Jesus Christ - God Incarnate - Lamb of God ... ALWAYS the plan, or just a patch after the fall?

[Psalty]

Not at all.
Isaiah 46:9-10 … Will God’s plan BE ESTABLISHED? Will God accomplish ALL HIS GOOD PLEASURE?
[A simple ‘yes‘ or ‘no’ will do.]

Which plan? The one you are thinking of from a Calvinist mindset and theology, or Gods plan to bring back Israel and bring Salvation? Yes, this plan will be established, and yes, according to His good pleasure.

Ephesians 1:11 … Does God work ALL THINGS according to His will?
[A simple ‘yes‘ or ‘no’ will do.]

The sentence doesnt end there, the subject is “the plan”. This is the danger of trying to use a fragment of a sentence. Yes, He works all things according to His plan… of conforming those IN CHRIST to be holy and blameless before Him.

Hebrews 6:17 … Is God’s purpose UNCHANGEABLE?
[A simple ‘yes‘ or ‘no’ will do.]

Yes, His purpose to Abraham was unchangable. And even if you universalize this, you havent shown scripturally that His purpose is to create innocent children to have deceived, and then condemn to hate Him eternally, but save an elect few that only truly loved from before the foundation of the world.

Does the “context” really spin “BE ESTABLISHED” and “ALL HIS GOOD PLEASURE” and “ALL THINGS” and “UNCHANGEABLE” to ‘really mean’ exactly the opposite … NOT established, NOT what God wants, NOT all things, and NOT unchangeable?

Where do you get that I said any of this wasnt? I just acknowledge the context of what the writer is talking about and the scope and sphere to which they speak. You are the one applying this to a Calvinist understanding of the supposed plan that God had for the world including ordaining sin and hating children that He created.

 

[Aaron]

I see our disagreement being centered on God wanting Adam to sin.

No, our disagreement is about the Person of Christ.

Whom would Christ be if there were no Fall, since it was His work of Redemption that earned Him His title and throne, and His bride and his children?

Was it God's will that Adam and Eve live forever naked in a Garden Paradise? Or was it that His Son would prove His worth and slay the dragon, rescue His beloved, ascend to the throne and marry her, and have lots of children?

 

[Psalty]

No, our disagreement is about the Person of Christ.

Whom would Christ be if there were no Fall,

Hard to say. Would He have a different plan that would bring “the knowledge of Good and Evil” and “Christ in You” some other way?
But a different world wasnt created, it was this one.

since it was His work of Redemption that earned Him His title and throne, and His bride and his children?

Earned Him His throne? He already ruled the universe. He already had them as children.

Was it God's will that Adam and Eve live forever naked in a Garden Paradise?

It was Gods will for Adam and Eve to choose to love Him, but we are not told what that would look like long term without sin.

But He knew that they would not, so His plan was for Jesus to redeem them. Again, this does not mean that He planned for Adam and Eve to sin, only that He knew they would.

Or was it that His Son would prove His worth and slay the dragon, rescue His beloved, ascend to the throne and marry her, and have lots of children?

Prove His worth? To Who? He is Triune, 3 in 1 and the Father already knows His worth. He is already worthy. He is already Creator and worthy of all praise. He can already slay the dragon at any moment with a word. He already had children, and He can make more out of stones any time He pleases.

 

[Ascetic X]

No, our disagreement is about the Person of Christ.

Whom would Christ be if there were no Fall, since it was His work of Redemption that earned Him His title and throne, and His bride and his children?

Was it God's will that Adam and Eve live forever naked in a Garden Paradise? Or was it that His Son would prove His worth and slay the dragon, rescue His beloved, ascend to the throne and marry her, and have lots of children?

No, we are not debating the Person of Christ. I have not once in this thread discussed that topic.

The disagreement is strictly about the holiness of God: did God want Adam to disobey Him and commit sin?

Debating hypotheticals is pointless. Who would Christ be if Lucifer never rebelled and never tempted Adam and Eve? Who would Christ be if God never created Adam and Eve? Who would Christ be if God never created the universe? Questions like these are just poking around in fantasies.

I say that God did NOT will that Adam disobey His commandment. God did NOT hope that Adam would sin, so that God could then redeem humanity by His Son.

God never wants anyone to sin. The devil wants people to sin. God did not tempt Adam and Eve to sin. The devil did the tempting and the hoping that Adam and Eve would sin. God was not cheering them on, delighting in their decision to be wicked.

Quote me a Bible verse that says God wanted Adam to sin or that God is glad that Adam disobeyed His commandment.

I do not know where you get such an unbiblical, irreverent theology.

Btw, God did not want Cain to sin, either.

Genesis 4:6

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”


Psalm 5:4

For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: Neither shall evil dwell with thee.


Matthew 6:13

13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.


James 1:13-15

13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.
15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There you have it — you can be born again without coming to Christ. Coming to Christ comes after.

Then why did John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter preach “Repent and believe the gospel”?

To comply with this Calvinist error, there would be no command in the preaching, since the unsaved cannot seek God. So they should have preached “Attention, everyone. Maybe God will rebirth you and force you to repent.”

Calvinist evangelists and pastors should never preach the gospel, since the elect do not need to hear it and the unsaved cannot respond to it.

Unfortunately you do not understand the free grace of God, nor the basis of that grace.
I have posted this stuff on numerous occasions in the past, but perhaps not since you and @Psalty joined the board, so here it is again.

John 6:37. 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me......' Here is your predetermination and free grace. God has chosen in eternity a vast crowd of people to be saved, and has given them to the Lord Jesus, and He will save every one of them - not one will be lost.
But there's more:
'......And the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.' And here is your free offer of the Gospel. Everyone who trusts in Christ will be received by Him. Not one will be turned away. The greatest preachers and missionaries who ever lived have been Calvinists, and they all pleaded with men and women to repent and trust in Christ in the confidence that God will save all those respond to their words.
Now just in case you think that John 6:37 might be interpreted some different way, the same thing is repeated in verses 39-40, and you find it also in Matt. 11:25-28 and Acts 13:48.

I am no Bunyan, Whitefield or Spurgeon, and if I thought that it depended on my eloquence to save people, it would terrify me and I would never preach again. But when I preach the Gospel, I am trusting not in myself but in the Holy Spirit to open the hearts of those who hear, as he opened Lydia's heart to heed the words spoken by Paul. 'Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live' (John 5:25). God opens the ears of sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, to hear the word of Christ preached by weak and fallible men. Why? Because it pleased God, through the foolishness of the word preached, to save those who believe. And those who believe are those whose ears God opens to hear..

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Earned Him His throne?

Yes. '..... And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name......' (Phil. 2:5-11).

 

[atpollard]

People sin, but God never wills anyone to sin. To say God wants evil to happen is blasphemy.

People reject God and perish, but God wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. Yet Jesus says the road to life is narrow, and few there be that find it.

So that would be a "Yes, BE ESTABLISHED and ALL HIS GOOD PLEASURE and ALL THINGS and UNCHANGEABLE really mean NOT established, NOT what God wants, NOT all things, and NOT unchangeable."

Got it.

 

[atpollard]

The sentence doesnt end there, the subject is “the plan”. This is the danger of trying to use a fragment of a sentence. Yes, He works all things according to His plan… of conforming those IN CHRIST to be holy and blameless before Him.

"ALL THINGS" either means ALL THINGS or it is NOT ALL things.
You are claiming NOT ALL THINGS by rejecting the "ALL" of ALL THINGS.

I cannot fix that for you. Your unbelief is above my pay grade.

 

[Ascetic X]

So that would be a "Yes, BE ESTABLISHED and ALL HIS GOOD PLEASURE and ALL THINGS and UNCHANGEABLE really mean NOT established, NOT what God wants, NOT all things, and NOT unchangeable."

Got it.

I deny that God wants sin to exist. Sin is never what pleases God. You are playing games with words to dishonor the holy nature of God.

 

[Aaron]

No, we are not debating the Person of Christ. I have not once in this thread discussed that topic.

The disagreement is strictly about the holiness of God: did God want Adam to disobey Him and commit sin?

Debating hypotheticals is pointless. Who would Christ be if Lucifer never rebelled and never tempted Adam and Eve? Who would Christ be if God never created Adam and Eve? Who would Christ be if God never created the universe? Questions like these are just poking around in fantasies.

But you are debating hypotheticals. You think there were two possible outcomes for Adam based on your notions of God's character. One is actual, one is hypothetical.

So if you can't imagine whom the Son would be if there were no Fall, which was a possibility in your mind, you must have some idea of whom the Son would NOT be...and the one thing He would NOT be, is the Christ.

I say that God did NOT will that Adam disobey His commandment. God did NOT hope that Adam would sin, so that God could then redeem humanity by His Son.

God never wants anyone to sin. The devil wants people to sin. God did not tempt Adam and Eve to sin. The devil did the tempting and the hoping that Adam and Eve would sin. God was not cheering them on, delighting in their decision to be wicked.

Quote me a Bible verse that says God wanted Adam to sin or that God is glad that Adam disobeyed His commandment.

I do not know where you get such an unbiblical, irreverent theology.

Btw, God did not want Cain to sin, either.

Genesis 4:6

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”


Psalm 5:4

For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: Neither shall evil dwell with thee.


Matthew 6:13

13 And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.


James 1:13-15

13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
14 but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed.
15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

Your post is all over the place. I'm not interested in dancing around the tree.

The point I'm making is that the premise that the Son was destined to become our high priest BECAUSE the Father knew His creation would fall, is a very different premise than the premise that the Son was destined to become our high priest for no other reason than that He is the Son.

So when you ask, Was it God's will that Adam fail the test? The answer depends on the premise from which one proceeds. And we are not agreed on that. That's all I'm saying.

For the record, the latter premise is the one given to us by the Apostle in his letter to the Hebrews.

 

[Aaron]

Earned Him His throne? He already ruled the universe.

Yes, earned Him His throne. As @atpollard informed you:

When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal's death on a cross. Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Philippians 2:7-11 NLT]​

He already had them as children.

Did He? Then why is it written:

He also said, "I will put my trust in him," that is, "I and the children God has given me." [Hebrews 2:13 NLT]?​

 

[Ascetic X]

The point I'm making is that the premise that the Son was destined to become our high priest BECAUSE the Father knew His creation would fall, is a very different premise than the premise that the Son was destined to become our high priest for no other reason than that He is the Son.

So when you ask, Was it God's will that Adam fail the test? The answer depends on the premise from which one proceeds. And we are not agreed on that. That's all I'm saying.

We agree that God knew that Adam would fall.

But no, it was not God’s will that Adam failed the test. God never wills sin to happen. The entire Bible proclaims the holy nature of God in opposition to all sin.

Most Christians understand that what God allows or foreknows is not the same as what God wills.

 

[Psalty]

"ALL THINGS" either means ALL THINGS or it is NOT ALL things.
You are claiming NOT ALL THINGS by rejecting the "ALL" of ALL THINGS.

I cannot fix that for you. Your unbelief is above my pay grade.

All things according to His purpose. Singular purpose. Purpose to have a holy and pure people conformed to Him. Just read the whole sentence. Paul clarifies it, you just refuse Paul.

You just went and made it the whole meticulous world and every will and every sin.

Ill just add: does all mean all? Because in Calvinism it doesnt in John 3 or 1 Tim 2. You really play the pick and chose game with interpretation.

 

[Psalty]

Yes. '..... And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name......' (Phil. 2:5-11).

Its about the hypothetical you asked, not what IS. Aaron asked:

Whom would Christ be if there were no Fall, since it was His work of Redemption that earned Him His title and throne, and His bride and his children?

Obviously my phrasing wasnt clear enough. He would still be ruler of the universe. He could still create children. He would have unlimited opportunities. Maybe He would have other plans for “Christ in you, the hope of glory”.
Edit: No one is denying what He is now. Im just answering your hypothetical.

 

[Psalty]

Yes, earned Him His throne. As @atpollard informed you:

When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal's death on a cross. Therefore, God elevated him to the place of highest honor and gave him the name above all other names, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Philippians 2:7-11 NLT]​

Did He? Then why is it written:

He also said, "I will put my trust in him," that is, "I and the children God has given me." [Hebrews 2:13 NLT]?​

Again, see above… I was respinding to your hypothetical no fall, not what currently is.

 

[Psalty]

Unfortunately you do not understand the free grace of God, nor the basis of that grace.
I have posted this stuff on numerous occasions in the past, but perhaps not since you and @Psalty joined the board, so here it is again.

John 6:37. 'All that the Father gives Me will come to Me......' Here is your predetermination and free grace. God has chosen in eternity a vast crowd of people to be saved, and has given them to the Lord Jesus, and He will save every one of them - not one will be lost.

It doesnt say in eternity. You have completely fabricated that and added it to the text. In context, the one Given is the one who beholds the Son and believes.

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
— John 6:37-40

But there's more:
'......And the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.' And here is your free offer of the Gospel. Everyone who trusts in Christ will be received by Him. Not one will be turned away. The greatest preachers and missionaries who ever lived have been Calvinists, and they all pleaded with men and women to repent and trust in Christ in the confidence that God will save all those respond to their words.

Ha! The greatest ones are ones that operate the worldview thinking that people have free will. Functional Free-will Calvinists. And I would dispute that they were the greatest.

Now just in case you think that John 6:37 might be interpreted some different way, the same thing is repeated in verses 39-40, and you find it also in Matt. 11:25-28 and Acts 13:48.

Again, your interpretative application extends far beyond what the scripture says:

All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. — Matthew 11:27-28

And who does He say the son reveals Himself to? You assume a group in eternity past, but scripture tells us in the next verse… “Come to me, all who are heavy laden!” The call is for all the heavy laden sinners to come, just like the end of Revelation.

And how about Acts 13? People buy into these one verse prooftexts with no study

When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
— Acts 13:48

Appointed by who? It doesnt say God. It doesnt say they appointed themselves either. It is ambiguous.
Acts 15:2 and 28:23 uses the same word of people appointing.
1 Cor 16:15 has people appointing themselves.
Luke 7:30 has pharisees rejecting God purpose for them, just like Acts 13. This passage is certainly not the prooftext you think it is.

I am no Bunyan, Whitefield or Spurgeon, and if I thought that it depended on my eloquence to save people, it would terrify me and I would never preach again. But when I preach the Gospel, I am trusting not in myself but in the Holy Spirit to open the hearts of those who hear, as he opened Lydia's heart to heed the words spoken by Paul. 'Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live' (John 5:25). God opens the ears of sinners, dead in trespasses and sins, to hear the word of Christ preached by weak and fallible men.

Jesus waits for the dead to respond in Lk 15 with the dead prodigal who comes to his senses and Revelation 3 where the dead in Sardis are told that they are dead but to strengthen what remains.

Why? Because it pleased God, through the foolishness of the word preached, to save those who believe. And those who believe are those whose ears God opens to hear..

No disagreement there.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

It doesnt say in eternity. You have completely fabricated that and added it to the text. In context, the one Given is the one who beholds the Son and believes.

I'm sorry. I just assumed that you would pick up on Eph. 1:3-6; Thes. 2:13 & Titus 1:2. Obviously not.

All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”
— John 6:37-40

This is the problem. You set one verse against the other, thereby making one false when both are true. Why do you not embolden verse 39 as well? 'This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.' Notice the Perfect Tense there - dedoke - 'He has given' - signifying a single completed action in the past.
The same people who behold the Son and believe in Him are the same people whom the Father gave to the Son to save, and yes, that happened before the foundation of the world.

Appointed by who? It doesnt say God. It doesnt say they appointed themselves either. It is ambiguous.

Oh please! the verb is passive. Who do you think appointed them? The Pharisees? The man in the moon? Who is the only one who grants eternal life?

I'm afraid that I've run out of enthusiasm for this discussion. Carry on without me.

 

[kyredneck]

Your position can be summed up thusly: Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?

...and/or:

14​	... Is there unrighteousness with God?... Ro 9

All the complaints against God's Sovereign Grace have their roots in these.

 

[Psalty]

...and/or:

14​	... Is there unrighteousness with God?... Ro 9

All the complaints against God's Sovereign Grace have their roots in these.

No unrighteousness with God but you believe He ordained sin. The blindness is palpable!

 

[Psalty]

I'm sorry. I just assumed that you would pick up on Eph. 1:3-6; Thes. 2:13 & Titus 1:2. Obviously not.

Right, I should just add in Eph, Thes, and Titus when reading Jesus speaking in John… as opposed to just going to the end of His thought 2-3 verses down. This is the difference between reading the bible for what it says against assuming a system like Calvinism and then reading it.

This is the problem. You set one verse against the other, thereby making one false when both are true. Why do you not embolden verse 39 as well? 'This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.' Notice the Perfect Tense there - dedoke - 'He has given' - signifying a single completed action in the past.

Neither is false in my reading. I affirm that He will lose nothing but raise it up. Simple.

The same people who behold the Son and believe in Him are the same people whom the Father gave to the Son to save, and yes, that happened before the foundation of the world.

Adding to the text again I see.

Oh please! the verb is passive. Who do you think appointed them? The Pharisees? The man in the moon? Who is the only one who grants eternal life?

You could have read the references in the Greek that I laid out for you. The fact that you assume any appointment is done by God shows you believe a system and havent even checked cross-references for how the word “appointed” is used. Again, this passage has no pronoun, it is not clarified in the Gk.

I'm afraid that I've run out of enthusiasm for this discussion. Carry on without me.

Farewell. Scripture stands!