity be an experience of "his sufferings". Does that mean I die on a cross physically? No. It does mean that I take up my own cross and follow him and die to myself and live unto Him!

amen

IMO, this plan was the same whether man fell into sin or not. For maturity towards God still requires saying no to our flesh which even Jesus had to do, though he had no sin. And God's ultimate intention for us, is to be conformed to the image of His Son. Salvation starts the process but there is more after salvation that God still desires from us! Much more! It is to His glory and our blessing that such is the case!!!


"there is more after salvation that God still desires from us! Much more!" -- could this be for and not from?
I gather that this is not human works? Anyhow, perhaps I can suggest two main "classes of Things" that God desires for us, being
(a) bearing fruit (fruit of the Spirit not fruit of the person)
(b) fellowship with Abba

Hope I made a little bit of sense.

Grace and peace,

Mark

Mark, thank you for such a constructive reply.. I trust you will see that I am not trying to question your convictions, but that they really do interest me.. I respect your views. thanks

Love
Brits

Brother Mark
Jan 10th 2012, 06:17 PM
Mark, thank you for such a constructive reply.. I trust you will see that I am not trying to question your convictions, but that they really do interest me.. I respect your views. thanks

No problem there. I enjoy a good discussion regardless of the outcome. I am not to interested in argument though. And believe me, you do not come off as argumentative!


OK... just tell me if restoration at acceptance on Jesus is a "partial" thing - i.e partially holy, partially restored, partially righteous etc... or am I bundling different stuff in to a single concept? - IMO, it is a completed work. I do however understand that there is a process that follows but I am not convinced that it speaks of the same "restoration/reconciliation - can we discuss this pls?

Sure we can discuss. I am not saying a saved man isn't "complete" so much as I am saying a saved man isn't mature. As Paul said in COllosians, "we are complete in Him". But there is much room to grow. It is the growth into what we are to be that I am referring to. Paul called the Corinthians "carnal". Yet, they were saved. But they were not yet what God intended for them to be. That requires growth and maturity.


tested or tempted?

God tested him. Satan tempted him. Such is often the case with us. When Israel was in the desert for 40 years, there were many temptations there. But God called it testing.

Deut 8:2-3
2 " You shall remember all the way which the Lord your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.
NASU

We see this pattern throughout scripture. Joseph has a dream he will be head of his people but then is sold into slavery. There God tested him, but the enemy tempted him (remember the wife of his owner?). David was called to be King, but lived in caves. The enemy tempted him to kill Saul. God tested, the enemy tempted.

Adam was tested. But it was the enemy who tempted him to eat the fruit. God put the fruit there, but never once did he tempt Adam to eat it. So it is with us. God tests us too. But in that testing arena, the enemy will tempt us to sin.


"when he matured" Any scripture for this, even deducted from scripture?

Two things, we know the number 7 means mature, or complete. Enoch was the 7th from Adam. Second, we have this scripture.

Gen 5:21-24

21 Enoch lived sixty-five years, and became the father of Methuselah. 22 Then Enoch walked with God three hundred years after he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. 23 So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. 24 Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.
NASU

Enoch walked with God and then was taken. He started walking with God after he had a child. Genesis 5 is often called the "chapter of death" as it states over and over again... "and he died". Enoch was the only one that did not die. In Hebrews 11, we are given a list of people that pleased the Lord. Enoch is one.

Heb 11:5
5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God.
NASU

To be honest, my reading of these passages lead me to believe Enoch had matured (i.e. 7th from Adam and that he walked with God and that he pleased the Lord) even though none of them state it directly.

So then the embracing of the cross was found even in Genesis. Adam should have said no to his flesh but he did not. In Genesis, the seed is mentioned. Jesus says that if the seed does not die, then it cannot bear fruit! So death was even part of creation prior to sin. Not the kind of death that comes from sin, but the kind of death that brings life! Or said like Jesus says "He who seeks to save his life will lose it. But he who loses his life for my sake will save it."

I agree. Never thought about death in this way. (never got to that to start off with.. too much other meat


Scripture or further explination to confirm this please

I would offer up the entirety of scripture on this one. God has called us sons. He is our father. He has stated his desire to sum up everything in Christ. He has stated his desire to conform every believer into the image of Christ. Note that in the garden, God made man in his own image. Yet, when man ate, he became less like God than he was before! Salvation enables us to be in the image of God again in the way we should be, i.e. Christ in us the hope of glory. Yet, there is more that the Lord wants. He wants us to have the mind of Christ.

1 Cor 2:16
16 ForWHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
NASU

He wants us to have the love of Christ.

Rom 5:3-5
3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; 4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; 5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
NASU

He wants us to bear the fruit of the Spirit, which is making us like Jesus.

John 15:8
8 "My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit,
NASU

We see throughout scripture that God wants us to be like Jesus.

Phil 3:10-11
10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, beingconformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
NASU

and
1 Peter 1:13-16

13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."
NASU

Note the measure of the holiness that God desires from us is His holiness! And that it only comes through grace of Who Jesus is.

Finally, I come back to this verse...

Rom 8:28-29

28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son
NASU

He desires us, his sons and daughters, to be conformed to the image of Christ! He wants us to be just like Jesus. That is a process. When we are saved, we get a desire to be like Christ in our character, we begin to love God, we want to please Him. As we walk with him, then we grow more like Jesus.


"there is more after salvation that God still desires from us! Much more!" -- could this be for and not from?
I gather that this is not human works? Anyhow, perhaps I can suggest two main "classes of Things" that God desires for us, being
(a) bearing fruit (fruit of the Spirit not fruit of the person)
(b) fellowship with Abba

Indeed! For us and "from" us. But not "from" as in demanding! Rather, from us in grace. He wants us to be like Jesus and to live for the pleasure of God! Yet, he gives us so much even when we don't deserve it! Does a parent want love from their kids? Sure. But he also wants so much for the child the child cannot comprehend all that is in the parents heart until much later in life! But the parent also wants things from us. Thing is, we can offer nothing to God that he has not first given to us!

Rom 11:36
36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.
NASU


Hope I made a little bit of sense.

Yes it did! And I am grateful that you pointed out that God had a heart for us. Otherwise, I fear my thoughts on grace would have been interpreted as thoughts on fulfilling that which we cannot. Thank you for pointing that out.

Grace to you,

Mark

keck553
Jan 10th 2012, 06:57 PM
I think "plan A" "plan B," etc. is a human contrivance, and are not concepts that apply to God. We layer our plans based on lack of something - wisdom, information, response, etc. The Bible is clear that God lacks nothing. If we had infinite knowledge, if we were soverign and created the universe, if we had infinite wisdom, then we would not need to rely on a thought pattern that is layered with more than one possible outcome.

In some human endevours, we do have enough information to just have a "plan A" for some applications, and in those cases, we do not lack anything in performing that particular application.

But we are finite created beings with finite knowledge, finite wisdom, finite perceptions. God is not a created being, meaning His knowledge HAS to be (by default) infriite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite perception. The reason this has to be the default is that one can not mark a boundary or draw a line in eternity.

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 10th 2012, 07:56 PM
Hi all ( and Mark)

In the light of what Mark say about maturity:

then we grow more like Jesus

There is scripture that tells us that we 'grow", "become like", move from "milk to meat" and many more, all indicating a process to something --maybe maturity?

I would like to get ideas on how this relates to what Jesus said about us "becoming like little children"

I do not look for contradictions in these but a understanding of the characteristics displayed by a child that allows such as these to enter the Kingdom.

I may propose some of them to be;

(1) childlike faith or trust
(2) innocence
(3) sincerity
(4) lack of inhibitions

there are off course some characteristics commonly found in children (and mature adults) that may be construed as "ugly"
(a) selfishness
(b) etc..

So, the question would then be... are we to become like little children and if so, in what way?
Whilst maturing in what other ways?

Please accept that I do not in any way say we do this by our own effort/will power or from own strength.

Thanks
Brits

Brother Mark
Jan 10th 2012, 08:14 PM
(1) childlike faith or trust
(2) innocence
(3) sincerity
(4) lack of inhibitions

there are off course some characteristics commonly found in children (and mature adults) that may be construed as "ugly"
(a) selfishness
(b) etc..

So, the question would then be... are we to become like little children and if so, in what way?
Whilst maturing in what other ways?

Please accept that I do not in any way say we do this by our own effort/will power or from own strength.

Thanks
Brits

Let's start with holiness!

1 Peter 1:13-16

13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. 14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, 15 but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; 16 because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."
NASU

We receive holiness in the same way we receive salvation, through faith and grace. Another scripture says it this way.

1 Thess 3:11-13

11 Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you; 12 and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all people, just as we also do for you; 13 so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.
NASU

As we learn to love others, we are established without blame in holiness. Paul said it a little differently in this verse...

Eph 4:23-24
23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.
NASU

We put on what God has already done. He has already made our inner man righteous and holy. We need to put him on while taking off the flesh.

IOW, it's all about believing Him. Children believe. Adults question. We are never more holy than when we believe God. Peter spoke of being holy like God is holy. He was quoting food laws when he did that. In the NT, we are told of food to eat and not to eat. Jesus, who was holy said this about food...

John 4:31-38

31 Meanwhile the disciples were urging Him, saying, " Rabbi, eat." 32 But He said to them, "I have food to eat that you do not know about." 33 So the disciples were saying to one another, "No one brought Him anything to eat, did he?" 34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work. 35 "Do you not say, 'There are yet four months, and then comes the harvest'? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look on the fields, that they are white for harvest. 36 "Already he who reaps is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for life eternal; so that he who sows and he who reaps may rejoice together. 37 "For in this case the saying is true, ' One sows and another reaps.' 38 "I sent you to reap that for which you have not labored; others have labored and you have entered into their labor."
NASU

Jesus also said in John that the works of God were that we might believe on Him whom He sent. So belief is paramount. When we believe what Jesus says, and we get a revelation of what Jesus says, then grace comes to us! We then are made holy in that area like Peter said in the first verses I quoted. We are reminded in Ephesians that it is holy to love others. Yet, this scripture (above) in John was when Jesus met with a samaritan woman and the disciples were amazed! They were amazed he would do such a thing! In this area, they did not yet understand Jesus. IOW, he was eating a food they did not know. But the woman he touched, she knew. Jesus told them about the harvest. He did not tell the woman. She got it already. Look what she did after she was touched by the master.

John 4:28-30
28 So the woman left her waterpot, and went into the city and said to the men, 29 "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?" 30 They went out of the city, and were coming to Him.
NASU

She was born again, made holy before the Lord. Her holiness and love for her people attracted others to her! They heard the word and believed too and became holy. She saw the harvest! She believed Jesus and saw the need. She had a desire and love for others. This is holiness. The disciples, not understanding God's heart, did not see the harvest of Samaritans.

Peter quoted the food laws as it related to holiness. Jesus spoke of food when he was saying they didn't understand his desire to save samaritans and to do the will of God. Peter got it when he had his dream about "unclean food" concerning Cornelius.

Believing God, makes us holy. Loving God and man, is holiness. This Samaritan woman was childlike in her faith and was holy. She saw the will of God was to save her city. She did the will of God because she believed. This was something the disciples had not yet understood concerning Gentiles and Jesus verified by saying "I have food to eat that you don't know about". But they eventually did.

So believing God is not only step 1, but is step 1000 and step 100000000 and so on.

Grace to you!

Mark

Saved7
Jan 10th 2012, 10:05 PM
Since God,in his foreknowledge,knew Adam would fall we see that Yeshua is the lamb "slain from the foundation of the world"

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Yeshua is not plan B.


Amen, Jesus is far from plan B. This was the plan all along. Consider our present state just a seed for the future state of man, who in the final and complete stage will finally be made into the image of God.

Watchman
Jan 11th 2012, 12:41 AM
God knew Adam would fall, yet He gave Adam the freedom to choose between self-independence from God and self-dependence...which is actually a choice based on love. Free will requires a choice, so God devised the plan wherein man could choose, then choose again, whom he would love. We were created to love Abba and to be loved by Him.

blessings,

Watchman :)

Eyelog
Jan 11th 2012, 06:06 AM
Something went terribly wrong with God's plan "A" in Adam. Then He had to make a new plan... Plan "B".

2 Tim 1: 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,


So, what was the idea with Adam then ?

Okay. We don't get saved by human works. After that, God's plan is for us to earn treasure in heaven by our works. So, all this no effort business is unBiblical. So is seeing the Fall as a mistake. God orchestrated the Fall of mankind, let alone allowed it and foresaw it. As some have said in this thread, God was trying to create something greater than an Adam. He was trying to create those who would become like the 2nd Adam through seeking and finding, sowing and reaping, loving and doing.

All this God does it all for us after we are saved stuff denies the point of why He saved us - to create a people zealous for good deeds. Titus 2:14.

You want to know God's purpose? Look at who He honors and rewards the most: Those who are the most like Christ in their faithful obedience. But Christ did not obey simply by letting God do it all. He learned obedience by what He suffered. Hebrews 5:8.

Best of blessing to you.

LookingUp
Jan 11th 2012, 06:19 AM
Guys,

Why is it that infants and babies who die don't have to mature (i.e. conform to Christ) to be able to "get to heaven"?

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 11th 2012, 06:22 AM
Hi Mark


Jesus also said in John that the works of God were that we might believe on Him whom He sent. So belief is paramount. When we believe what Jesus says, and we get a revelation of what Jesus says, then grace comes to us! We then are made holy in that area like Peter said in the first verses I quoted. We are reminded in Ephesians that it is holy to love others. Yet, this scripture (above) in John was when Jesus met with a samaritan woman and the disciples were amazed! They were amazed he would do such a thing! In this area, they did not yet understand Jesus. IOW, he was eating a food they did not know. But the woman he touched, she knew. Jesus told them about the harvest. He did not tell the woman. She got it already. Look what she did after she was touched by the master.

"the works of God were that we might believe on Him whom He sent"

I fully agree. Naturally this leads to submission/obedience and the HS working through one to produce fruits. ( a thought about fruits: --- fruits are not for the consumption by the one bearing it, but for the hungry "passer by" - one bears fruit, produced by the HS for the consumption of the hungry )

"then grace comes to us"

Perhaps I have it wrong but, I do see that grace "comes to us" irrespective of the revelation. Grace was there before the world was formed. Grace is the absolute requirement prior to believing. But now I am splitting hairs, so yes, its all good.

"We then are made holy in that area"

Perhaps I am not understanding this the same way you are. I am of the conviction that holiness should be seen also from God's point of view. This being the case, there will not be a place for partial holiness. However, if man is observing another man, and does an assessment of this guy's level of holiness... it can be said that the observed one is holy in certain "areas" and not yet holy in others.

You supplied a very comprehensive post, thank for taking so much time on this. Your comments are valuable !

I hope you will also be able to address the other points. ( Characteristics of a child as it pertains to "becoming like little children" )

Love
Brits

Eyelog
Jan 11th 2012, 06:32 AM
Guys,

Why is it that infants and babies who die don't have to mature (i.e. conform to Christ) to be able to "get to heaven"?
Nor do the born again who are saved on their 'death bed.'

Hi, Lookingup. Long time no talk. Thought I'd take a stab at your statement/question.

To whom much has been given, much is required. But earning treasure in heaven has nothing to do directly with being saved by grace through faith and not by works, lest anyone should have cause to boast. Indeed, we are saved to do works He prepared in advance that we should walk in them. But those who choose not to walk in those good works of righteousness and choose not to embrace the maturation process have to ask themselves if they are really born again and have the Spirit, or are they backslidden. Assurance of salvation comes from obeying by faith and developing such a track record of doing. Maturation requires the doing as well. Take the doing and the obedience and the maturation out of it, and assurance weakens quickly.

Of course, I am not suggesting any doing that is not based on a renewal of the mind, a fixing of the mind, walking by faith or walking in the Spirit. Any works done without acknowledging God are not 'righteous' and not 'good' and do not result in treasure in heaven.

Ours is to be a continuous walk with God.

But maturing or being conformed to the image of Christ is not a direct prerequisite to being saved.

Perhaps I miss the point of your question.

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 11th 2012, 06:37 AM
Guys,

Why is it that infants and babies who die don't have to mature (i.e. conform to Christ) to be able to "get to heaven"?

Hi LookingUp

Good question. I am sure you will get some great insights on this from other participants..

I was not really leading up to this question with the post ( # 11 ) but, it could well form part of the "becoming like little children" process that I am keen to explore.

The OP has been addressed in some detail and I think there may be some new stuff on this coming as well.

I am holding thumbs for lots of meaningful contributions.

Love
Brits

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 11th 2012, 06:56 AM
Okay. We don't get saved by human works. After that, God's plan is for us to earn treasure in heaven by our works. So, all this no effort business is unBiblical. So is seeing the Fall as a mistake. God orchestrated the Fall of mankind, let alone allowed it and foresaw it. As some have said in this thread, God was trying to create something greater than an Adam. He was trying to create those who would become like the 2nd Adam through seeking and finding, sowing and reaping, loving and doing.

All this God does it all for us after we are saved stuff denies the point of why He saved us - to create a people zealous for good deeds. Titus 2:14.

You want to know God's purpose? Look at who He honors and rewards the most: Those who are the most like Christ in their faithful obedience. But Christ did not obey simply by letting God do it all. He learned obedience by what He suffered. Hebrews 5:8.

Best of blessing to you.



Hi Eyelog

Thanks for joining the tread.Good to hear from you.

The tread has two main topics (so far)

OP: Plan"A" and plan "B"
and
Becoming like little children.

you conclude with the following:
"You want to know God's purpose? Look at who He honors and rewards the most: Those who are the most like Christ in their faithful obedience. But Christ did not obey simply by letting God do it all. He learned obedience by what He suffered. Hebrews 5:8." -

Seems like this topic is not related ? - Your point of view is however respected.

I am really looking forward to your contribution on the main two points. As I said before, your opinions are always valued.

Love ya
Brits

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 11th 2012, 07:16 AM
God knew Adam would fall, yet He gave Adam the freedom to choose between self-independence from God and self-dependence...which is actually a choice based on love. Free will requires a choice, so God devised the plan wherein man could choose, then choose again, whom he would love. We were created to love Abba and to be loved by Him.

blessings,

Watchman :)

Hi Watchman

I have been following some of your posts and replies...impressive!

Will you forgive me for asking a silly/naughty question :

So, if God knew Adam would fail, why create him? Shame, the poor guy (and Eve) were destined for a crappy life. I am sure they (nor Abba) enjoyed the guilt and other consequences brought along by the fall.
I am NOT suggesting that the fall was God's fault, just that He could have avoided it.
Most people won't start a project if they know it will fail. They would rather skip the plan doomed for failure and get on with a plan that is likely to succeed.


Love to hear from you.

Love
Brits

Eyelog
Jan 11th 2012, 07:39 AM
Hi Eyelog

Thanks for joining the tread.Good to hear from you.

The tread has two main topics (so far)

OP: Plan"A" and plan "B"
and
Becoming like little children.

you conclude with the following:
"You want to know God's purpose? Look at who He honors and rewards the most: Those who are the most like Christ in their faithful obedience. But Christ did not obey simply by letting God do it all. He learned obedience by what He suffered. Hebrews 5:8." -

Seems like this topic is not related ? - Your point of view is however respected.

I am really looking forward to your contribution on the main two points. As I said before, your opinions are always valued.

Love ya
Brits

Not sure how your question about God knowing Adam would fail (#21) is not related to my point about God's ultimate purpose in creating Adam and mankind in general. God knew He'd fail and created for the purpose that He would fail, so He could develop into a unique and difficult thing to create: A free agent zealous to do Good. Titus 2:14.

But since you are acting as the thread police (:)), I will try to speak only of God's purpose as a plan. Obviously, He had both plans A and B. In fact, He began with plan A, switched to plan B, repeated B, and then switched back to plan A. -- At least that is what I take from His NT appellation, ABBA. Clearly it is an acronym or acrostic referencing your theory. Yes?

Good to hear from you too, Brit.

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 11th 2012, 09:09 AM
Not sure how your question about God knowing Adam would fail (#21) is not related to my point about God's ultimate purpose in creating Adam and mankind in general. God knew He'd fail and created for the purpose that He would fail, so He could develop into a unique and difficult thing to create: A free agent zealous to do Good. Titus 2:14.

But since you are acting as the thread police (:)), I will try to speak only of God's purpose as a plan. Obviously, He had both plans A and B. In fact, He began with plan A, switched to plan B, repeated B, and then switched back to plan A. -- At least that is what I take from His NT appellation, ABBA. Clearly it is an acronym or acrostic referencing your theory. Yes?

Good to hear from you too, Brit.

Eyelog

Was not talking down on you at all. If you see it that way, pls accept my sincere apology.
As far as being the tread police - not so much, just super keen to discuss main topics really. We had long discussions in another post and as far as i could gather, we agree on the fruit as evidence. We may not see eye to eye on the effort thing - be it as it may, I would appreciate it if we do not get into a discussion of this point here. However, if you feel that it is required to address the two pints, I have no further objection.

ABBA --- no really, I never even thought about it being an acrostic ! (He began with plan A, switched to plan B, repeated B, and then switched back to plan A ) - you are sooo sharp :D

If I may, it is a very difficult concept for me to think of God in a way that suggests that He could fail at anything. (God knew He'd fail) Perhaps you can help me with this? I can't seem to wrap my mind around this.

"A free agent zealous to do Good. Titus 2:14" - I like this. I recently posted a looong extract called "Romance" on the blog side and in it, there are some other thoughts about God's reason for creating man. It is a long read and some of the stuff may rub you up the wrong way but, if you have some spare time, you may want to read it and see if you have some of your own "revelation" on such reasons. It is, at the very least, very interesting.
see: http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/3100-Fresh-Perspectives


Love
Brits

Eyelog
Jan 11th 2012, 04:33 PM
If I may, it is a very difficult concept for me to think of God in a way that suggests that He could fail at anything. (God knew He'd fail) Perhaps you can help me with this? I can't seem to wrap my mind around this.

Brits, I was saying God created Adam, knowing that Adam would fail to obey the command.

But, your whole plan B analysis seems to imply God failed and had to add the Jesus solution? It seems that way to me, as i read you.

Regards,

p.s., by the way, the ABBA point was a jest. In fact, I agree there is only a single plan, not God having to adjust. Even the decision to flood the earth was foreseen, and prepared for, by creating the waters within the earth to flood it, etc. :)

LookingUp
Jan 11th 2012, 05:25 PM
Nor do the born again who are saved on their 'death bed.'

Hi, Lookingup. Long time no talk. Thought I'd take a stab at your statement/question.

To whom much has been given, much is required. But earning treasure in heaven has nothing to do directly with being saved by grace through faith and not by works, lest anyone should have cause to boast. Indeed, we are saved to do works He prepared in advance that we should walk in them. But those who choose not to walk in those good works of righteousness and choose not to embrace the maturation process have to ask themselves if they are really born again and have the Spirit, or are they backslidden. Assurance of salvation comes from obeying by faith and developing such a track record of doing. Maturation requires the doing as well. Take the doing and the obedience and the maturation out of it, and assurance weakens quickly.

Of course, I am not suggesting any doing that is not based on a renewal of the mind, a fixing of the mind, walking by faith or walking in the Spirit. Any works done without acknowledging God are not 'righteous' and not 'good' and do not result in treasure in heaven.

Ours is to be a continuous walk with God.

But maturing or being conformed to the image of Christ is not a direct prerequisite to being saved.

Perhaps I miss the point of your question.The babies we abort or the children we have murdered don't get treasure in heaven (or as many) because we cut their lives short?

LookingUp
Jan 11th 2012, 05:29 PM
Hi Watchman

I have been following some of your posts and replies...impressive!

Will you forgive me for asking a silly/naughty question :

So, if God knew Adam would fail, why create him? Shame, the poor guy (and Eve) were destined for a crappy life. I am sure they (nor Abba) enjoyed the guilt and other consequences brought along by the fall.
I am NOT suggesting that the fall was God's fault, just that He could have avoided it.
Most people won't start a project if they know it will fail. They would rather skip the plan doomed for failure and get on with a plan that is likely to succeed.


Love to hear from you.

Love
BritsI think God knew they'd fail and knew how far we (mankind) could possibly fall, but that the purpose of creation was to tell a story of God's redeeming love, so it was part of the plan before He began creating.

Eyelog
Jan 11th 2012, 05:52 PM
The babies we abort or the children we have murdered don't get treasure in heaven (or as many) because we cut their lives short?

All we know is that God is just. On the one hand, all get the Denarius, and inherit the kingdom, which oughta be enough! But those who have the gift of a talent or mina surely get rewards if they put them to use for His kingdom.

God knows the number of our days. What can man do to us? Fear the one who can put you body and soul into heaven, says Jesus.

He has that part worked out, but I am unaware of the Scripture which says how the unborn are rewarded or not, though I believe God deals with them justly.

The death bed guy, on the other hand, has wasted his life, and I would gather his rewards in heaven are few, though he will receive the inheritance, and I am sure he is greatful beyond measure for that. :)

Eyelog
Jan 11th 2012, 05:56 PM
God knew Adam would fall, yet He gave Adam the freedom to choose between self-independence from God and self-dependence...which is actually a choice based on love. Free will requires a choice, so God devised the plan wherein man could choose, then choose again, whom he would love. We were created to love Abba and to be loved by Him.

blessings,

Watchman :)

This is well said, especially since you keep the changing of the plan in the hands of the created, rather than the creator. :)

Eyelog
Jan 11th 2012, 05:59 PM
Amen, Jesus is far from plan B. This was the plan all along. Consider our present state just a seed for the future state of man, who in the final and complete stage will finally be made into the image of God.

I think these things be true, my friend. Of course, it is more difficult to multiply our talents if we are immature in christ, so working hard on seeking Him in our maturation is essential to pleasing Him, as per the parable of the Talents. Of course, this is His ultimate plan, to create a people eager to do those good deeds, and actually able to carry them out (in Him, as we say). Agreed? :)

LookingUp
Jan 11th 2012, 07:42 PM
All we know is that God is just. On the one hand, all get the Denarius, and inherit the kingdom, which oughta be enough! But those who have the gift of a talent or mina surely get rewards if they put them to use for His kingdom.

God knows the number of our days. What can man do to us? Fear the one who can put you body and soul into heaven, says Jesus.

He has that part worked out, but I am unaware of the Scripture which says how the unborn are rewarded or not, though I believe God deals with them justly.

The death bed guy, on the other hand, has wasted his life, and I would gather his rewards in heaven are few, though he will receive the inheritance, and I am sure he is greatful beyond measure for that. :)I agree with your point. I don't think Scripture tells us what happens to the baby, but I do wonder.

Saved7
Jan 11th 2012, 08:07 PM
I think these things be true, my friend. Of course, it is more difficult to multiply our talents if we are immature in christ, so working hard on seeking Him in our maturation is essential to pleasing Him, as per the parable of the Talents. Of course, this is His ultimate plan, to create a people eager to do those good deeds, and actually able to carry them out (in Him, as we say). Agreed? :)
Agreed. Certainly seeking to mature, pleases God, because when we are doing this, we are seeking HIS glory, and not our own. It is so that God may be all in all. We seek to grow more and more into the image of Christ who is the express image of God. And if we are doing these things, then our hearts are purely set on Him and that is loving God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength and this is what pleases God. The greatest commandment.:saint:
One of these days, I hope to finally put together my understanding on this subject and present it to the entire body of Christ, that they may rejoice and be strengthened by knowing just what God has done.

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 01:12 AM
Hi Watchman
I have been following some of your posts and replies...impressive!
Will you forgive me for asking a silly/naughty question :
So, if God knew Adam would fail, why create him? Shame, the poor guy (and Eve) were destined for a crappy life. I am sure they (nor Abba) enjoyed the guilt and other consequences brought along by the fall.
I am NOT suggesting that the fall was God's fault, just that He could have avoided it.
Most people won't start a project if they know it will fail. They would rather skip the plan doomed for failure and get on with a plan that is likely to succeed.
Love to hear from you.
Love
Brits
Hi Brits,
Thanks for the kind words. I believe the answer to your question has to do with God’s sovereignty, His love, and His wisdom. His plan was about more than just Adam. He didn’t create Adam to have a crappy life—Adam chose his path albeit unwittingly. However, consider that Adam’s life wasn’t all that bad. After all, for a time, he walked and talked with God. After the fall, he was able to pass on the wisdom and knowledge he gained from his early relationship with Him. Can you imagine the tales the patriarch told his offspring, and their offspring, for ~900 years? Adam was a type of Christ, but failed…but he did serve as head of the human race. He was the first of many patriarchs who were the shadows of today’s pastors (shepherds) and spiritual fathers. While I’m sure he didn’t enjoy the guilt and consequences of his actions, he serves still as an example of what happens when people choose independence from God. God uses Adam’s mistake for good-- to teach countless others.

It was very important for God NOT to skip the bit of his plan he knew would fail due to human frailty and weakness, because those are the very things about the flesh God wanted to teach mankind. His plan flushed the enemy out of hiding (from man) and showed man what a wretch he is apart from God. His plan graciously and mercifully allowed mankind the ability to choose, and choose again, whom he would love. As I said before, love always requires a choice. God loved mankind enough to suffer his rejection and the pain of temporary separation in order to achieve a far more glorious goal: a family of children who love Him unconditionally, faithfully, and by choice. He could have created that initially, but it wouldn’t be called love…mankind would be a race of automatons.

blessings,

Watchman :)

PS: that wasn't a naughty question at all...it was an excellent question!:thumbsup:

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 01:14 AM
Guys,

Why is it that infants and babies who die don't have to mature (i.e. conform to Christ) to be able to "get to heaven"?
God's got the kiddos! It is sin that separates us from Him, and those who aren't old enough to know right and wrong, or old enough to choose, or reject, Him have no sin. Yes, they are born as fleshly creatures and will eventually sin if they live long enough; but they are also born innocent of transgression. Consequently, they are safe in His hands.

blessings,

Watchman :)

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 01:21 AM
If I may, it is a very difficult concept for me to think of God in a way that suggests that He could fail at anything. (God knew He'd fail) Perhaps you can help me with this? I can't seem to wrap my mind around this.
The thing is, Papa didn't fail! He created a creature and gave him the power of choice, thereby making Himself vulnerable. Adam failed to make the correct choice!

LookingUp
Jan 12th 2012, 03:00 AM
God's got the kiddos! It is sin that separates us from Him, and those who aren't old enough to know right and wrong, or old enough to choose, or reject, Him have no sin. Yes, they are born as fleshly creatures and will eventually sin if they live long enough; but they are also born innocent of transgression. Consequently, they are safe in His hands.

blessings,

Watchman :)What about the treasure we gain by living out this life in a pleasing way (i.e. conform to the image of Christ)? Babies who die don't get that option.

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 03:38 AM
What about the treasure we gain by living out this life in a pleasing way (i.e. conform to the image of Christ)? Babies who die don't get that option.
Nor do folks who die as spiritual babes. There are many, many folks who have been saved for decades who are still babies in Christ. While sad, this is true, nonetheless. They, too, miss out on the beauty, intimacy, and adventure of having Christ formed in them.

ewq1938
Jan 12th 2012, 03:44 AM
Something went terribly wrong with God's plan "A" in Adam. Then He had to make a new plan... Plan "B".

2 Tim 1: 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,


So, what was the idea with Adam then ?

I have no issue with this concept. We now have a plan B second covenant because the first didn't work out so well.

ewq1938
Jan 12th 2012, 03:46 AM
Since God,in his foreknowledge,knew Adam would fall we see that Yeshua is the lamb "slain from the foundation of the world"

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Yeshua is not plan B.

So Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world or is that related to the book of life?

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life (of the Lamb slain) from the foundation of the world.

The book of life came to be at the beginning of the world but Jesus wasn't slain back then. He was slain some 2k years ago.

LookingUp
Jan 12th 2012, 04:21 AM
Nor do folks who die as spiritual babes. There are many, many folks who have been saved for decades who are still babies in Christ. While sad, this is true, nonetheless. They, too, miss out on the beauty, intimacy, and adventure of having Christ formed in them.Huh? We (the human race) have been aborting and killing babies since creation and they miss out on the beauty, intimacy, and adventure of having Christ formed in them? If they are "still babies in Christ" what happens to them?

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 12th 2012, 10:20 AM
Hi Brits,
It was very important for God NOT to skip the bit of his plan he knew would fail due to human frailty and weakness, because those are the very things about the flesh God wanted to teach mankind. His plan flushed the enemy out of hiding (from man) and showed man what a wretch he is apart from God. His plan graciously and mercifully allowed mankind the ability to choose, and choose again, whom he would love. As I said before, love always requires a choice. God loved mankind enough to suffer his rejection and the pain of temporary separation in order to achieve a far more glorious goal: a family of children who love Him unconditionally, faithfully, and by choice. He could have created that initially, but it wouldn’t be called love…mankind would be a race of automatons.

blessings,

Watchman :)

PS: that wasn't a naughty question at all...it was an excellent question!:thumbsup:

Hi Watchman (within the topic of Adam being Plan "A")

An intelligent answer indeed. Thank you !

However, it still leaves the question: If God knows that a certain one is going to fail no matter what love is presented to him, no matter how patient God is, no matter how many chances he is given .... it should be clear that this one individual is a lost case or "doomed to failure".

I think most of us are in agreement that God knows the beginning from the end. (some propose that God knows only that which is knowable... I am not at ease with this point of view but without a better perspective, I don't discard this possibility entirely)

In the light of the above:

it is certainly possible that there cannot be ONLY successful models as there will be nothing to measure the success by.

But... on the other hand, (from a human perspective), the question could be asked as to why create a model/man if you know that it is going to fail even if you give it the full potential to succeed?

Also, if the models destined to fail is around for the purpose of exposing the negative ( success vs failure ), then it does seem a bit cruel to create them.

On the other hand, if they (those whom are known by God to be "doomed to failure") exist to bring honor and glory to God who is just, it could be reasoned that hey are created with express purpose to fail and thus act as the "negative" to show up the "positive".
(I am not at all disputing that God is just. I am just saying that a human perspective could view this as cruel towards those 'doomed to fail")

In the same way that some support euthanasia, it could be reasoned that death/non-existence ( God should perhaps not have created those he knew, will fail) is better than allowing a life of suffering that will inevitably culminate in something horrible. i.e. A baby that is known to have severe conditions that will result in a life of unimaginable pain etc... could result in a act of love by euthanasia before it is born. {not giving this example as a personal point of view, but rather as a typical scenario one may be confronted with.})

So, it is my understanding that there was no plan "B" in the form of Jesus.
I also trust that the post will help others to realize that we were in God's thoughts before creation. (we did not "just happen") and that His thoughts about us were pleasing to Himself and full of love and kindness towards us. We are, (and should recognized ) however, firstly created for His pleasure.

I have no answer for this and it is not really an issue I struggle with...it is however a question I was asked before (by an unbeliever) and I could not give a sensible answer.

Help, if you have some ammo for me with this please.

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 12th 2012, 10:50 AM
Hi Brits,
Thanks for the kind words. I believe the answer to your question has to do with God’s sovereignty, His love, and His wisdom. His plan was about more than just Adam. He didn’t create Adam to have a crappy life—Adam chose his path albeit unwittingly. However, consider that Adam’s life wasn’t all that bad. After all, for a time, he walked and talked with God. After the fall, he was able to pass on the wisdom and knowledge he gained from his early relationship with Him. Can you imagine the tales the patriarch told his offspring, and their offspring, for ~900 years? Adam was a type of Christ, but failed…but he did serve as head of the human race. He was the first of many patriarchs who were the shadows of today’s pastors (shepherds) and spiritual fathers. While I’m sure he didn’t enjoy the guilt and consequences of his actions, he serves still as an example of what happens when people choose independence from God. God uses Adam’s mistake for good-- to teach countless others.

It was very important for God NOT to skip the bit of his plan he knew would fail due to human frailty and weakness, because those are the very things about the flesh God wanted to teach mankind. His plan flushed the enemy out of hiding (from man) and showed man what a wretch he is apart from God. His plan graciously and mercifully allowed mankind the ability to choose, and choose again, whom he would love. As I said before, love always requires a choice. God loved mankind enough to suffer his rejection and the pain of temporary separation in order to achieve a far more glorious goal: a family of children who love Him unconditionally, faithfully, and by choice. He could have created that initially, but it wouldn’t be called love…mankind would be a race of automatons.

blessings,

Watchman :)

PS: that wasn't a naughty question at all...it was an excellent question!:thumbsup:

Reply number 2

Hi again Watchman (still with Plan "A" and plan "B")

There is so much of the character of our Creator to learn. And it is all awesome...

I continue reading your reply above and will most likely do so a good few more times.

A thought came to mind....

When Adam and Eve were created , they had no concept of a life without the privilege to fellowship with Abba. At this stage the were a little bit like the automaons you described. They have not yet been exposed to a situation where they could make a decision "against" God. If they were, I would like to think that they were "naturally" inclined to go with decisions in line with Abba. It appears then that a third party was required to motivate the rebellion! This had to have God's approval just as in the case of satan being granted access to Job? - I imagine that the outcome of the temptation was a win win for God... Adam and Eve refuse the devil and God wins and.. Adam and Eve rebels and God wins anyhow ( actually.. He has a perfect plan for this scenario and ... Adam and Eve (and all mankind) wins as well. Why? because they get to know how terrible it is without intimacy (they never knew this before) with their Daddy, they get to know that they have a will of their own, they get to know just how much God loves them as he has a plan in place even if they fail and He is so gracious that He gives them a free will option to either continue without Him or to get restored. Hmmmm don't know if this is scriptural but it kind of feels right and goood.

Love
Brits

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 01:20 PM
I have no issue with this concept. We now have a plan B second covenant because the first didn't work out so well.
If this is true, then God actually failed. However, if the times before Christ were lovingly designed to show mankind his wretchedness and the futility of a life apart from God (as the first phase of His plan), and then show mankind via Christ the magnificence, hope, intimacy, adventure, and beauty of being one spirit with God---then the first phase worked exactly as planned.

blessings,

W:)

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 01:22 PM
Huh? We (the human race) have been aborting and killing babies since creation and they miss out on the beauty, intimacy, and adventure of having Christ formed in them? If they are "still babies in Christ" what happens to them?
Yes, the aborted babies miss this in this life. However, since the increase of His government shall never end, I am confident He has this in store for them in eternity.

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 01:52 PM
When Adam and Eve were created , they had no concept of a life without the privilege to fellowship with Abba. At this stage the were a little bit like the automaons you described. They have not yet been exposed to a situation where they could make a decision "against" God. If they were, I would like to think that they were "naturally" inclined to go with decisions in line with Abba. It appears then that a third party was required to motivate the rebellion! This had to have God's approval just as in the case of satan being granted access to Job? - I imagine that the outcome of the temptation was a win win for God... Adam and Eve refuse the devil and God wins and.. Adam and Eve rebels and God wins anyhow ( actually.. He has a perfect plan for this scenario and ... Adam and Eve (and all mankind) wins as well. Why? because they get to know how terrible it is without intimacy (they never knew this before) with their Daddy, they get to know that they have a will of their own, they get to know just how much God loves them as he has a plan in place even if they fail and He is so gracious that He gives them a free will option to either continue without Him or to get restored. Hmmmm don't know if this is scriptural but it kind of feels right and goood.
The bolded part above is exactly how God planned it. He tells the end from the beginning. The Lamb was slain before the world was created, so His plan was in place in advance.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’

Revelation 13:8 And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.


Both phases of His plan were laid out so mankind could grasp the enormity of his choice. Better choices are made with more complete information. The creation account even tells the end from the beginning. Look at it: God created man, took his bride out of him, the enemy tripped them, God pronounced judgement, man became separated from God and died in spirit. In reverse (ie telling the end from the beginning): Mankind was dead, God pronounced judgement (via Christ), the enemy was tripped up, the Bride was placed into the Man, Christ, and we will go back to our Creator.

blessings,

W:)

LookingUp
Jan 12th 2012, 05:23 PM
Yes, the aborted babies miss this in this life. However, since the increase of His government shall never end, I am confident He has this in store for them in eternity.Thanks. I tend to think that same thing.

ewq1938
Jan 12th 2012, 05:37 PM
If this is true, then God actually failed.

It is true. And no, it does not mean God failed.

LookingUp
Jan 12th 2012, 05:42 PM
The bolded part above is exactly how God planned it. He tells the end from the beginning. The Lamb was slain before the world was created, so His plan was in place in advance.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,’

Revelation 13:8 And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.


Both phases of His plan were laid out so mankind could grasp the enormity of his choice. Better choices are made with more complete information. The creation account even tells the end from the beginning. Look at it: God created man, took his bride out of him, the enemy tripped them, God pronounced judgement, man became separated from God and died in spirit. In reverse (ie telling the end from the beginning): Mankind was dead, God pronounced judgement (via Christ), the enemy was tripped up, the Bride was placed into the Man, Christ, and we will go back to our Creator.

blessings,

W:)Rev. 13 is one verse of a few which speak of the book of life. The way this verse is written, it appears some names were not written in the book from the foundation of the world, but Psalm 69:28 gives the impression that EVERYONE's names are written and some are blotted out (cf. Rev. 3:5). In other words, no one's name could have never been written in the book of life. I tend to think it's the book that's "from the foundation of the world" and not necessarily the names. Lots of discussion over this book of life and its names. Too many discrepancies to make any one firm decision on, in my opinion.

Also, the Isaiah 46 quote is not about seeing into the future as with a crystal ball kind of thing. God's statement that He declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have have been done is in context with the idea that what He declares, He will accomplish. "My purpose will be established, I will accomplish all My good pleasure" and "I have spoken, I will bring it to pass" and "I have planned it, I will do it." The end that God declares from the beginning is not a declaration of "knowing" or seeing into the future, it's a declaration that He Himself has the ability to bring it to pass. See also verse 11 where God says that He will call a bird of prey from the east and He will call the man of purpose from a far country. God will do what it takes to accomplish all His good pleasure.

LookingUp
Jan 12th 2012, 05:49 PM
…However, it still leaves the question: If God knows that a certain one is going to fail no matter what love is presented to him, no matter how patient God is, no matter how many chances he is given .... it should be clear that this one individual is a lost case or "doomed to failure".

I think most of us are in agreement that God knows the beginning from the end.That phrase is often taken out of context. It comes from Isaiah 46:10, and the quote is not about seeing into the future as with a crystal ball kind of thing. God's statement that He declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have have been done is in context with the idea that what He declares, He will accomplish. "My purpose will be established, I will accomplish all My good pleasure" and "I have spoken, I will bring it to pass" and "I have planned it, I will do it." The end that God declares from the beginning is not a declaration of "knowing" or seeing into the future, it's a declaration that He Himself has the ability to bring it to pass. See also verse 11 where God says that He will call a bird of prey from the east and He will call the man of purpose from a far country. God will do what it takes to accomplish all His good pleasure.


(some propose that God knows only that which is knowable... I am not at ease with this point of view but without a better perspective, I don't discard this possibility entirely)There’s also the more common perspective that God can see all the future but limits His knowledge on who will and who will not be saved (i.e. accept His love).

paidforinfull
Jan 12th 2012, 07:55 PM
Something went terribly wrong with God's plan "A" in Adam. Then He had to make a new plan... Plan "B".

2 Tim 1: 9 who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,


So, what was the idea with Adam then ?

God is Allknowing, Allpowerful and Perfect - He doesn't make mistakes. He didn't have a plan A, B, C etc. - he knew exactly what was going to happen, and it all happened exactly as He had planned and purposed.

Re 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world".

You see, God knew man would sin and be in need for a Savior, so He prepared His Sacrificial Lamb, Jesus Christ, before he created us.



The End.

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 08:49 PM
Rev. 13 is one verse of a few which speak of the book of life. The way this verse is written, it appears some names were not written in the book from the foundation of the world, but Psalm 69:28 gives the impression that EVERYONE's names are written and some are blotted out (cf. Rev. 3:5). In other words, no one's name could have never been written in the book of life. I tend to think it's the book that's "from the foundation of the world" and not necessarily the names. Lots of discussion over this book of life and its names. Too many discrepancies to make any one firm decision on, in my opinion.
The English translations come down fairly evenly on both sides--some saying the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and the others saying the Book was written from the foundation of the world. As to the question of whose name is written and whose is blotted out, I'll leave that for others to discuss. Since God obviously had a plan before He began, I believe the Lamb was slain before creation--whether in eternity or in the mind of God makes no difference to me. God paid the price for man's failure in advance...just as He prepared good works in advance in which for us to walk.


Also, the Isaiah 46 quote is not about seeing into the future as with a crystal ball kind of thing. God's statement that He declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have have been done is in context with the idea that what He declares, He will accomplish. "My purpose will be established, I will accomplish all My good pleasure" and "I have spoken, I will bring it to pass" and "I have planned it, I will do it." The end that God declares from the beginning is not a declaration of "knowing" or seeing into the future, it's a declaration that He Himself has the ability to bring it to pass. See also verse 11 where God says that He will call a bird of prey from the east and He will call the man of purpose from a far country. God will do what it takes to accomplish all His good pleasure.
Your explanation fits perfectly with the way I am using the passage...and looking at the creation of man, the fall, and the redemption in reverse supports its use in that way. I'm not sure what your objection is, actually. Would you clarify?

Thanks!

W :)

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 08:53 PM
I have no issue with this concept. We now have a plan B second covenant because the first didn't work out so well.
Yes, we have a second covenant, but that doesn't mean it is God's "fallback." It simply means He used the first to foreshadow the second, and to teach man the futility of his flesh.

W:)

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 09:03 PM
But... on the other hand, (from a human perspective), the question could be asked as to why create a model/man if you know that it is going to fail even if you give it the full potential to succeed?...I have no answer for this and it is not really an issue I struggle with...it is however a question I was asked before (by an unbeliever) and I could not give a sensible answer....Help, if you have some ammo for me with this please.The only way Adam could have succeeded was faith in God; however, he questioned God's heart and intent when he chose the independent path to being like God...which was unbelief in action. The full potential to succeed lay in man's relation with God, not in man. God made Himself vulnerable to the pain of temporary rejection and separation from mankind in order to show mankind that He truly loves us, that we are helpless and hopeless apart from Him, and to show, eventually, the His manifold wisdom to the powers of darkness via the church.

W :)

ewq1938
Jan 12th 2012, 09:13 PM
Yes, we have a second covenant, but that doesn't mean it is God's "fallback." It simply means He used the first to foreshadow the second, and to teach man the futility of his flesh.

W:)

Not according to this:

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The first covenant had faults, was imperfect. So plan B was a newer, better one.

Watchman
Jan 12th 2012, 09:35 PM
Not according to this:

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The first covenant had faults, was imperfect. So plan B was a newer, better one.
As previously stated, the 'fault' of the law wasn't the law, rather, it was the sinful, weak flesh of man who couldn't keep it. That is why we now have Christ in us...something (some One) the Jews didn't have. The verses following the ones you quoted say as much. The old covenant had its preplanned uses, else there would have been no need for a Messiah. Yet, He was prophesied throughout the OT. God's plan never failed, so a second one was never needed. He simply used man's weakness to show man his weakness and He used the old covenant as a schoolmaster that foreshadowed and pointed to Christ. I refuse to believe in a god who can fail.

W :)

ewq1938
Jan 12th 2012, 09:40 PM
As previously stated, the 'fault' of the law wasn't the law, rather, it was the sinful, weak flesh of man who couldn't keep it.

Scripture states the first covenant was not faultless. Man's faults isn't the subject, it's that the first had faults and was replaced by a better one. That's called "plan B".

Eyelog
Jan 12th 2012, 11:12 PM
Scripture states the first covenant was not faultless. Man's faults isn't the subject, it's that the first had faults and was replaced by a better one. That's called "plan B".

The overall plan is one. The sub-plans can be numbered or lettered or even monogrammed on your sweater.

ewq1938
Jan 13th 2012, 12:11 AM
The overall plan is one. The sub-plans can be numbered or lettered or even monogrammed on your sweater.


I hate wearing sweaters :(

LookingUp
Jan 13th 2012, 01:00 AM
The English translations come down fairly evenly on both sides--some saying the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and the others saying the Book was written from the foundation of the world. As to the question of whose name is written and whose is blotted out, I'll leave that for others to discuss. Since God obviously had a plan before He began, I believe the Lamb was slain before creation--whether in eternity or in the mind of God makes no difference to me. God paid the price for man's failure in advance...just as He prepared good works in advance in which for us to walk.

Your explanation fits perfectly with the way I am using the passage...and looking at the creation of man, the fall, and the redemption in reverse supports its use in that way. I'm not sure what your objection is, actually. Would you clarify?

Thanks!

W :)No objection, necessarily, mostly just adding to the conversation. And I agree with all you've said here. Whether the book is from the foundation of the world or not, the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:19-20).

Protective Angel
Jan 13th 2012, 01:25 AM
Since God,in his foreknowledge,knew Adam would fall we see that Yeshua is the lamb "slain from the foundation of the world"

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Yeshua is not plan B.
If God knew Adam would fail, then WHY CREATE FAILURE?

Sojourner
Jan 13th 2012, 02:52 AM
Plan "B" infers a failure of plan "A," and God doesn't fail. God knew before He created Adam that Adam would fail, so Jesus was part of the original plan all along. As David pointed out, you quote a verse that blows a hole in your very premise.

Watchman
Jan 13th 2012, 02:53 AM
Scripture states the first covenant was not faultless. Man's faults isn't the subject, it's that the first had faults and was replaced by a better one. That's called "plan B".

Romans 8:3-4 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

This is entirely about man's fault of being fleshly, as Paul states above. The law was not designed to make anyone righteous apart from God. It was designed specifically to school mankind on the fact that he is utterly dependent upon God...just as was Jesus. There is absolutely no plan B, else God is a failure...which He obviously isn't. I suppose we'll not change each other's minds about this, so I agree to disagree with you as a sibling in Christ.

blessings,

Watchman :)

ewq1938
Jan 13th 2012, 04:38 AM
[I][B]Romans 8:3-4 [COLOR=#ff0000]I suppose we'll not change each other's minds about this, so I agree to disagree with you as a sibling in Christ.

blessings,

Watchman :)

Was the first covenant flawed? Did it have faults? Yes or no?

Eyelog
Jan 13th 2012, 04:41 AM
Was the first covenant flawed? Did it have faults? Yes or no?

EW, don't divide your energies at a time like this. We have redeemed on the run in the evil thread. ... what we need is a troop surge, or at least more of that energy drink and Ibuprofen concoction you've got in the blender there. ...

ewq1938
Jan 13th 2012, 04:47 AM
EW, don't divide your energies at a time like this. We have redeemed on the run in the evil thread. ... what we need is a troop surge, or at least more of that energy drink and Ibuprofen concoction you've got in the blender there. ...


Ok Mom...sorry lol

Protective Angel
Jan 13th 2012, 05:04 AM
Plan "B" infers a failure of plan "A," and God doesn't fail. God knew before He created Adam that Adam would fail, so Jesus was part of the original plan all along. As David pointed out, you quote a verse that blows a hole in your very premise.
This bible wording stuff :hmm: :huh:

Watchman
Jan 13th 2012, 08:01 AM
Was the first covenant flawed? Did it have faults? Yes or no?
I've already given you the answer.

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 13th 2012, 11:16 AM
The only way Adam could have succeeded was faith in God; however, he questioned God's heart and intent when he chose the independent path to being like God...which was unbelief in action. The full potential to succeed lay in man's relation with God, not in man. God made Himself vulnerable to the pain of temporary rejection and separation from mankind in order to show mankind that He truly loves us, that we are helpless and hopeless apart from Him, and to show, eventually, the His manifold wisdom to the powers of darkness via the church.

W :)

Hi Watchman and others ( relevance: failure of plan "A" )

This is just a interesting thought as it makes no real difference in the various opinions given:

"The only way Adam could have succeeded was faith in God"

Amongst many explinations of what faith is, I like the following: Faith is a good expectation.
If I use this as a point of departure, then ask if the failure of Adam was motivated by a lack of faith or was it motivated by a seed of doubt? The reason i ask this is that I understand that the snake asked Eve... "did God really say..." thus creating doubt. So, was it doubt that made her (and Adam) eat or was it the promise to become like God (really, they should have known that they were already created in His image and thus , already like God !)

It could be (if I am correct in my assumption above) that the problem was more likely to have come from a gullible person being deceived than from a person either,(a) purposefully wanting to achieve God like status or (b) "he questioned God's heart and intent."

It is also interesting that Eve could communicate with the snake (if in fact it was a snake - more likely the spirit that possessed the snake?). I wonder if they ( Adam & Eve) could also communicate with the other animals...hmmmm

Love
Brits

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 13th 2012, 11:46 AM
I think most of us are in agreement that God knows the beginning from the end.


That phrase is often taken out of context. It comes from Isaiah 46:10, and the quote is not about seeing into the future as with a crystal ball kind of thing. God's statement that He declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have have been done is in context with the idea that what He declares, He will accomplish. "My purpose will be established, I will accomplish all My good pleasure" and "I have spoken, I will bring it to pass" and "I have planned it, I will do it." The end that God declares from the beginning is not a declaration of "knowing" or seeing into the future, it's a declaration that He Himself has the ability to bring it to pass. See also verse 11 where God says that He will call a bird of prey from the east and He will call the man of purpose from a far country. God will do what it takes to accomplish all His good pleasure.

Thank you, this is the first time someone has given me this perspective.

I will be interested to hear if this is commonly held.

There’s also the more common perspective that God can see all the future but limits His knowledge on who will and who will not be saved (i.e. accept His love).


Naa I find this unacceptable. My peanut brain says "noooo" :nightmare::nightmare::nightmare:

The idea of God not knowing the details of the future, beckons the question of the correct definition of "all knowing" - perhaps someone can research and comment?

Thanks anyway, appreciate your response LookingUp !

Love
Brits

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 13th 2012, 12:09 PM
Not according to this:

Hebrews 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

The first covenant had faults, was imperfect. So plan B was a newer, better one.

Forgive my ignorance.. what covenant is this "1st covenant" referred to here? Please give me a short description and time line if possible.

Regards
Brits

Watchman
Jan 13th 2012, 01:59 PM
Hi Watchman and others ( relevance: failure of plan "A" )

This is just a interesting thought as it makes no real difference in the various opinions given:

"The only way Adam could have succeeded was faith in God"

Amongst many explinations of what faith is, I like the following: Faith is a good expectation.
If I use this as a point of departure, then ask if the failure of Adam was motivated by a lack of faith or was it motivated by a seed of doubt? The reason i ask this is that I understand that the snake asked Eve... "did God really say..." thus creating doubt. So, was it doubt that made her (and Adam) eat or was it the promise to become like God (really, they should have known that they were already created in His image and thus , already like God !)

It could be (if I am correct in my assumption above) that the problem was more likely to have come from a gullible person being deceived than from a person either,(a) purposefully wanting to achieve God like status or (b) "he questioned God's heart and intent."

It is also interesting that Eve could communicate with the snake (if in fact it was a snake - more likely the spirit that possessed the snake?). I wonder if they ( Adam & Eve) could also communicate with the other animals...hmmmm

Love
Brits
Faith is the evidence of good, unseen, expected things, per Hebrews 11:1. What is the opposite of faith? Doubt. Doubt is the evidence against good exectations. Eve was deceived. Adam, OTOH, made a conscious choice (the motivation of which is open to a wide range of speculations and possibilites). Look at the serpent's argument to Eve: God knows you'll be like Him, knowing good and evil. The implication here is that God wants to keep you in your place and does not want you to be like Him...which is another way of saying He doesn't intend the very best for you, but you can have it. Well, as always with the enemy, there's a smattering of truth. It was true that knowing good and evil would make them like God, but only in that respect, and there's much more to God that just the knowledge of good/evil. Adam and Eve naturally wanted to be like their Father, so they disobeyed Him. In so doing, Adam (at least) questioned God's heart by disobeying His direct command.

I suspect they could communicate with the animals before the fall...but that might just be the same kind of wishful thinking that makes me want to fly. As a veterinarian, sometimes I wish I could talk to my patients, and sometimes I'm glad I can't! :D

blessings,

W :)

ewq1938
Jan 13th 2012, 07:23 PM
Forgive my ignorance.. what covenant is this "1st covenant" referred to here? Please give me a short description and time line if possible.

Regards
Brits

The first one came to be at Sinai....it had too many flaws so Christ brought a newer better one.

Brother Mark
Jan 13th 2012, 08:49 PM
Was the first covenant flawed? Did it have faults? Yes or no?

Yes. Not that the fault was with the Law. Rather, the fault was within man that could not keep the law. Thus, God created a second covenant that included as a part of it, a change of man's heart.

Heb 8:7-8

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
NASU

Note that the verse goes on to say "finding fault with them...". The fault was with the people not with the Law. So a covenant needed to come along that changed the people because that was not included in the first covenant. Hebrews goes on to say what the new covenant would include:

Heb 8:8-10

"BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD,
WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT
WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;
9 NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS
ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND
TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT;
FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT,
AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD.
10 "FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS,
AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS.
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD,
AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
NASU

The new covenant would change man in a way the old covenant could not. So the problem was with man. But the Law was good. Paul said this...

Rom 7:16
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
NASU

We are not under the old covenant but the new. The old could not make us new. The new covenant can make us a new person. Thank God for that!

Grace,

Mark

ewq1938
Jan 13th 2012, 09:11 PM
Yes.

Agreed .

Watchman
Jan 13th 2012, 09:13 PM
Yes. Not that the fault was with the Law. Rather, the fault was within man that could not keep the law.
Soooo ewq1938 agrees with only part of the truth. That is akin to taking passages outta context so's one can play prooftext poker. Oh well...

Watchman
Jan 13th 2012, 09:16 PM
The first one came to be at Sinai....it had too many flaws so Christ brought a newer better one.
Scripturally speaking, it had only one flaw...the flesh of mankind....as has been previously proven. The fault was not with the law...it was with man. And it is of no small import that God knew in advance His design and purpose for the first covenant. If He did not, then He is not God at all.

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 13th 2012, 10:38 PM
Hi Guys and Girls

The post by ewq1938 refers to the 1st covenant.

In the quoted scripture, that refers to the law of Moses. However:

This was not the 1st covenant between God and man. The 1st was way before that with Noa.

BUT .. we are talking about the failure of Plan "A" that was Adam... this has nothing to do with covenant.

How did we get to Moses?

Love
Brits

Brother Mark
Jan 13th 2012, 10:44 PM
Hi Guys and Girls

The post by ewq1938 refers to the 1st covenant.

In the quoted scripture, that refers to the law of Moses. However:

This was not the 1st covenant between God and man. The 1st was way before that with Noa.

BUT .. we are talking about the failure of Plan "A" that was Adam... this has nothing to do with covenant.

How did we get to Moses?

Love
Brits

Because when God is speaking of first and second covenants in the NT, he is speaking about his relationship with man, not a covenant of a promise that he made regardless of his relationship with man. That's why we talk about that. Also, in the NT, he is talking of a 1st covenant being replaced with a 2nd covenant. The covenant that God made with man during Noah's time is still in effect having never been replaced. It is so important to God that he keeps a rainbow around his throne. Why? He is a covenant keeping God!

So first and second covenant in scripture refer to the Covenant at Sinai and the Covenant of Zion. The first is the law the second is grace through Jesus.

Hope this helps. If you want scriptures, I'll post them.

LookingUp
Jan 14th 2012, 02:38 AM
I think most of us are in agreement that God knows the beginning from the end.
That phrase is often taken out of context. It comes from Isaiah 46:10, and the quote is not about seeing into the future as with a crystal ball kind of thing. God's statement that He declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times things which have have been done is in context with the idea that what He declares, He will accomplish. "My purpose will be established, I will accomplish all My good pleasure" and "I have spoken, I will bring it to pass" and "I have planned it, I will do it." The end that God declares from the beginning is not a declaration of "knowing" or seeing into the future, it's a declaration that He Himself has the ability to bring it to pass. See also verse 11 where God says that He will call a bird of prey from the east and He will call the man of purpose from a far country. God will do what it takes to accomplish all His good pleasure.
Thank you, this is the first time someone has given me this perspective.

I will be interested to hear if this is commonly held.

The idea of God not knowing the details of the future, beckons the question of the correct definition of "all knowing" - perhaps someone can research and comment?

Thanks anyway, appreciate your response LookingUp !

Love
BritsHey. I just noticed this post. Don’t know if the view “God knows all things that are knowable” is common but it makes sense to me.

Love,

lookingup

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 14th 2012, 03:09 AM
Because when God is speaking of first and second covenants in the NT, he is speaking about his relationship with man, not a covenant of a promise that he made regardless of his relationship with man. That's why we talk about that. Also, in the NT, he is talking of a 1st covenant being replaced with a 2nd covenant. The covenant that God made with man during Noah's time is still in effect having never been replaced. It is so important to God that he keeps a rainbow around his throne. Why? He is a covenant keeping God!

So first and second covenant in scripture refer to the Covenant at Sinai and the Covenant of Zion. The first is the law the second is grace through Jesus.

Hope this helps. If you want scriptures, I'll post them.


Hi Brother Mark

No no, I am sorry, I was just unclear as to why on earth we are now talking about the Moses covenant when the post is about the failure of the 1st Adam ( not the failure of the Moses Covenant )

I did not want to comment on the existence and failure / success of the covenant you refer to as the 1st covenant, I was just confused as to how it got into the discussion in the first place.

However, this did "wake me up' to the fact that Jesus was not ONLY the answer to the law (1st covenant you referred to),
Jesus was, and is much more. I do think that some discussions lose this point and focus on Law vs Grace ( as in man's efforts vs God's provision in Jesus)- Grace existed before man was created. So I see the following:

Grace ( no sin existed , so all things being righteous) > man pre the fall (faith) > man after the fall (still Faith) > Some covenants ( Faith + some type of rules/law) > The Covenant where Moses was involved ( Law requested/demanded by humans ) > Jesus ( Grace in it's fullest )
{ the bits in brackets refer to the way righteousness was/is achieved }

Love
Brits

Eyelog
Jan 14th 2012, 04:34 AM
Hi Brother Mark

No no, I am sorry, I was just unclear as to why on earth we are now talking about the Moses covenant when the post is about the failure of the 1st Adam ( not the failure of the Moses Covenant )

I did not want to comment on the existence and failure / success of the covenant you refer to as the 1st covenant, I was just confused as to how it got into the discussion in the first place.

However, this did "wake me up' to the fact that Jesus was not ONLY the answer to the law (1st covenant you referred to),
Jesus was, and is much more. I do think that some discussions lose this point and focus on Law vs Grace ( as in man's efforts vs God's provision in Jesus)- Grace existed before man was created. So I see the following:

Grace ( no sin existed , so all things being righteous) > man pre the fall (faith) > man after the fall (still Faith) > Some covenants ( Faith + some type of rules/law) > The Covenant where Moses was involved ( Law requested/demanded by humans ) > Jesus ( Grace in it's fullest )
{ the bits in brackets refer to the way righteousness was/is achieved }

Love
Brits

Give him a ticket Brit!

Watchman
Jan 15th 2012, 05:15 PM
Soooo ewq1938 agrees with only part of the truth. That is akin to taking passages outta context so's one can play prooftext poker. Oh well...
ewq1938,

I apologize for the tone and content of this post. I didn't realize, until rereading, how snarky and inappropriate my words were. I'm sorry! :blushsad:

blessings,

Watchman :)

Sojourner
Jan 15th 2012, 05:49 PM
ewq1938,

I apologize for the tone and content of this post. I didn't realize, until rereading, how snarky and inappropriate my words were. I'm sorry! :blushsad:

blessings,



Watchman :)

Very nice, Watchman. It's easy to let emotion creep into our words at times. What's not easy, is owning up, and apologizing when we go to far with it. Reps and compliments to you.

ewq1938
Jan 15th 2012, 06:52 PM
ewq1938,

I apologize for the tone and content of this post. I didn't realize, until rereading, how snarky and inappropriate my words were. I'm sorry! :blushsad:

blessings,

Watchman :)

I appreciate that. I decided to turn the cheek and not respond originally.

ewq1938
Jan 15th 2012, 06:56 PM
Scripturally speaking, it had only one flaw...the flesh of mankind....as has been previously proven.

I disagree. Faults were within both man and the covenant. God is clear to state the covenant was not faultless. That speaks directly about the covenant itself, not including man. Does it mean God made a mistake? No, he made the covenant with faults on purpose. Why? Perhaps to see how man handled it, whether he could overcome such obstacles.

Watchman
Jan 15th 2012, 09:22 PM
I disagree. Faults were within both man and the covenant. God is clear to state the covenant was not faultless. That speaks directly about the covenant itself, not including man. Does it mean God made a mistake? No, he made the covenant with faults on purpose. Why? Perhaps to see how man handled it, whether he could overcome such obstacles.

What do you say the fault, or faults, might be? I gave one...that the law was weakened by sinful flesh.

ewq1938
Jan 15th 2012, 09:33 PM
What do you say the fault, or faults, might be? I gave one...that the law was weakened by sinful flesh.

The law was created to deal with sinful actions so that can't be it's fault. I don't know of specifics but in general the law was too harsh, too many rules, to hard for most people to obey fully. It created bondage Galatians 5:1, and worked wrath Romans 4:15, became a curse to those who were entangled in it Galatians 3:13, and caused sin to become stronger 1 Corinthians 15:56. Those are some of it's faults.

Brother Mark
Jan 15th 2012, 09:43 PM
The law was created to deal with sinful actions so that can't be it's fault. I don't know of specifics but in general the law was too harsh, too many rules, to hard for most people to obey fully. It created bondage Galatians 5:1, and worked wrath Romans 4:15, became a curse to those who were entangled in it Galatians 3:13, and caused sin to become stronger 1 Corinthians 15:56. Those are some of it's faults.

Those are not "faults" though. They reveal the faults in man. That was the purpose of the law. Scripture doesn't say the Law had faults. Just that it could not save man. But it was never meant to save man. It was meant to lead him to Christ.

ewq1938
Jan 15th 2012, 10:26 PM
Those are not "faults" though. They reveal the faults in man. That was the purpose of the law. Scripture doesn't say the Law had faults. Just that it could not save man. But it was never meant to save man. It was meant to lead him to Christ.

They are faults and they are in harmony with the scriptures which state the covenant had faults:

Heb_8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

While man had faults, this is speaking of the covenant having faults.

Brother Mark
Jan 15th 2012, 10:41 PM
They are faults and they are in harmony with the scriptures which state the covenant had faults:

Heb_8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

While man had faults, this is speaking of the covenant having faults.

Scripture goes on to explain the "faults of the covenant" in the very next verse.

Heb 8:7-8

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
NASU

When God looked at the covenant, he found it came up short. It had a problem. The only problem it had, was that it could not change man! The fault was in man and man was not changed by the covenant. That's it!

There are scriptures that speak to the law being unable to be kept, that it has a ministry of death, and other such things. But these are not faults! They are features! That is exactly what they are meant to do. Paul even acknowledged that the "Law was good". However, it never was able to change man.

The reason a new covenant was needed was because man needed to be changed. The new covenant takes care of this problem. The new covenant replaces the old covenant and does what it could not do. It puts God's laws in man's heart.

ewq1938
Jan 15th 2012, 10:44 PM
Scripture goes on to explain the "faults of the covenant" in the very next verse.

Heb 8:7-8

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says,
NASU

When God looked at the covenant, he found it came up short. It had a problem. The only problem it had, was that it could not change man! The fault was in man and man was not changed by the covenant.

Both man and the covenant had faults:

Ezek 20:22-26
23 "Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, 24 because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes, and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. 25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; 26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their first-born to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD. "'
NASB

Brother Mark
Jan 15th 2012, 10:59 PM
Both man and the covenant had faults:

Ezek 20:22-26
23 "Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, 24 because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes, and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. 25 "And I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; 26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their first-born to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD. "'
NASB

Look at when those statues came and why.

Ezek 20:19-26
19 ' I am the Lord your God; walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and observe them. 20 ' Sanctify My sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.' 21 "But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; they profaned My sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness. 22 "But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 23 "Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, 24 because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. 25 "I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; 26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord."'
NASU

They got laws that were not good because they chose not to follow the laws God set up and live in His covenant. For example, we see the same thing when Israel desired a King. God gave them a King. The king brought laws through his place as God's agent that were not good for Israel. God did this so that they would learn to know and trust Him.

I don't believe that one verse refers to the covenant laws.

Here's what Paul said about it.

Rom 7:16-17
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
NASU

and

Rom 7:16-17
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
NASU

and a very key verse IMO

1 Tim 1:8

8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully
NASU

And the writer of Hebrews points out something the law could never do. This is one of his points throughout the epistle.

Heb 10:1

10 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
NASU

We have several NT verses that claim the law is good. That means it's good. But when Israel rebelled against God's covenant and his laws, he gave them laws that were bad. There are several examples of this in scripture.

Blessings,

Mark

ewq1938
Jan 15th 2012, 11:19 PM
Look at when those statues came and why.

Ezek 20:19-26
19 ' I am the Lord your God; walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and observe them. 20 ' Sanctify My sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between Me and you, that you may know that I am the Lord your God.' 21 "But the children rebelled against Me; they did not walk in My statutes, nor were they careful to observe My ordinances, by which, if a man observes them, he will live; they profaned My sabbaths. So I resolved to pour out My wrath on them, to accomplish My anger against them in the wilderness. 22 "But I withdrew My hand and acted for the sake of My name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 23 "Also I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them among the lands, 24 because they had not observed My ordinances, but had rejected My statutes and had profaned My sabbaths, and their eyes were on the idols of their fathers. 25 "I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live; 26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the Lord."'
NASU

They got laws that were not good because they chose not to follow the laws God set up and live in His covenant. For example, we see the same thing when Israel desired a King. God gave them a King. The king brought laws through his place as God's agent that were not good for Israel. God did this so that they would learn to know and trust Him.

I don't believe that one verse refers to the covenant laws.

Here's what Paul said about it.

Rom 7:16-17
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
NASU

and

Rom 7:16-17
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
NASU

and a very key verse IMO

1 Tim 1:8

8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully
NASU

And the writer of Hebrews points out something the law could never do. This is one of his points throughout the epistle.

Heb 10:1

10 For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.
NASU

We have several NT verses that claim the law is good. That means it's good. But when Israel rebelled against God's covenant and his laws, he gave them laws that were bad. There are several examples of this in scripture.

Blessings,

Mark


None of that affects the fact that the covenant had faults itself. God made it imperfect including statutes that weren't good.

Brother Mark
Jan 15th 2012, 11:35 PM
None of that affects the fact that the covenant had faults itself. God made it imperfect including statutes that weren't good.

If the first covenant had laws that were not good, do you think Paul would have said the law was good? There are plenty of scriptures where Paul said it was good. The one verse that says it had fault referred to that fault as not changing man not a fault of law or a law that wasn't good.

God gave Israel a king and laws that were not good for them, when they rebelled against his covenant.

1 Sam 8:10-18

10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. 11 He said, " This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. 12 " He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 "He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 " He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. 15 "He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. 16 "He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work. 17 "He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. 18 "Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day."
NASU

This lines up perfectly with the passage in Ezekiel about laws not being good and coming about because of Israel's rebellion.

As Paul said, over and over and over again, he agreed with the law. It was good! But Hebrews states it had a fault, and then goes on to explain that fault was that it did not change man. In the words of Paul...

Rom 7:12
12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
NASU

I doubt we will agree, and that's OK. At least we have both laid out things for others to see and read and reach their own conclusions, hopefully, with the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit.

Grace to you!

Mark

Watchman
Jan 15th 2012, 11:45 PM
We seem to have lost the forest because of all these derned ol' trees!

Something went terribly wrong with God's plan "A" in Adam. Then He had to make a new plan... Plan "B".
Nothing went terribly wrong. Everything went exactly as God foreknew it would go. Use of the term, plan B, indicates that something went wrong and the original plan had to be scrapped in order to move forward. This is simply not the case. God knew very well what He was doing. He didn't have to go back to the drawing board and come up with a fallback. He knew the enemy would deceive Eve and that Adam would choose to disobey Him. He knew, when He gave the law to Moses that it would be weakened by the flesh of man. That is precisely why the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. God paid the price in advance because He knew exactly what was going to happen. To say He had to go to plan B, the way the term is used nowadays, implies He didn't know what was going to transpire, that He failed in His first attempt, and had to come up with a way to succeed after the fact of His initial failure.

blessings,

Watchman :)

ewq1938
Jan 15th 2012, 11:58 PM
If the first covenant had laws that were not good, do you think Paul would have said the law was good?

Yes. The law overall was good, yet flawed.

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 12:00 AM
We seem to have lost the forest because of all these derned ol' trees!

Nothing went terribly wrong. Everything went exactly as God foreknew it would go. Use of the term, plan B, indicates that something went wrong and the original plan had to be scrapped in order to move forward. This is simply not the case.

It is the case:

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Watchman
Jan 16th 2012, 12:18 AM
Making the first old does not connote a lack of foreknowledge and planning on the part of God! The passages you posted do not state that, either.

W :)

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 12:20 AM
Making the first old does not connote a lack of foreknowledge and planning on the part of God! The passages you posted do not state that, either.

W :)

Nor did I state it. I haven't seen anyone else state that. Apparently it is an unstated thing.

Watchman
Jan 16th 2012, 12:24 AM
Nor did I state it. I haven't seen anyone else state that. Apparently it is an unstated thing.

Nothing went terribly wrong. Everything went exactly as God foreknew it would go. Use of the term, plan B, indicates that something went wrong and the original plan had to be scrapped in order to move forward. This is simply not the case.

It is the case:

:huh: :huh: :huh:

Watchman
Jan 16th 2012, 12:25 AM
Ny entire point in this discussion is that use of the term, plan B, indicates that God made a mistake and had to start over. This is not the case. The entire plan was laid out in His mind before creation.

W :)

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 01:38 AM
:huh: :huh: :huh:

You said, "Making the first old does not connote a lack of foreknowledge and planning on the part of God! "

No one in this has suggested God had a lack of foreknowledge.

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 01:38 AM
Ny entire point in this discussion is that use of the term, plan B, indicates that God made a mistake and had to start over. This is not the case. The entire plan was laid out in His mind before creation.

W :)

Yeah but a plan B doesn't mean there was a mistake made.

paidforinfull
Jan 16th 2012, 01:59 AM
Ny entire point in this discussion is that use of the term, plan B, indicates that God made a mistake and had to start over. This is not the case. The entire plan was laid out in His mind before creation.

W :)

I agree - well said.
God bless.

Sojourner
Jan 16th 2012, 03:01 AM
Yeah but a plan B doesn't mean there was a mistake made.
Why would you possibly need a "plan B," unless the original plan went wrong? Yes, there is a New Covenant--just as God revealed there would be through the prophet Jeremiah--while still under the original covenant. Yet, this does not represent some contingency plan, readied for when the first one failed. Rather, the new covenant is the "final stage" of the original: personified in Jesus, who said He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The old covenant was designed, not only to teach the law, but to demonstrate to man that he could never fully keep it--that he was incapable of attaining a righteousness acceptable to God, by his own efforts; and needed a perfect, sinless "kinsman-redeemer" to measure up to God's standards. Enter: Jesus.

Paul explained that the law was intended all along to be temporary, until Jesus came: Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. (Gal 3:24 LT)

He taught that the law could not do for us, what needed to be done, and that we needed "the law of the Spirit of life" in Jesus to save us:
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:1-4)
We cannot be saved by keeping the law, no matter how hard we try. Rather than tablets of stone, we have to have the law supernaturally written on our hearts by the new birth experience--whether Jew or Gentile. The OT only serves to demonstrate the futility of our best efforts to meet the standards of God, while the NT rescues us from that helplessness. So then, Jesus s not a plan "B," but rather the completion of a single, two-stage plan.

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 03:05 AM
Why would you possibly need a "plan B," unless the original plan went wrong? Yes, there is a New Covenant--just as God revealed there would be through the prophet Jeremiah--while still under the original covenant. Hey, we could go back and forth forever on this and never agree so just like the old covenant, I'm outtie :)

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 16th 2012, 01:08 PM
Why would you possibly need a "plan B," unless the original plan went wrong? Yes, there is a New Covenant--just as God revealed there would be through the prophet Jeremiah--while still under the original covenant. Yet, this does not represent some contingency plan, readied for when the first one failed. Rather, the new covenant is the "final stage" of the original: personified in Jesus, who said He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The old covenant was designed, not only to teach the law, but to demonstrate to man that he could never fully keep it--that he was incapable of attaining a righteousness acceptable to God, by his own efforts; and needed a perfect, sinless "kinsman-redeemer" to measure up to God's standards. Enter: Jesus.

Paul explained that the law was intended all along to be temporary, until Jesus came: Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith. (Gal 3:24 LT)

He taught that the law could not do for us, what needed to be done, and that we needed "the law of the Spirit of life" in Jesus to save us:
1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, 4 in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8:1-4)
We cannot be saved by keeping the law, no matter how hard we try. Rather than tablets of stone, we have to have the law supernaturally written on our hearts by the new birth experience--whether Jew or Gentile. The OT only serves to demonstrate the futility of our best efforts to meet the standards of God, while the NT rescues us from that helplessness. So then, Jesus s not a plan "B," but rather the completion of a single, two-stage plan.


Hi Sojourner55

You guys have sooo much passion, it is awesome !

Just one question if you please...... Are you perhaps under the impression that the Plan "A" in this post refers to the Mosianic law? -

If so, please note that Plan "A" is actually referring to Adam (not a covenant) and plan B refers to Jesus (not in the sense of Him being the replacement for the law, but rather the perfect way to restore relationship between man and God as was intended by God, with the creation of Adam (prior to the fall).

Love

Brits

Brother Mark
Jan 16th 2012, 01:11 PM
Hi Sojourner55

You guys have sooo much passion, it is awesome !

Just one question if you please...... Are you perhaps under the impression that the Plan "A" in this post refers to the Mosianic law? -

If so, please note that Plan "A" is actually referring to Adam (not a covenant) and plan B refers to Jesus (not in the sense of Him being the replacement for the law, but rather the perfect way to restore relationship between man and God as was intended by God, with the creation of Adam (prior to the fall).

Love

Brits

Hi Brits. A couple more thoughts on this. With God, the pattern is, it's almost always the second, not the first.

For instance, it's Jesus, not Adam.
It's David, not Saul
Jacob, not Esau
NT not OT
second Jerusalem not the first Jerusalem

and on and on.

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 16th 2012, 01:22 PM
Hi Brits. A couple more thoughts on this. With God, the pattern is, it's almost always the second, not the first.

For instance, it's Jesus, not Adam.
It's David, not Saul
Jacob, not Esau
NT not OT
second Jerusalem not the first Jerusalem

and on and on.


What a great observation !

This looks like there is always some kind of a process where the latter is better that the former.. What a great God !

I still like the expression / definition of faith being " a good expectation " ... now I may change it to "a great expectation of good" he he he.

Love
Brits

Sojourner
Jan 16th 2012, 08:58 PM
Hi Sojourner55

You guys have sooo much passion, it is awesome !

Just one question if you please...... Are you perhaps under the impression that the Plan "A" in this post refers to the Mosianic law? -

If so, please note that Plan "A" is actually referring to Adam (not a covenant) and plan B refers to Jesus (not in the sense of Him being the replacement for the law, but rather the perfect way to restore relationship between man and God as was intended by God, with the creation of Adam (prior to the fall).

Love

Brits

Hi Brits,
I can see why you would ask that. I didn't make the premise of my point very clear. "The law" began in the garden with the commandment "thou shalt not." The disobedience of Adam and Eve broke fellowship with God, and the long road to redemption was inaugurated. I believe the same type of animal sacrifice we see practiced by Noah and Abraham, and later established under Moses, began in the days of Adam, as alluded to in Gen 4:4. (I think we can safely assume that the sacrifice offered by Cain was rejected by God because it was not a blood sacrifice like Abel's, as required). As such, both "the law" as we understand it, and the blood sacrifice, were introduced soon after the banishment from the garden, rather than some 2000 years later, as we commonly think. The establishment of the law and the Levitical priesthood therefore, were simply a more structured continuation of what began earlier, and continued until the resurrection of Jesus.

So, then, I view Jesus as the second stage and ultimate completion of the one plan of redemption, after demonstrating that was incapable of keeping the commandments of God on His own. So to me, Adam represents the failure of the law, and Jesus, the law of the Spirit, that did what the law could not do. In this sense then, Adam, as the embodiment of our failure to measure up to God's standards, is the starting point, and Jesus the end, of a single plan--as opposed to the plan "A" and plan "B" premise suggested by the OP. I hope that makes sense. Thanks for calling my attention to that seeming disconnect. Sometimes we're so focused on the main point, we forget about lines of perspective. God bless.

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 09:06 PM
(I think we can safely assume that the sacrifice offered by Cain was rejected by God because it was not a blood sacrifice like Abel's, as required)

That's unsafe.

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


They were to bring the best of what they had. Abel took care of a flock, Cain's job was to farm. Cain did not bring the best of what he had grown. Cain's responsibility was not to bring an animal so lack of blood has nothing to do with it.

John146
Jan 16th 2012, 09:27 PM
It is the case:

Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.That is not a case of Plan A failing and then being replaced by Plan B. It was part of Plan A for the first (old) covenant to vanish away in favor of the second (new) covenant. It was part of Plan A for the animal sacrifices of the first covenant to not be able to permanently take away people's sins and that only Christ's sacrifice could do that. It was part of Plan A for the animal sacrifices of the first covenant to foreshadow the new covenant sacrifice (Heb 10:1), which was Christ's sacrifice. It's not as if the first (old) covenant was plan A and then God, to His surprise, saw that it failed, and then had to come up with Plan B (the second, new covenant). No, it was God's plan from the beginning for the first covenant to be faulty and eventually be replaced by the better, new covenant. There is no Plan B.

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 10:07 PM
There is no Plan B.

There always was a plan B. Plan A wasn't supposed to be the winning plan. It was a temporary plan until the time for plan B had arrived.

Sojourner
Jan 16th 2012, 10:22 PM
That's unsafe.

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


They were to bring the best of what they had. Abel took care of a flock, Cain's job was to farm. Cain did not bring the best of what he had grown. Cain's responsibility was not to bring an animal so lack of blood has nothing to do with it.

I'm speculating here, but so are you. Where in the text, do you see that Cain did not bring his best produce? Admittedly, we are told very little about the specifics, but the fact is, God had earlier shed the blood of two animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve, thereby setting the stage at the very outset, for instilling the concept of the shedding of innocent blood. Moreover, Gen 6:6-8, makes it clear that Noah was aware of the types of animals acceptable for sacrifice, as well as those for eating--making a case that laws concerning sacrifice and dietary laws was known prior to the Flood. It's conceivable therefore, that the type of sacrifice so familiar to Noah, began much earlier, even as far back as Adam's day. At any rate, I'm neither stating nor defending a dogmatic view.

I believe the fact that Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof, strongly implies an animal sacrifice. That certainly fits the description of a "sacrifice," better than simply bringing a few living lambs to the Lord. I believe Cain chose to bring produce to God--arrogantly bringing the fruit of his works, rather than procure a proper sacrifice. And that is why his sacrifice was rejected. At any rate, all this is speculative, and a digression from the main point of my post, so I'll leave it at that. This might make a good topic for a future thread, so let's consider that, and not further derail this thread.

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 10:29 PM
I'm speculating here, but so are you. Where in the text, do you see that Cain did not bring his best produce?

It's not speculation. Both brought an offering, Abel's was the best he had because it was firstlings as well as fat, but Cain's was not acceptable. The only reason why it was unacceptable was that it wasn't a high enough quality.



Admittedly, we are told very little about the specifics, but the fact is, God had earlier shed the blood of two animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve, thereby setting the stage at the very outset, for instilling the concept of the shedding of innocent blood.

You positive it was two animals? Why not one huge animals or many small ones?






I believe the fact that Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof, strongly implies an animal sacrifice.

Of course. He tended the flock and his offering had to be animal related. Not so with Cain.

John146
Jan 16th 2012, 10:51 PM
There always was a plan B. Plan A wasn't supposed to be the winning plan. It was a temporary plan until the time for plan B had arrived.You can think of it however you want, but as has already been pointed out to you by someone else, people normally think of Plan A as being the best plan and then we have to resort to Plan B if Plan A doesn't work out, but that is not the case here. It was never God's plan for salvation to come through the first (old) covenant but rather through the second (new) covenant. The first covenant foreshadowed the second covenant. So, it's really just one plan that God had with different stages to it.

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 10:58 PM
You can think of it however you want, but as has already been pointed out to you by someone else, people normally think of Plan A as being the best plan and then we have to resort to Plan B if Plan A doesn't work out, but that is not the case here.

People can think what they want about it. There was a plan, it didn't work, a new plan which was made better was then instituted. Not only that but it is written that "plan A" is now gone, withered away etc etc. Doesn't sound like this all is just plan A since that one is long gone and replaced.

Brother Mark
Jan 16th 2012, 11:02 PM
You can think of it however you want, but as has already been pointed out to you by someone else, people normally think of Plan A as being the best plan and then we have to resort to Plan B if Plan A doesn't work out, but that is not the case here. It was never God's plan for salvation to come through the first (old) covenant but rather through the second (new) covenant. The first covenant foreshadowed the second covenant. So, it's really just one plan that God had with different stages to it.

As a matter of fact, Jesus was pointed to in the garden, in the law, in the prophets and everywhere else! The entire old covenant was about pointing to Christ!

Sojourner
Jan 16th 2012, 11:06 PM
As a matter of fact, Jesus was pointed to in the garden, in the law, in the prophets and everywhere else! The entire old covenant was about pointing to Christ!
Absolutely. God spoke of Jesus as the future Seed of the woman, immediately after the fall in the garden--the Bible's first prophecy.

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 11:09 PM
As a matter of fact, Jesus was pointed to in the garden, in the law, in the prophets and everywhere else! The entire old covenant was about pointing to Christ!

Yep, all the shadows of what was to come are part of the first temporary plan always looking forward to the next plan, or stage of plan if you like. The whole point of "plan a" and "plan b" is to show that the first things were meant to be replaced.

Watchman
Jan 16th 2012, 11:21 PM
When you use it in that sense, I really would have no argument. It is the same as saying phase 2.

W :)

Brother Mark
Jan 16th 2012, 11:23 PM
Yep, all the shadows of what was to come are part of the first temporary plan always looking forward to the next plan, or stage of plan if you like. The whole point of "plan a" and "plan b" is to show that the first things were meant to be replaced.

Right on! Jesus always was the Plan even if the revelation of that was in stages.

Col 1:15-18

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created,both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
NASU

and

Col 3:11
but Christ is all, and in all.
NASU

and

Phil 2:9-10
9 For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
NASU

He was the plan before the ages, the plan now, and the plan in the ages to come! And it was always for us to share and be in Him!

ewq1938
Jan 16th 2012, 11:24 PM
When you use it in that sense, I really would have no argument. It is the same as saying phase 2.

W :)


As long as we agree "phase 1" was cast away.

Watchman
Jan 16th 2012, 11:26 PM
Phase 1 is toast!

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 17th 2012, 05:11 AM
Hi Brits,
I can see why you would ask that. I didn't make the premise of my point very clear. "The law" began in the garden with the commandment "thou shalt not." The disobedience of Adam and Eve broke fellowship with God, and the long road to redemption was inaugurated. I believe the same type of animal sacrifice we see practiced by Noah and Abraham, and later established under Moses, began in the days of Adam, as alluded to in Gen 4:4. (I think we can safely assume that the sacrifice offered by Cain was rejected by God because it was not a blood sacrifice like Abel's, as required). As such, both "the law" as we understand it, and the blood sacrifice, were introduced soon after the banishment from the garden, rather than some 2000 years later, as we commonly think. The establishment of the law and the Levitical priesthood therefore, were simply a more structured continuation of what began earlier, and continued until the resurrection of Jesus.

So, then, I view Jesus as the second stage and ultimate completion of the one plan of redemption, after demonstrating that was incapable of keeping the commandments of God on His own. So to me, Adam represents the failure of the law, and Jesus, the law of the Spirit, that did what the law could not do. In this sense then, Adam, as the embodiment of our failure to measure up to God's standards, is the starting point, and Jesus the end, of a single plan--as opposed to the plan "A" and plan "B" premise suggested by the OP. I hope that makes sense. Thanks for calling my attention to that seeming disconnect. Sometimes we're so focused on the main point, we forget about lines of perspective. God bless.

Hi Sojourner55

Thank you !

I have never thought of the law as starting with Adam. I can see your point and it fits with the OP. In fact, it brings a clearer understanding. I can only hope that other viewers also see this as it is a bit frustrating to see the tread veering off to a plan A being the Mosianic law.

If your point about the 1st law being the command "thou shalt not eat..." is correct, then I would like to ask if that law was also an un-achievable law? Meaning that it was bound to be broken and thus pave the way for plan B. ( By now, I should start using different language for the Plan A and B and rather call it; phase A and phase B of the very same plan with a whole lot of sub-phases in between.)

Love
Brits

ewq1938
Jan 17th 2012, 05:17 AM
Phase 1 is toast!

Cool, cool....so the Matrix thing...explain?

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 17th 2012, 05:31 AM
As a matter of fact, Jesus was pointed to in the garden, in the law, in the prophets and everywhere else! The entire old covenant was about pointing to Christ!

Amen.

Care to take a stab at the identity of the Tree of Life ? Would like to know what you all think.

I think... There we go.... plan B ( phase B ) was right there all along. Adam (& Eve) could eat as much as they liked from that Tree ! -

It will also be interesting to then get some definitions of "Life" as it pertains to that fruit of the tree. I know that God said after the fall that the tree must be protected for, if they eat from it, they will live forever, just like Us. (in my own words).

Now comes a very interesting thought ..... what came 1st... was it Adam or the Tree of Life ? This can mess up our thoughts on phases or plans big time ! (Naturally, I am keeping in mind that God planned it all before creation and, that Jesus was there before creation, so, lets look at it from date of creation perhaps ?)

Love
Brits

Watchman
Jan 17th 2012, 12:34 PM
Cool, cool....so the Matrix thing...explain?
I like the movie and its relation to the unknown invisible realm.

Watchman
Jan 17th 2012, 12:35 PM
Care to take a stab at the identity of the Tree of Life ? Now comes a very interesting thought ..... what came 1st... was it Adam or the Tree of Life ? This can mess up our thoughts on phases or plans big time ! (Naturally, I am keeping in mind that God planned it all before creation and, that Jesus was there before creation, so, lets look at it from date of creation perhaps ?)

Love
Brits
The Tree of Life is the Word, who predated Adam. Yep, the entire plan was in place from before the beginning.

W:)

Brits Van Wyk
Jan 17th 2012, 01:40 PM
The Tree of Life is the Word, who predated Adam. Yep, the entire plan was in place from before the beginning.

W:)

And the Word is Jesus ? - then plan B came before plan A and that was the PLAN all along...crystal clear !
And that brings my OP (as far as myself is concerned) to a satisfactory conclusion, .....

The Master plan !
(by the Master, for the Master, through the Master, to the Master --- man you gotta love God, He is the big I Am )

love
Britsie

John146
Jan 17th 2012, 04:40 PM
As a matter of fact, Jesus was pointed to in the garden, in the law, in the prophets and everywhere else! The entire old covenant was about pointing to Christ!That's right! So, the old covenant was just part of the overall plan rather than being a separate plan in and of itself.

Watchman
Jan 17th 2012, 08:11 PM
And the Word is Jesus ? - then plan B came before plan A and that was the PLAN all along...crystal clear !
And that brings my OP (as far as myself is concerned) to a satisfactory conclusion, .....

The Master plan !
(by the Master, for the Master, through the Master, to the Master --- man you gotta love God, He is the big I Am )

love
Britsie
Check, mate...winner God. The plan was always in place.

ewq1938
Jan 17th 2012, 09:20 PM
I like the movie and its relation to the unknown invisible realm.

Me too...my fav is the 1st one.

Watchman
Jan 17th 2012, 11:50 PM
I actually intended to register as Watchman Neo, but messed up & didn't realize it until too late. Oh well...
The thing about The Matrix I liked was that the seen realm was fake...nothing was as it appeared. This mirrors time and space rather well. Nothing is as it seems and there are invisible forces working inexorably behind the scenes to influence both the course of history and the outcome.

ewq1938
Jan 18th 2012, 12:03 AM
I actually intended to register as Watchman Neo, but messed up & didn't realize it until too late. Oh well...

Ask a Mod to help you change it. Also, why Trinity?