God's Plan A And Plan B...

[seer]

Romans 11:

"So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"

1. God here uses the Jews rejection of Christ to bring salvation to the gentiles.

2. By this act Paul hoped to make the Christ rejecting Jews jealous, so that they too would be reconciled to Christ.

The question is:Could God have used the obedience of the Jews to bring the Gospel to the gentiles? Or was God locked into one plan by necessity? And what was that necessity?

[Sheepdog]

good question. you should ask Him. :tongue:

sorry, i'm in a frisky mood. :fight:

in terms of Molinism, where God sees all the possible worlds he could create, and from them pick which one to actualize, it could very well be that God foreknew that if so many more Jews were saved, only a handful of Gentiles would be. in terms of scale, having Gentiles enter the new covenant may very well bring more glory to God than the forgone option.

this is speculative, however. admittedly there is no necessity i could bring into this, but it is at least possible.

now, if William Lane Craig was here, i suspect (based on what i know of his view... he is also a Molinist) he would say that the most Jews that could be saved in the first century probably were. in other words, it is also possible that there was no possible world where more Jews were saved than their had already been. i'm not sure about this myself, but i think it is an option that is worth looking at. i'm reminded of a corollary in the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. you may recall the rich man's plea for Lazarus to be sent to warn the man's brothers. (29) "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' (30) 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' (31) He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' " Luke 16:29-31. it is a subtle point, and i missed it every time i read this section until recently: i believe Jesus was alluding to himself as, "even if someone rises from the dead." in other words, this is a backhanded indictment of the unbelieving generation that Jesus was sent to. they had Moses and the Prophets. they didn't listen to them, so why would they listen to Jesus, who will be the man raised from the dead?

There are also many other sections where Jesus judges that generation and their leaders. we see it in parables, as well as in direct comments. while they aren't conclusive, IMO they suggest that the majority of Jews had already made their decision before Jesus even became popular. that decision was consumated when they had him crucified. i don't know, but i'm not convinced these people could be brought to repentance, except for a handful we come to know as "the remnant."

[micah4]

now, if William Lane Craig was here, i suspect (based on what i know of his view... he is also a Molinist) he would say that the most Jews that could be saved in the first century probably were. in other words, it is also possible that there was no possible world where more Jews were saved than their had already been.


I would hope so, otherwise it would seem that you have God trading the eternal life of one man for another- sorry you couldn't be saved, but there were two other guys I could get by letting you go. If one man could have been saved in one possible world and not saved in another, and God decides to actualize the world where he is not saved, then who has determined that the man would or would not be saved? The man himself, or God? That's always seemed to me like a tricky situation for the molinist. I would be interested how any resident molinists would answer this, though it's probably somewhat off-topic for this thread.

[Sparko]

You always have to remember that God does not owe ANYONE salvation. He would be justified in just washing his hands of all of us.

[Sheepdog]

I would hope so, otherwise it would seem that you have God trading the eternal life of one man for another- sorry you couldn't be saved, but there were two other guys I could get by letting you go.

this is another reason why i am leaning towards Craig's view. this seems too utilitarian for my tastes.

If one man could have been saved in one possible world and not saved in another, and God decides to actualize the world where he is not saved, then who has determined that the man would or would not be saved? The man himself, or God?

in either scenario, the person is ultimately acting by his own freewill, so the Molinist would always say that if a person is condemned it is his own fault.

[yxboom]

is the open theist viewpoint welcome :hehe:

[GoBahnsen]

Romans 11:

"So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"

1. God here uses the Jews rejection of Christ to bring salvation to the gentiles.
I think it's good to keep in mind that this is all God's plan from before creation. God isn't reacting, He is carrying out His eternal plan of redemption.



2. By this act Paul hoped to make the Christ rejecting Jews jealous, so that they too would be reconciled to Christ.
Better to say that Paul hoped that the preaching of this plan of God, might make some Jews jealous. And of course, it no doubt made all the elect Jews, that God wanted to motivate in this way, turn to Jesus as Messiah also.


The question is:Could God have used the obedience of the Jews to bring the Gospel to the gentiles? Or was God locked into one plan by necessity? And what was that necessity?
God's locked in because He had already written about His doings in prophecy and the Word of God cannot be broken. God doesn't have a plan B, though He make speak as though He does. IOW, God might say 40 days and judgment cometh. That sounds like plan A. Yet, if the people repent, then God will go to plan B, mercy.

And so many foolish people take the Scripture with a wooden literalism at points, and think God doesn't have a firm plan of redemption. That God somehow waits upon men, in order to know what God will do next.

[seer]

God's locked in because He had already written about His doings in prophecy and the Word of God cannot be broken. God doesn't have a plan B, though He make speak as though He does. IOW, God might say 40 days and judgment cometh. That sounds like plan A. Yet, if the people repent, then God will go to plan B, mercy.

So God could not have used Israel's obedience to bring the Gospel to the gentiles? Do you think that God would have rather used said obedience or their sin?

[GoBahnsen]

God's locked in because He had already written about His doings in prophecy and the Word of God cannot be broken. God doesn't have a plan B, though He make speak as though He does. IOW, God might say 40 days and judgment cometh. That sounds like plan A. Yet, if the people repent, then God will go to plan B, mercy.

So God could not have used Israel's obedience to bring the Gospel to the gentiles? Do you think that God would have rather used said obedience or their sin?God did whatsoever He pleased. I think you fail to take into account that creation with all it's characters involved is God's book if you will. God sees Lucifer, His arch enemy and decrees that this character should come forth and participate in God's grand scheme.

It seems you envision a creation where God hoped for better, but didn't get it. So He tries to make the most of a mess.

[seer]

God did whatsoever He pleased. I think you fail to take into account that creation with all it's characters involved is God's book if you will. God sees Lucifer, His arch enemy and decrees that this character should come forth and participate in God's grand scheme.

It seems you envision a creation where God hoped for better, but didn't get it. So He tries to make the most of a mess.

I asked a simple question Gb. Do you think God would rather have used Israel's love and obedience or their sin and rebellion? To me, there is no doubt. How there can be in your mind is beyond me...

[GoBahnsen]

I asked a simple question Gb. Do you think God would rather have used Israel's love and obedience or their sin and rebellion? To me, there is no doubt. How there can be in your mind is beyond me...In some sense, sure God prefers obedience, of course. But then God could have made all men like John the Baptist and had a wonderfully obedient people. It wasn't His plan seer.

[yxboom]

I asked a simple question Gb. Do you think God would rather have used Israel's love and obedience or their sin and rebellion? To me, there is no doubt. How there can be in your mind is beyond me...
This brings to mind the plagues of Egypt. What an awesome evangelist Pharaoh could have made to all the world had he repented and all of Egypt sought worship of the God of Israel. I tend to think that such a campaign would have been far more successful than the parting of the sea.

[seer]

In some sense, sure God prefers obedience, of course. But then God could have made all men like John the Baptist and had a wonderfully obedient people. It wasn't His plan seer.

Where is your evidence that John had no possibility of going wrong?

[IncRus]

Romans 11:

"So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?"

1. God here uses the Jews rejection of Christ to bring salvation to the gentiles.

2. By this act Paul hoped to make the Christ rejecting Jews jealous, so that they too would be reconciled to Christ.

The question is:Could God have used the obedience of the Jews to bring the Gospel to the gentiles? Or was God locked into one plan by necessity? And what was that necessity?

With God, NOTHING is impossible (Luke 1:37). He is the Almighty God (Gen. 17:1). Therefore, God CAN do anything He wants.

But God had ONLY ONE plan of salvation which is found in the gospel of Christ. Apostle Paul wrote: "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE who believes, for the Jew FIRST and ALSO for the Greek. For in it, the RIGHTEOUSNESS of God is REVEALED from faith to faith; as it is written, The just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:16-17).

It must be noted that ancient Israel was the nation of God until God became angry at them for their idol worship and inter-marriage with foreigners which are VIOLATIONS of God's COMMANDMENTS to them. Since then, they have become enemies of God (Isaiah 59:2).

That's the reason why the gospel of Christ was first delivered to the Jews because one of Christ's misssion is "to gather together in ONE BODY all the SCATTERED children of God" (John 11:52 TEV).

After the death of Jesus, the gospel was next delvered to the Greeks which made Peter say, "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality" (Acts 10:34).