Recently a Scripturosity reader asked me to comment on an article published by Answers in Genesis dealing with the cross and original design. The following is my response to the article entitled “Was the Cross Plan B?”
I appreciate you sharing Steve Ham’s article with me. I know that each of us has a high regard for the authenticity and accuracy of Scripture and agree that the Gospel is the message of primacy in our increasingly secular world (see Scripturosity article “The Gospel Message”). It is amazing to me, however, that AIG does not see the flaw in his reason – especially from their hard-line, historical Genesis perspective.
Was the Cross “Plan B?” Of course the Cross was not necessitated as “a result of God’s best-laid plans gone wrong” as he queries in the opening. No, “human sin did not take God by surprise.” There was no “emergency plan B forced upon the Creator…after the Fall.” In the context of the omniscient foreknowledge of God, original sin in nature’s perfection was not “an unforeseen tragedy.”
But the questions with which he frames his article present an inaccurate (or at least incomplete) either/or scenario.
I propose that the prospect of a sin-cursed detour (Plan B, if you will) eventuating to its original track sometime in the future, as prophesied in Isaiah’s description of the ecosystem of the new earth (11:6-9) or as detailed in John’s vision of fellowship in the consummation of all things (Rev. 21:3), does not harm or threaten the concept of divine “predetermined purpose.”
The issue is the character and Word of a Creator who looked upon His completed work on Day 6 and appraised it “very good (lit. exceedingly excellent).” Would an assessment of exceeding excellence on Day 6 be an honest and accurate description of Creation – particularly in view of the climatic conclusion of His image bearer – in the context of a requisite rebellion and fall from purpose?
We, young-earth creationists, argue that an evolutionary model of biology (necessitating suffering, and disease, and death) is inconsistent with the character of God. Similarly, creating with the anticipation of nature’s cursing in order to facilitate its redemption suggests a course of events that does not square either. Many struggle with the reality of suffering in the context of a loving, superintending God. To tell the skeptic or the seeker that this was God’s plan has no appeal and does nothing to defend the character of God. But to explain that this is not the way God intended things to be gives perfect frame for the Gospel (see Scripturosity article “Innocent Suffering and a Loving God – Part 1”). Knowledge of and intent toward are two very different things.
On Day 6, the glory of Christ was exhibited in the power and genius of His Creation. After the rebellion, Christ’s glory included the sovereign fulfillment of His passion – restoration of fellowship.
When Adam sinned, everything changed. God was forced, by His character, to disassociate with this debase intrusion that defined humanity’s new reality. God’s response to sin testified further of his favor toward mankind with an ingenious plan (obviously foreseen in His eternal omniscience) of restoration that would preserve every detailed facet of and satisfy every intricate demand of His glorious character. We are currently living in a sovereign detour necessitated by the Creator’s intolerance of sin, but initiated because of His desire to bring Eden’s fellowship full circle.
Original purpose and sovereign foreknowledge are not mutually exclusive divine concepts. The need for a sin-cursed, multi-millennial side-track following the Fall of man, does not mean that God’s character was compromised or that He missed this not-so-minute detail in the eternal scheme. Neither did God intend for fellowship to be broken as a result of man’s Garden rebellion so He could wind up the plan of restoration and Christ’s cross.
Hi Marc,
Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a ruling rightly given. As well, kudos to you, your reader, and S.H. for thinking of God and wrestling with his word—Philippians 4:8.
However, like Job’s friends discovered, a word of caution may be in order to those who venture in this way.
For does not Luke 14:28 – 32 speak of the like? Therefore, to stop prematurely, on one hand, and to not surrender in time, on the other, are both follies.
Accordingly, was not even Jacob blessed (not at the beginning) but at the end of his match with God?
And, our Lord, himself, did he not find victory in his timely surrendering to the Father, praying: “Nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.”, before the “angel from heaven” appeared to strengthen the Lord’s heart/will (as he had done before with Pharaoh and Ahab to their ruin)? And though this messenger of light’s “more opportune time” had come and gone, great was the anguish that followed his coming.
And I heard one say, “Before I was afflicted I went astray, but now I obey your word.” Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
Thank you,
Don
As always, well thought out and well said.
Thanks Don.
Good stuff, Don.
Thank you, Troy.
I’ll be honest, I had to read over this twice to draw the distinction between the two articles (that could be partially due to my attention being divided by the buccos game), but I see now after reading more intently. I think that a major flaw occurs when one starts with the assumption that God’s will is always accomplished. To that type of person, suggesting that God’s will is not in actuality always occurring seems to be borderline sacrilege. But if we examine this at a common sense level, we quickly come to the conclusion that people sin every day, which clearly puts us all in violation of the intended will of God for our lives. The fact that God foreknew and planned a remedy in no way discounts his actual will. What this reveals about God is His amazing love and His desire to have legitimate relationships with his creation which could only be predicated upon our free choice; and consequently, the potential that we would offend our creator.
Remarkable synopsis in the shadow of another interleague win for the bucs! 🙂
Marc
Sorry to post comment in wrong place but could not find a way to contact directly. But I was trying to listen to podcast and it was not allowing me. Is there any way to listen to podcast or is this not open to public?
Jeremy,
Thanks for the heads-up. It gave me the same error message. I reported it to the tech and will let you know when it is fixed.
Thanks for checking out Scripturosity!
Marc