Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?

I cannot take for granted what the book fo Hebrews says about Cain and Abel:"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous. God testifying to his gifts; and through faith, though he has died, he still speaks" (Hebrews 11:4)Since I believe that Christ is the center of the Bible the story of Cain and Abel's sacrifice has something to do with Christ as the book of Hebrews teaches. Abel was righteous in God's economy and Cain was not. The sacrifice being accepted from Abel by God indicates that Abel was right with God. Cain was not right with God but was exhorted to be so.Cain's reaction was jealousy, murder, and expulsion with God's further mercy being upon him.But I think that Abel received his instructions on sacrificial worship from his parents Adam and Eve. And I think Cain received instructions also but became inventive, presuming to develop his own way to offer sacrifice before God. I believe that though Cain and Abel received instructions from their parents, Cain made light of those instructions and took a way of originality.I believe that the instructions that Adam and Eve passed on to their children was that of blood sacrifice. They had seen God slay animals to provide them coverings. They seemed to have no cause to eat animals until God allowed them off a vegetarian diet in Genesis 9:1-3.It is likely that the animals raised by Abel were for milk, clothing, and sarifice.Of course Cain's work was important to their livelihood also. But the crops were not received as an offering. The blood of the animals was received by God as an offering. Genesis does not tell us the reason for Abel's acceptance except that Abel did well and was accepted and Cain had sin crouching in his heart and did not do well. But he could do well and also be accepted.There is so much blood accociated with the Levitical sacrifices. Though there are meal offerings which did not involve blood, still the intruments of the sacrifice were themselves sprinkled with blood.The presence of the blood had something to do with Abel's faith and righteousness. The absence of the blood had something to do with Cain's self invented offering and unrighteousness.This message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:57 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:57 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:59 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:59 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 06:59 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 07:04 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 02-27-2006 07:06 AM

jar, Obsessed? Why in the world would you say that? On this Forum I have written 20 times more about the life of God than about the atoning blood. The Torah does record God saying that the expiation of sins has its foundation in the blood of the Levitical sacrifices."For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you to make expiation for your souls on the altar, for it is the blood, by reason of the life, that makes expiation" (Leviticus 17:11)The Torah puts great emphasis on the expiatory blood. Do you not agree with this?This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-03-2006 07:19 PM

rqb,You asked for somone to give you a reply to your post # 5. I would like to reply to this portion: But I have a feeling that if I start to exchange thoughts with you the flag will go up that the discussion has gone "off topic".I understand the need for some reminders like this. But it is unpredictable when it will happen. I fear that to examine your comment with some detail will raise the off topic flag.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-08-2006 06:18 AM

Ned,I think the alternative is for me to engage rqb's comment yet try to keep it on the subject matter.In a nutshell rqb accuses God of being so alone for a long time that He doesn't know much about dealing with people. So let's say by extention that God rejected Cain's offering because a lonely God just didn't understand how to appreciate Cain's worship.Well, I don't think this is what was going on there in Genesis. I think that by way of education, God was gradually leading man into a deeper and deeper understanding of what it would COST for man to return to a normal relationship with God.It is like this. God says to man. "Man you have really messed up the relationship between you and Me. Now you may not accept this. But though you can mess it up, you cannot fix it up. I have to fix it up. This you must grasp, you must learn, you must get this into your head. You, man, can destroy the relationship between you and God but you are not able to repair it. I have to be the one to repair it. That's just the way it is."Okay, the Bible does not end with Genesis chapter four, i.e, Cain is rejected. Cain kills Abel - THE END. No, the Cain and Abel story is just one account of a line of records in which God is gradually unfolding His manner of repairing what was lost in Adam's fall into enemy territory.Now I think rqb's analysis is interesting, (genuinely). But I think it will not due as a proper analysis of the theological theme.Let's consider this: Even if we do not know precisely WHY Cain's worship is rejected, one thing is established. That is that it makes a DIFFERENCE to God HOW man comes to God. ANY old way may not be good. ANY old way may not be accepted by God. One way may be accepted. Another way may NOT be accepted.The bottom line is really here. The Cainian worship was not accepted. And if you ask my opinion (and even if you ask me to withhold my opinion), Cain's way was self devized and Abel's way was according to God's revelation. That, I feel, is the difference.One way was according to obedience and the other was a self chosen way. It is difficult to prove that in Genesis alone. But gathering all the biblical evidence, this seems the strongest cast, I feel.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-11-2006 08:58 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-11-2006 09:04 AM

Rather than try to rescue the Bible from telling us that the Israelites wiped out Jericho I believe it must be so.Now, God gave them 400 years from the time of Genesis 15 to become bad enough that they deserved such punishment. God told Abraham in Genesis 15 that He would not yet bring the Israelites into Canaan because the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full. In other words the people had not gotten to such a point that such drastic measures were required.When God does terrify them by showing what the Hebrew's God is able to do He allows them another 40 years to either repent or disperse. I think that God would have prefered to disperse the center of wickedness rather than to have to terminate them. It is evident from Rehab that the people realized that God's judgment was on its way from this God fearing nation Israel. I think that those who were afraid enough moved away. I think that only the most stubburn remained. Even then Rehab had opportunity to be delivered with her house of prostitution from God's wrath. And she was saved.Forty years was a long time for Jericho to grasp that their way of life could be terminated by such a national God as the Hebew's Yahweh.It may be difficult for us to imagine a society so evil that to save the human race from its enfluence God had to terminate everyone in the city.Now the question is was that their eternal judgment or a temporal one? Though God wiped them out Jesus says that it would be "more tolerable" for some judged or condemned kingdoms of the Old Testament at judgment day than for others who rejected Christ in His day:"I say to you that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in that day than for that city" (Luke 10:12)"Yet it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you." (Luke 10:14)"Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here." (Matt. 12:42)So it seems somewhat a question as to whether the killing of woman, children was an eternal termination or a lesson teaching temporal one for man's sake. I don't have an answer. But it is at least a question.Furthermore it should be noted that there is one entire Old Testament book dedicated to teaching the reluctance of God to judge a sinful kingdom. That is the book of Jonah. So it is not as if God did not dedicate ample space in His word to disclose to us that He would prefer not to have to judge severely.Furthermore, if we did not see God's sever judgment against sin we might not realize His hatred of sin. If we could not understand His hatred of sin we could also not understand what it meant for God to sin His Son to die for the sins of the world.Incidently, WHERE in the Bible is rape commanded by God against the Canaanites?This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-13-2006 12:33 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-13-2006 12:35 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-13-2006 12:36 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-13-2006 12:38 PM

rqb, It is a difficult issue. I would not deny that or try to gloss over it. Had I been responsible for writing the Old Testament I would not have included the harsher matters of the Canaanite's punishment. But I was not involved. If I had I would probably only put things in the Bible that I personally liked.Tell me though. Why is it that the Hebrews had a reputation also as being merciful among the people of the area? See First Kings 20:31 It is a difficult issue and my reasoning may not do it the justice that it requires.But taking in all of the things recorded taught and said and having occured in the Bible, the Canaanite conquest seems to have a place, albiet one hard to swallow in some aspects. I don't see rape in Numbers 31:7-18. I see women captured. I do not see God commanding the Israelites to sexually violate them or force them into sexual activities. Can you point out what words lead you to assume that these captive women were raped at all, and that by the command of God?"The children of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones ..."Which I am sure was traumatic to these women, no doubt. But where is the command to rape them from God?"... and all their cattle and all their livestock and all their goods they plundered"Your other sample is Zechariah 14:1-2."For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city will be captured, and the houses plundered, and the women ravished; and half of the city will go forth into captivity, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city"This I take as a prediction. God is saying that THIS will occur. I do not read in this His command to rape women. As in many places in the Bible God lifting His protecting hand from Israel leads to terrible things happening to them which God in fact says He will do.That much I agree with, that here as elsewhere God says the bad things that happen to Israel are because of His punishement. Yet many times He then tells the nations that they went too far and commited more of a disaster upon them then He intended. Then He punishes the nations.So this passage I don't take as a "Thou Shalt Rape Women" command from God.And also it is not concerning the conquest of Canaan but misfortune to come to Jerusalem as punishment. You and I both have had out lives effected by the good and bad choices of our parents. However, we also have our own choices to make amidst these inherited consequences. I think God takes them into account.This is why I am glad that an all wise God who knows everything is the final judge and not you or I. We don't have a large enough picture. So I say with Abraham I believe that the Judge of all the earth will do justly. Besides, all sins are forgiven to those who accept that justice for their sins was imputed on the cross of Christ. That is the gospel of today. On our behalf Christ has borne the divine judgment for all.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-22-2006 09:51 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-22-2006 09:52 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-22-2006 09:55 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-22-2006 10:06 AM

Ringo Go search through Leviticus. I think you'll find something to that effect.

A good way to go about determining why Cain's offereing was rejected is to study why other offerings in the Bible were rejected. It doesn't take too much research to determine why.If the offering was not according to God's instructions is was likely to be rejected.1.) Korah and his company of 250 had their offering rejected because of their rebellion against Moses and Aaron as God's deputy authorities. They falsely accused Moses and Aaron of being self serving and self exalting:"Do this: Take censors for yourselves, Korah and all your company, And put fire in them, and put incense on them before Jehovah tommorrw; and the man whom Jehovah chooses, he shall be holy. It is you who take too much upon yourselves, O sons of Levi!" (Num.16:8,9)Moses told God not to receive their offering and they went down alive into Sheol when the earth opened up to swallow them."Then Moses became very angry and said to Jehovah, Do not regard their offering. I have not taken a single donkey from them, nor have I done harm to any of them." (v.15)Here the problem seems to be insubordination and rebellion against those whom God had appointed as His deputy authorities over them. 2.) Nadab and Abihu were consumed with fire when they violated the divine instructions and offered "strange fire" on their censors before Jehovah."And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censor, and put fire in them and laid incense on it, and they presented strange fire before Jehovah, which He had not commanded them.

​

And fire came out from before Jehovah and consumed them, and they died before Jehovah" (Lev. 10:1,2)Here the problem seems to stem from offering according to their self chosen opinion. Drunkeness with wine may have been the cause judging from the statute that God commands Moses for the priests immediatly following this event (10:8-11).If this is so I would say that this inventiveness of offering strange fire before God against His command was due to their indulgence in the drunkeness of fleshly enjoyment clouding their sense of the holy.3.) Jeroboam's offerings were rejected and his hand withered up because his altars were not the ones prescribed by God or in the place of God's choice. He broke the oneness of the worship by offering not in Jerusalem but in Samaria after God let 10 tribes follow him.This was rejection of an offering because it violated the instructions of God and the unity of worship.4.) Off course the 400 prophets of Baal had there offering to Baal ignored because they had the wrong God altogether. Elijah however, offered to the true God of Israel and was accepted.This was a case of idol worship being the cause of the offering being ignored by God.5.) In the book of Malachi the offerers would be rejected for offering that which was blemished to God. This was symptomatic of their disdain for the service of God to begin with. They thought it was a waist of time:"And you say, Ah, how tiresome it is! and sniff at it in contempt, says Jehovah of hosts. Then you bring what has been stolen and what is lame and what is sick, and you offer it as a sacrifice. Should I be pleased with what comes from your hand? says Jehovah." (Mal. 1:13God tells them that they would not so disrespect a governor:"And when you offer what is blind as a sacrifice, is it not evil? And when you offer what is lame and sick, is it not evil? Present it, if you will, to your governor. Will he be pleased with you or accept your person? says Jehovah"It seems clear that before the offerings are made God had already told the people what He expects. Violations of what was prescribed by God in one manner or another seems to be the common thread as to why an offering was rejected.I conclude that Cain and Abel were not left in the dark as to how to present an offerng to God. Though Genesis does not explicitly tell us that. It seems the best interpretation. Probably though their parents Adam and Eve they received instructions on how to present an offering to God.Abel's acceptance then was not because of his invention of something pleasing. It was only because of his obedience to what God had taught him through his parents. And his parents were God's appointed authority over him. Cain's rejection must have been to his choosing a self inventive way not according to God's instructions.And all of the above symptoms could have played a part in his attitude. He may not have had the proper regard for the authority of his parents, like Korah and company despised the leardership of Moses and Aaron. Cain may also, like Nadab and Abihu just been dulled in his sense of the holy and sacred by too much endulgence in his lustful fleshly nature. He may have been befuddled and in a stupor regarding the holiness of God by drowning his heart with what was common. Like Jereboam Cain also may have wanted to violate the unity of the family worship. Like the worshippers of Baal, maybe Cain had another god or something that meant more to him than God. And like the Israelites in Malachi's time he may have secretly dispised the whole matter of worship to begin with.Whatever the case, I'm sure that Cain and Abel had been told beforehand what was proper. And their acceptance or rejection was based on their response to what had been told them either directly by God or indirectly through the revelation of their parents.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-27-2006 08:11 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-27-2006 08:12 PM

Ringo, have you ever raised any children?
Come on. I just gave you about five very good possibilities of what may have led to his actions.If everyone in the Bible completely obeyed God then perhaps instead of 66 books we'd just have a chapter or two. Perhaps it was the first time. I never thought about that much. The fact of the matter is that man makes big whopping mistakes. Ask Cain's mom and dad. Interesting. I think that makes less sense. As you know I believe that Christ is the center of the whole Bible. So what the New Testament apostles have to say about Cain to me is vitally important.First off according to the book of Hebrews, Abel's offering was by faith and without faith it is impossible to please God. So Cain's offering must not have included that element of faith."By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying to his gifts; and through faith, though he has died, he still speaks... But without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to Him, for he who comes forward to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him" (Heb. 11:4,5)The end of the matter is there. Abel had faith in God. Cain did not have faith in God. Maybe that is why he disobeyed, because he did not believe that offering according to his parents' teaching would be effective. No faith.Aside from the comment in Hebrews about Cain apparently not having faith as Abel, we are also told in First John that it led to him being unrighteous before God. His lack of faith made him of the evil one. And it also made him without love."For this is the message which you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another,

​

Not as Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's righteous. Do not marvel, brothers, if the world hates you." (First John 3:11-13)Just considering before the murder took place, we can deduce that Cain lacked faith. We can deduce that Cain was unrighteous before God in his lack of faith.That is why it makes more sense to me that there had to have been a divine promise within instructions passed on to the two siblings. There should have been an object of faith in terms of a promise from God.At any rate, the other instances of rejection of offerings by God should not be dismissed as an effective way to determine why Cain's offering was the first to be rejected.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-28-2006 07:19 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-28-2006 07:24 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-28-2006 07:26 AM

I did not make anything up. At the most the only one which was speculative was the point about alcoholic drink possibly being responsible for the error of Nadab and Abihu. You may say that I am speculating there and I will agree.I don't agree that any of the other examples were made up by me. And its is somewhat of a waste of my time to have to go passage by passage and prove that. We are not told that they had specific instructions. But there is something to learning the ways of God from exploring the Scriptures. I don't know that. But I'm willing to say it probably was. But I don't know. And you have an interesting way of being very sure of somethings which form your opinion but full to the brime of doubts and objections about things you don't want to believe. What the Scripture says is:"But for Cain AND FOR HIS OFFERING He had no regard" (Gen. 4:5 my emphasis)So yes, Cain's sacrifice itself was unacceptable. I sense an old Internet Infidel's argument being brushed off and made ready."But for Cain AND FOR HIS OFFERING He had no regard" (Gen. 4:5 my emphasis)God had no regard for Cain's offering, period. Hmmmm. Enter Jesus (when appropriate). I thought you would streneously object to applying New Testament axioms to Genesis. Once again:"But for Cain AND FOR HIS OFFERING He had no regard" (Gen. 4:5 my emphasis)If you don't like what it says, change it in your Bible to make it read whatever you'd like it to say. It made sense to the writer who wrote:"But for Cain AND FOR HIS OFFERING He had no regard" (Gen. 4:5 my emphasis) And the inner condition of his heart manifested itself in the manner of his offering. So the visible manifestation of the distance of his heart from God was in his outward worship. And it says:"But for Cain and for his offering He had no regard" (Gen. 4:5). Now that is an interesting point. You are saying that his conscience should have informed him without God's instructions.Do you know for certain that Cain and Abel did not have instructions? How do you know that they had no instructions for sure and beyond doubt?I gave my reasons why I believe they did. God told Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. This was also pre-law of God. But it was an instruction. Therefore the tree of the knowledge of good and evil does not mean that man never received any instructions from God. I thought quite a bit about this:"But for Cain and for his offering He had no regard" (Gen. 4:5). Which you won't be able to twist away. So now you find fault with having no instructions from God. When will you also find fault with not being adaquately informed by the knowledge of good and evil? I think it was willful disobedience must likely. And that is a whopping mistake, to willfully disobey God. I know. And I was speaking figuratively. Their experience testifies that man errs with big negative results.If they hadn't realized that they would not have sought to pass the blame on to someone else. That is usually what people do when they make a serious error. So Adam blames God for giving him Eve, for the error. And Eve blames the serpent, for the error. The reasoning was given prior to that sentence. Thanks for finally admiting that God rejected Cain's offering. I thought you would come around sooner or latter." ... when God rejected his offering." Thanks again. " ... rejection of an offering ..." So why did Cain get upset if it was not his business? We need to scour the whole Bible - Old and New Testament.Incidently, the five examples I gave of rejected offerings were all from the Old Testament. I mentioned nothing about colors. I did mention that God was not pleased with the people offering the blind and the lame or defective offerings in Malachi.There's no hint that God said "Forget about it. It is my business. You don't need to pay attention to the condition of the livestock that you offer, whether lame, blind, deseased, etc....". Just the opposite was said by God.You're the one making up stuff and trying to force the Scriptures into your personal philosophy. Leviticus gave many precise discriptions concerning these things. If they are not mentioned in Genesis they are mentioned in Leviticus.God made it the business of the Levitical priests how and in what manner the offerings were to be done. It definitely was made the business of the priests.Your generalizations don't hold. I only agree with you that we are not explicitly told in Genesis that Cain and Abel had instructions. How do we know what "better" is? Is "better" whatever we decide "better" is? In other words it doesn't matter what God accepts or rejects.I was very much innundated with relativism as a young person. I really got to the point where I thought there really was no real true truth.Then one day I obtained a series of books by a Christian teacher Derek Prince called Foundation Series. That meaning the foundational matters of the Christian life. I will never forget that one of the points which hit my relativist attitude the hardest was Prince's exposition on Romans 2:2 which says: That never left me - "The judgement of God is according to TRUTH ..."What God accepts and rejects matters. It is according to the TRUTH of the universe.Of course none of this means that our reaction is NOT important also.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-28-2006 01:29 PM

Abel's sacrifice was received by God because Abel had faith and that faith."By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ..." (Hebrews 11:4)Genesis latter informs us that God imputed belief in Abraham as righteousness - "And he [Abram] believed Jehovah, and He accounted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6)Abel's faith and the outward manifestation of his faith, his offering were accepted by the righteous God and positioned Abel as righteous before God:"By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained testimony that he was righteous, God testifying to his gifts; and through faith, though he has died, he still speaks" (Heb. 11:4)God testified not simply to his inner attitude. God testified "to his gifts".Cain lacked faith and his offering was not received.We are not told definitely that Cain and Abel did or did not receive instructions concerning sacrifice. I think they did. Ringo's insistence that the default position should be that they did not is just his opinion and preference.The offering of Abel was a type of Christ because the all-inclusive and main offering in the whole universe from eternity to eternity is the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.And Christ's offering was "from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8) - " ... the Lamb who was slain from the foundation of the world"Not only was He slain from the foundation of the world He was foreknown to be a sacrifice "before the foundation of the world" - "Knowing that it was not with corruptible things ... that you were redeemed ... But with the precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, the blood of Christ; Who was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has been manifested in the last times for your sake" (See 1 Peter 1:18-20)Christ - slain from the foundation of the world and foreknown before the foundation of the world, is the unique offering and sacrifice to which all the offerings and sacrifices of the Old Testament commanded by God point. I would not exclude the very first offering of man to God in worship recorded in the Bible - that of Abel.The first mention of something in the Bible usually sets the principle for repeated mentionings to follow. The first mention of man offering a sacrifice to God which is acceptable sets the pattern for the other sacrifices. They are accepted when done by faith.And faith usually has as its object in the Bible the word of God. So I conclude that first the word of God came to Abel. And based upon that he offered properly in faith.The Bible does not say that Cain became evil only after he slew his brother Abel. It says that he slew him because he was evil -"Not as Cain was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his works were evil, and his brother's, righteous" (1 John 3:12)It is clear that before Cain murdered, his works were evil and his brother's works were righteous. The works here are the works regarding their respective offerings to God.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-28-2006 08:15 PMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-29-2006 06:58 AM

I made a bad English typo which should be corrected:

Always. But sometimes only God can perceive the truth. You are confusing the giving of gifts with the offering of sacrifice for worship.The poor widow put in her living, the few coins that she had. That was more precious to God then the rich religionists who put in out of thier abundance. Relatively speaking she gave much more, even her very living. That was all she had.This is different from the offering of the sacrifices. Though the word "sacrifice" is involved in presenting one's material wealth freely for the financing of God's work, it is not the same as the sacrificial offerings.In Leviticus God made provisions for those who could not afford a bull or a goat. He knew that not all the people could afford such things so there were provisions to offer turtle doves or fine flour instead of the larger animals.But basically your comparison to the giving of the widow with the offerings of Cain and Abel is not comparing apples with apples. But in your case, it is often there. It is just not there in the same chapter. So in light of the whole council of God we learn the ways of God. And knowing something about God's ways we can sometimes make very good determinations about things not explicitly mentioned in that section. And I did say "sometimes". Of course he had a second chance, and a third and a fourth. No one is argueing that Cain was hopeless.But both Cain and Abel had the evil spirit operating in them which commenced from the disobedience of Adam."And you, though dead in your offenses and sins, in which you once walked according to the age of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, of the spirit which is now operating in the sons of disobedience ..." (Eph. 2:2)The evil Satanic spirit ruler of the authority of the air was operating in all children of Adam.Abel's faith became a means of his justification before God. Cain's unbelief disqualified him from standing in a position of justification before God.Both men were sinners. But Abel was righteous in his faith and was justified. Cain was not justified for he stood in his unbelief. Of course even after he murdered Abel it appears that God still gave him time to repent.Cain's conscience was hardened. He had pretty much lost the feeling of repentence because of his hardened conscience. It is better debate practice to refer to the opposing party in the third person. The audience is the one being addressed in those cases. I alternate in an informal manner.This message has been edited by jaywill, 03-29-2006 07:25 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-29-2006 07:26 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-29-2006 07:30 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-29-2006 07:33 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 03-29-2006 07:34 AM

I'll write in the style that I choose to write. If I want to address you I will. If I don't I won't.

quote:

---

You're still assuming your conclusion - that He died as part of some "master plan".

---

The poster is quite correct to say that Christ's death was a part of a "master plan" so to speak. "Knowing that is was not with corruptible things,... that you were redeemed from your vain manner of life ... But with the precious blood, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot,[the blood of] Christ; Who was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has been manifested in the last of times for your sake ..." (1 Peter 1:18-20)Christ's redemptive death was foreknown before the foundation of the world. That means before the creation of the universe. So in God's plan Christ's redemptive death was foreknown before creation. How then can we not say His death was not part of a divine master plan?God making known to man the mystery of His will includes making known to us the redemptive death of Jesus Christ: "In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of offenses, according to the riches of His grace, ... making known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself, unto the economy of the fullness of the times, to head up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in Him ..." (See Eph. 1:7-10).In God's good pleasure to head up all things in the universe under Jesus Christ the redemptive death of Christ and His resurrection were an intergral part. Economy [OIKONOMIA] means household management. It is also translated dispensation. It means God's management of His household by dispensing His riches to all those in the household.God causes all things in the universe to work together for good to those who love God and are called according to His purpose. And this eternal purpose includes the justification secured in Christ's redemptive death: And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers;And those whom He predestinated, these He also called; and those whom He called, these He also justified; and those whom He justified, these He also glorified." (See Romans 8:28-30)In God's master plan to conform the predestinated to the image of His Firstborn Son the justification in Christ's death is an intrinsic part. Christ also was the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). Not only was He foreknown before the foundation of the world but in the eternal eyes of God He was slain from the foundation of the world. So Christ's death and resurrection WAS part of a divine master plan.The Bible ends with a marriage. And the Apostle Paul tells us that to secure this marriage between God and His redeemed people Christ had to give Himself up for the church His wife: "Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, That He might sanctify her, cleansing her by the washing of the water in the word, that He might present the church to Himself glorious, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that she would be holy and without blemish." (See Eph. 5:25-27).In the final sign of the whole Bible the center of the New Jerusalem is God as the shining light within the Lamb of God as the lamp. This means that the light and truth of the universe if the incarnated God-man Christ Who died as the Lamb of God for the eternal redemption of God's elect: "And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon that they should shine in it, for the glory of God illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb" (Rev. 21:23)The center of the holy city is the lamp of the redeeming incarnated God-man Christ. And the light of all reality shining out from within Him is God. So God's master plan of obtaining New Jerusalem intrinsically includes the redemptive death of Christ the Redeeming Lamb of God - the Man within Whom dwells God Almighty.This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-18-2006 02:05 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-18-2006 02:07 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-18-2006 02:09 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-18-2006 02:28 AMThis message has been edited by jaywill, 04-18-2006 02:29 AM