Does God make mistakes?

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

 

I never claimed that the OT system saved anyone.  It was only a temporary system God put in place until the Savior would come and die on a cross.  If Jesus didn't ever come and die, all those sacrifices made by the priests would have been in vain.  People living in OT times were saved by faith in the coming Messiah.  They knew the Father, so they knew Jesus, as Jesus and the Father are one.  Jesus said that before Abraham was, "I am."  People were saved because they had faith in God, and they followed his instructions to obtain forgiveness for sins. 

 

Today, we are under a different covenant.  We no longer have the Levitical Priesthood, so when we sin, we confess our sins to the Father.  We are saved because we put our faith in Jesus Christ.  Faith in Christ reconciles us to right relationship with the Father, so we have access to his throne.  If we don't accept Jesus, we have no access.  It is not possible to reject Jesus or to not know Jesus in this life, and become saved after we die. 

 

So in that we agree.

 

Now Paul says that one day "every tongue will confess...Christ is Lord".  Does every tongue include those of the patriarchs and David and the rest?  Or will there be two classes of people in heaven, those who only know God as a single entity, or those who also know Him as Triune?  Again, will Abraham be denied the experience of that relationship, next to which Paul considered all things as 'rubbish' (Phil 3.8)?

 

You talk of 'being saved'.  But salvation is not simply a place--it is a relationship, unblemished, with God.  Now that either means with Christ or nor with Christ.  You see the problem?  Either the patriarchs will or will not know Christ.  If they will, how?  It would have to be after death, which opens the door to the question of post-mortem opportunities.

 

clb

 

Everyone, including the lost will one day have to bow down to Christ and confess he is Lord.  That means everyone.  The thing is, the Bible is revealing two covenants.  In reality, you could say it reveals more than two covenants, as it also discusses those who lived before the law of Moses was given.  You have those before the law, and God dealt with them in one way.  Then you have those who lived from the time the law of Moses was given till the cross.  God dealt with them in another way.  Now you have those living during the time that runs from the cross to the millennial reign of Christ.  God deals with them in a certain way.  Then you have those living during the millennial reign of Christ.  God deals with them in a certain way.  Finally, you have a new heaven and a new earth.  We have to play by God's rules based on the covenant we are under.  Today, the only way of salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ.  Those living before the cross were saved because they looked forward to the cross, and obeyed the law of Moses to the best of their ability.  When they failed, an animal had to die. 

 

Now comes a kind of mystery.  Jesus has always existed, and those who lived under the law of Moses did know Jesus.  How did they know him?  They knew Jehovah.  Jesus and the Father are one.  Let me see if I can explain this in another way.  Notice what the Bible says about the creation of man. 

 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.  Gen. 1:27

 

This was before we see Eve.  How can this be?  Because Eve was created with Adam, because she was part of him.  She was his rib.  When God created Eve, he literally took a part of Adam and fashioned her from it.  That is why when a man and woman marry, they become one flesh.  The carnal way of looking at this is to relate it all to the act of sex, but there is a spiritual side to it.  A part of man was missing, but when he marries, it is restored.  The man and the woman are one flesh because the woman came from the man. 

 

Jesus is God, and always has been God.  He came to earth and was born of a woman, and from that time forward, we know God as Jesus Christ.  He has always existed as part of God, but was not known as Jesus Christ to those under the law.  He was known as Jehovah, I Am or God, but not as Jesus, yet to know God was to know Jesus.  Those living under the Old Covenant make it to heaven because they followed the law by faith in the true and living God.  Those under the New Covenant make it to heaven because they trust in Jesus.  There is nothing in scripture that indicates anyone has a chance of getting saved after they die. 

 

I think we are getting away from the point that started this tangent--the possibility of post-mortem opportunities to meet and accept Christ as Lord.  My central argument is that persons who died without knowing the grand plan will meet Christ--Abraham did not know Christ, nor Moses nor Joshua nor David etc. etc.  I believe they will, either between this life and the next (intermediate consciousness) or on the day of resurrection.  By extension, is it contrary to Scripture that other persons (people who lived in various parts of the world unknown to the canonical world) would be granted the same opportunity.  That was the point, not a discussion on dispensationalism.

 

clb

 

I didn't get away from that point.  You are just not understanding me.  I am saying those people living under the law did know Jesus, as they knew God.  Jesus himself stated that "before Abraham was, I am."  I do not believe anyone has a chance to be saved after they die. 

 

 

I see, sort of...a couple questions

 

1) why do you not believe in opportunities post-mortem?

 

2) I take it you do not mean that the Patriarchs knew Christ in the same way that we did--of course they believed in God, and at points in their history, conceived Him as Father.  But never as triune: theirs was a completely monotheistic theology.  Nor were they given prevision of the Incarnation or the passion.  Nor did they ever suspect that the animal sacrifices were mere symbols pointing to a future sacrifice....?  God reckoned their trust in Him and, unbeknownst to them, extended it to Christ...right?

 

3) assuming 2) is right, will the patriarchs ever come to know Christ directly, as we do?  Will the concluding chapter to their story ever be told them--about the incarnation and the atoning sacrifice and resurrection and how the animal sacrifices did not actually atone?  Or will two classes occupy heaven--persons who know Christ directly, and those who know Him (if we can even call this "knowing") indirectly, or obliquely?  Hypothetically, if Abraham and I were to sit down in heaven, could we have a conversation about a person named Jesus of Nazareth who was God incarnate and died and was raised....or would ABraham stare at me blankly and then say, "Who?"

 

clb

 

I believe it was known that the animal sacrifices were only to continue till the Messiah comes.  I believe that was revealed to everyone all the way back to Adam and Eve.  As such, everyone was saved by faith in that future sacrifice, so we are not in agreement on point two.  To know God was to know Jesus. 

 

As to Abraham, Jesus stated that he was around before Abraham.  Jesus said of Abraham in John 8:56:

 

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.

 

Abraham already knew about Jesus, so he would have no problem conversing with you.  Notice that this was before Jesus even went to the cross.  Under the New Covenant, the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus.  What others are teaching is salvation by works for some and grace for others.  I get accused of preaching a works based salvation, but even I make it clear you can't be saved without believing in Jesus.  Many who criticize me are preaching salvation by works without ever meeting Jesus in this life. 

[a-seeker]

 

I believe it was known that the animal sacrifices were only to continue till the Messiah comes.  I believe that was revealed to everyone all the way back to Adam and Eve.  As such, everyone was saved by faith in that future sacrifice, so we are not in agreement on point two.  To know God was to know Jesus. 

 

As to Abraham, Jesus stated that he was around before Abraham.  Jesus said of Abraham in John 8:56:

 

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.

 

Abraham already knew about Jesus, so he would have no problem conversing with you.  Notice that this was before Jesus even went to the cross.  Under the New Covenant, the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus.  What others are teaching is salvation by works for some and grace for others.  I get accused of preaching a works based salvation, but even I make it clear you can't be saved without believing in Jesus.  Many who criticize me are preaching salvation by works without ever meeting Jesus in this life. 

 

 

 

 

Ah.  that was helpful.  I do completely disagree with you on point two.  It is incredible to me that all the figures of the OT should have complete knowledge of Jesus and yet that knowledge never make it into Scripture--at the very best, with the prophets, we have dim premonitions.  There is a reason why no one recognized Jesus as the Messiah, but a few (and even they misunderstood His vocation); they had little to go on, and even what they had to go on did not match up with Jesus.

 

Again, the "hope" for a Messiah did not arise until after Israel was exiled and lacked a king.  That is what Messiah meant to them; it did not mean "sacrifice".  They wanted independence, as they had in the days of David. There is no hint in the OT that the sacrifices were thought to be anything less than fully efficient.  Hence not even Jesus' disciples understood what Jesus meant by being hanged on a cross.  If they too believed that the sacrifices were symbols of Jesus, they would not ahve been surprised or grieved.

 

As to Jesus' quote about Abraham, I am not sure what Jesus meant: nowhere in Genesis do we see Abraham rejoicing over a prevision of Jesus. I take the passage to be hyperbolic rhetoric, the point being to claim Abraham and probably the entire OT covenant to be on his side.

 

clb

 

clb

[Guest Butero]

 

 

I believe it was known that the animal sacrifices were only to continue till the Messiah comes.  I believe that was revealed to everyone all the way back to Adam and Eve.  As such, everyone was saved by faith in that future sacrifice, so we are not in agreement on point two.  To know God was to know Jesus. 

 

As to Abraham, Jesus stated that he was around before Abraham.  Jesus said of Abraham in John 8:56:

 

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.

 

Abraham already knew about Jesus, so he would have no problem conversing with you.  Notice that this was before Jesus even went to the cross.  Under the New Covenant, the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus.  What others are teaching is salvation by works for some and grace for others.  I get accused of preaching a works based salvation, but even I make it clear you can't be saved without believing in Jesus.  Many who criticize me are preaching salvation by works without ever meeting Jesus in this life. 

 

 

 

 

Ah.  that was helpful.  I do completely disagree with you on point two.  It is incredible to me that all the figures of the OT should have complete knowledge of Jesus and yet that knowledge never make it into Scripture--at the very best, with the prophets, we have dim premonitions.  There is a reason why no one recognized Jesus as the Messiah, but a few (and even they misunderstood His vocation); they had little to go on, and even what they had to go on did not match up with Jesus.

 

Again, the "hope" for a Messiah did not arise until after Israel was exiled and lacked a king.  That is what Messiah meant to them; it did not mean "sacrifice".  They wanted independence, as they had in the days of David. There is no hint in the OT that the sacrifices were thought to be anything less than fully efficient.  Hence not even Jesus' disciples understood what Jesus meant by being hanged on a cross.  If they too believed that the sacrifices were symbols of Jesus, they would not ahve been surprised or grieved.

 

As to Jesus' quote about Abraham, I am not sure what Jesus meant: nowhere in Genesis do we see Abraham rejoicing over a prevision of Jesus. I take the passage to be hyperbolic rhetoric, the point being to claim Abraham and probably the entire OT covenant to be on his side.

 

clb

 

clb

 

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but I stand by what I said.  All the way back to Adam and Eve, it was prophesied that a Messiah would come.  This knowledge was handed down from generation to generation.  You can see the Samaritan woman, when confronted by Jesus talking about a coming Messiah.  The wise men knew of the coming Messiah.  This was common knowledge among the Jews.  The questions about the Messiah were over their not knowing his actual birth place, or lacking a piece of the puzzle.  Everyone knew of the coming Messiah. 

[other one]

the people were looking for a messiah who would basically do what Jesus will do when he returns......   kick out the Romans and set up a Jewish kingdom....   They were looking for a King, not a savior.

[Guest Butero]

the people were looking for a messiah who would basically do what Jesus will do when he returns......   kick out the Romans and set up a Jewish kingdom....   They were looking for a King, not a savior.

The first reference to the Messiah is seen in Genesis 3:15.

 

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

Yes, many of the people were looking for a conquering king, but there were numerous passages in the OT that clearly showed that the Messiah would come and die for the sins of the world.  At the time when Jesus walked among us, the people were under the oppressive Roman government, and they desired that Jesus would overthrow the government and set up his kingdom.  I think much of this was personal desire getting in the way of what the prophets foretold would happen.  Look at how Peter reacted to the words of Jesus.  He told him what was going to happen, and Peter rebuked Jesus, because he wanted the Lord to set up his kingdom.  The truth was revealed by the prophets and was there for anyone to see that wanted the truth. 

[other one]

 

the people were looking for a messiah who would basically do what Jesus will do when he returns......   kick out the Romans and set up a Jewish kingdom....   They were looking for a King, not a savior.

The first reference to the Messiah is seen in Genesis 3:15.

 

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

Yes, many of the people were looking for a conquering king, but there were numerous passages in the OT that clearly showed that the Messiah would come and die for the sins of the world.  At the time when Jesus walked among us, the people were under the oppressive Roman government, and they desired that Jesus would overthrow the government and set up his kingdom.  I think much of this was personal desire getting in the way of what the prophets foretold would happen.  Look at how Peter reacted to the words of Jesus.  He told him what was going to happen, and Peter rebuked Jesus, because he wanted the Lord to set up his kingdom.  The truth was revealed by the prophets and was there for anyone to see that wanted the truth. 

 

 

Yeah, but just like today, people pull out of the Bible what they are looking for and not always what the whole book says.

[a-seeker]

 

 

 

I believe it was known that the animal sacrifices were only to continue till the Messiah comes.  I believe that was revealed to everyone all the way back to Adam and Eve.  As such, everyone was saved by faith in that future sacrifice, so we are not in agreement on point two.  To know God was to know Jesus. 

 

As to Abraham, Jesus stated that he was around before Abraham.  Jesus said of Abraham in John 8:56:

 

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.

 

Abraham already knew about Jesus, so he would have no problem conversing with you.  Notice that this was before Jesus even went to the cross.  Under the New Covenant, the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus.  What others are teaching is salvation by works for some and grace for others.  I get accused of preaching a works based salvation, but even I make it clear you can't be saved without believing in Jesus.  Many who criticize me are preaching salvation by works without ever meeting Jesus in this life. 

 

 

 

 

Ah.  that was helpful.  I do completely disagree with you on point two.  It is incredible to me that all the figures of the OT should have complete knowledge of Jesus and yet that knowledge never make it into Scripture--at the very best, with the prophets, we have dim premonitions.  There is a reason why no one recognized Jesus as the Messiah, but a few (and even they misunderstood His vocation); they had little to go on, and even what they had to go on did not match up with Jesus.

 

Again, the "hope" for a Messiah did not arise until after Israel was exiled and lacked a king.  That is what Messiah meant to them; it did not mean "sacrifice".  They wanted independence, as they had in the days of David. There is no hint in the OT that the sacrifices were thought to be anything less than fully efficient.  Hence not even Jesus' disciples understood what Jesus meant by being hanged on a cross.  If they too believed that the sacrifices were symbols of Jesus, they would not ahve been surprised or grieved.

 

As to Jesus' quote about Abraham, I am not sure what Jesus meant: nowhere in Genesis do we see Abraham rejoicing over a prevision of Jesus. I take the passage to be hyperbolic rhetoric, the point being to claim Abraham and probably the entire OT covenant to be on his side.

 

clb

 

clb

 

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but I stand by what I said.  All the way back to Adam and Eve, it was prophesied that a Messiah would come.  This knowledge was handed down from generation to generation.  You can see the Samaritan woman, when confronted by Jesus talking about a coming Messiah.  The wise men knew of the coming Messiah.  This was common knowledge among the Jews.  The questions about the Messiah were over their not knowing his actual birth place, or lacking a piece of the puzzle.  Everyone knew of the coming Messiah. 

 

The instances you mentioned here are from the NT; Yes, by the time we get to the NT there was an expectation for a Messiah--but that expectation had nothing to do with an atoning sacrifice.  It had to do with a King, and a human king at that.  Independence was what they sought.

 

When David was on the throne there was no need for a Messiah--David was Messiah (= anointed one).

 

The OT prophesies resonate for us because we live after the NT authors had made sense of them for us--but that itself was possible only after the death and resurrection--recall the passage at the end of Luke where Jesus had to explain all the prophesies as pointing to Him.  It was not obvious.  Most of the prophesies testified to something immediate, and then were extended to Christ (not illicitly: they shared a common theme, or rather the former was a type of the latter).  The prophesies were vague and open to interpretation.

 

clb

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

I believe it was known that the animal sacrifices were only to continue till the Messiah comes.  I believe that was revealed to everyone all the way back to Adam and Eve.  As such, everyone was saved by faith in that future sacrifice, so we are not in agreement on point two.  To know God was to know Jesus. 

 

As to Abraham, Jesus stated that he was around before Abraham.  Jesus said of Abraham in John 8:56:

 

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad.

 

Abraham already knew about Jesus, so he would have no problem conversing with you.  Notice that this was before Jesus even went to the cross.  Under the New Covenant, the only way to be saved is through faith in Jesus.  What others are teaching is salvation by works for some and grace for others.  I get accused of preaching a works based salvation, but even I make it clear you can't be saved without believing in Jesus.  Many who criticize me are preaching salvation by works without ever meeting Jesus in this life. 

 

 

 

 

Ah.  that was helpful.  I do completely disagree with you on point two.  It is incredible to me that all the figures of the OT should have complete knowledge of Jesus and yet that knowledge never make it into Scripture--at the very best, with the prophets, we have dim premonitions.  There is a reason why no one recognized Jesus as the Messiah, but a few (and even they misunderstood His vocation); they had little to go on, and even what they had to go on did not match up with Jesus.

 

Again, the "hope" for a Messiah did not arise until after Israel was exiled and lacked a king.  That is what Messiah meant to them; it did not mean "sacrifice".  They wanted independence, as they had in the days of David. There is no hint in the OT that the sacrifices were thought to be anything less than fully efficient.  Hence not even Jesus' disciples understood what Jesus meant by being hanged on a cross.  If they too believed that the sacrifices were symbols of Jesus, they would not ahve been surprised or grieved.

 

As to Jesus' quote about Abraham, I am not sure what Jesus meant: nowhere in Genesis do we see Abraham rejoicing over a prevision of Jesus. I take the passage to be hyperbolic rhetoric, the point being to claim Abraham and probably the entire OT covenant to be on his side.

 

clb

 

clb

 

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, but I stand by what I said.  All the way back to Adam and Eve, it was prophesied that a Messiah would come.  This knowledge was handed down from generation to generation.  You can see the Samaritan woman, when confronted by Jesus talking about a coming Messiah.  The wise men knew of the coming Messiah.  This was common knowledge among the Jews.  The questions about the Messiah were over their not knowing his actual birth place, or lacking a piece of the puzzle.  Everyone knew of the coming Messiah. 

 

The instances you mentioned here are from the NT; Yes, by the time we get to the NT there was an expectation for a Messiah--but that expectation had nothing to do with an atoning sacrifice.  It had to do with a King, and a human king at that.  Independence was what they sought.

 

When David was on the throne there was no need for a Messiah--David was Messiah (= anointed one).

 

The OT prophesies resonate for us because we live after the NT authors had made sense of them for us--but that itself was possible only after the death and resurrection--recall the passage at the end of Luke where Jesus had to explain all the prophesies as pointing to Him.  It was not obvious.  Most of the prophesies testified to something immediate, and then were extended to Christ (not illicitly: they shared a common theme, or rather the former was a type of the latter).  The prophesies were vague and open to interpretation.

 

clb

 

You are making an assumption that the religious leaders didn't understand the prophesies.  That makes no sense in light of the fact the wise men knew to look for him.  The religious leaders knew about him, and many of the misunderstandings were over not knowing where he was born and things like that.  In other words, they knew a Messiah was coming, but they didn't see Jesus as the Messiah because they didn't believe he met the requirements mentioned by the prophets.  Had they not known about him, they wouldn't have been able to have those arguments.  Jesus did have to explain certain things to his followers, but even the Samaritan woman knew a Messiah was coming.  They just needed someone to fill in the things they didn't understand about him. 

[Willa]

Q. Does God make mistakes?

A. NO Perfection is incapable of mistakes.

[Guest Butero]

I agree Willamina. 

Edited May 11, 2014 by Butero