Does God ever have a plan B?

[squirrelyguy]

If God is exhaustively determining all things, including human decisions, why do we see Him so frequently regretting His decisions in the Bible? Would God ordain a human choice that He knows He will come to regret? I won't bury this OP in citations (they aren't hard to find), but I'll just use this one to start the conversation.

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them. (Gen. 6:5-7) If we take God's self-declaration here at face value, doesn't it sound like the flood was plan B?

I know what the answer from the Calvinists on here is likely to be: it's just an anthropomorphism. I think this is too much of a "pat answer" and doesn't really do justice to the weight of this theme in Scripture, but let's set that aside. Even if it is just an anthropomorphism, what conclusions are we to draw from the fact that this "anthropomorphism" is found so frequently in the Bible? It seems to me that at the very least we are made to think that God changes His mind in response to His creation because the biblical authors would not have used this language otherwise!

In this regard I think that Calvinism tries to be smarter than the Bible. It's as if we know better than the biblical writers themselves what God is really like, and we don't dare use the verbiage that the Bible uses lest we be guilty of offending His grandeur somehow. But how can it ever be wrong to describe God using the same verbiage that Scripture uses?

 

[Josheb]

Does God ever have a plan B?

No.

God's plan (singular) covers all possibilities. If it didn't then He would not be God. He'd be subject to unanticipated conditions and circumstances and that necessarily implies a lack of omniscience and omnipotence. Both would have to be post hoc, not a priori. That god might be an extraordinary being but not a God, and not The God of the Bible.

 

[Josheb]

If God is exhaustively determining all things, including human decisions.....

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

Christians who believe God exhaustively determines all things including human decisions are a minority of Christians. If you're going to discuss that position then do so with an open acknowledgement that is a minority view, and not one that is representative of all Calvinists, nor most of them. Make sure you're not falling prey to the argument ad absurdum fallacy, or argument from extremes.

 

[Josheb]

If God is exhaustively determining all things, including human decisions, why do we see Him so frequently regretting His decisions in the Bible?

Re-read that question.

You've just asked about God determining human decisions..... and then asked about God regretting His own decisions. You did not ask why God regrets determining the human's decision. You're also playing fast and loose with the word "decision," because if something is "exhaustively determined" then it is not a decision in any ordinary normal use of that term. That's a problem of ambiguity and we'd want to avoid any fallacies made because of unclear language or the use of same terms with different meanings.

God regretting His decisions has nothing to do with human decisions.


And as to an answer to the question asked, I will suggest the answer lies in the definition of "regret," because 1) God's "regret" is not that of a sin-corrupted creature, but that of a perfect, righteous, holy pure Creator, 2) the term has more to do with sorrow and more to do with remorse than regret as we finite sin-filled creatures think of it because 3) we tend to anthropomorphize God and what scripture says about Him. The anthropomorphization is itself an effect of our sinfulness. The same term used in Genesis 6:6 is also translated elsewhere as "sorrow," "comfort," "repent," "change," and "console."

Would God ordain a human choice that He knows He will come to regret?

Sure. Why not?

He knowing let Cain decide what Cain was going to do even after He had told Cain not to let sin have mastery over Cain. Do you think that absolves God of culpability? This is a classic example of God knowing something bad was going to happen and doing nothing to stop it. If we say God did not know "for sure" Cain was going to kill Abel then any claim to God's omniscience is compromised. If we say He could not have stopped it then God's omnipotence is compromised.

These are not particularly Calvinist or Arminian problems. They are problems of bad theology and when they are asserts as soteriological matters that is a red herring.

I will also, at this point note that the matter of "ordaining" choices warrants clarification and will suggest that we avoid thinking of that matter in all-or-nothing terms because God can in His divine omni-attributes decide a person will do or not do something without alternative, decide the person's alternative, not decide, or decide for himself in a manner that does no violence to the creature's decisions. All of those are well within the theology and soteriology of Calvinism, especially once the determinism of sin is considered. Sin is much more deterministic than God. God offers life or death to folks. Sin offers only death.

I know what the answer from the Calvinists on here is likely to be: it's just an anthropomorphism.

That is certainly evident in this post, whether intended or not. But I will agree that's not likely all there is to the matter and, as the reader can see from my reply, there's more to the questions asked and more to the critique of Calvinism than merely anthropomorphism.

I think this is too much of a "pat answer" and doesn't really do justice to the weight of this theme in Scripture, but let's set that aside.

Let's set it aside after we acknowledge the value of Occam's Razor. If anthropomorphism is the simplest and most likely answer then it is probable the correct answer, not matter how "pat," or unjust that may seem.

Even if it is just an anthropomorphism, what conclusions are we to draw from the fact that this "anthropomorphism" is found so frequently in the Bible?

LOL! Anthropomorphism is NOT found in the Bible! Re-read your statement again. An anthropomorphism is, by definition, a describing of something through the human experience. In other words, anthropomorphism is always and everywhere eisegetic; an addition to scripture, not something the scripture asserts. That does not mean anthropomorphism is without merit. It simply means that we must acknowledge it as an addition to scripture a fallen means of understand what God disclosed about Himself to already sin-adulterated creatures. God is NOT a man. NOTHING about Him is human. "Humanizing" the scriptural record is at the expense of attempting understand the divine report of the divine experience is a mistake. It is NOT something "found so frequently in the Bible."

It seems to me that at the very least we are made to think that God changes His mind in response to His creation because the biblical authors would not have used this language otherwise!

Who made you think that way? It was not God.

Keep in mind the biblical authors did not use English. Both Hebrew and Greek are idiomatic languages, nuanced and communicating in images, principles, and "word pictures," many of which are lost when translating into the more blunt language of English. Even the words "remorse" or "sorrow" do not do justice to Genesis 6:6. You could have started with Genesis 3:6, the first moment of disobedience even though there's no mention of God's response it does not require anthropomorphization to understand God's dismay. The moment you go down that road then ALL of God's emotions come into question because if He's not always happy with everything everywhere all at once then he's not God.

This not soteriological; it is Theological.

In this regard I think that Calvinism tries to be smarter than the Bible. It's as if we know better than the biblical writers themselves what God is really like, and we don't dare use the verbiage that the Bible uses lest we be guilty of offending His grandeur somehow. But how can it ever be wrong to describe God using the same verbiage that Scripture uses?

With respect, it's not evident Calvinism is adequately understood, and I'm not sure the scriptures are adequately grasped, either. If anything I've just posted makes sense, then please take that as an indication those areas could use some more study and I'll gladly walk through some of it with you in the thread.

 

[SteveB]

If God is exhaustively determining all things, including human decisions, why do we see Him so frequently regretting His decisions in the Bible? Would God ordain a human choice that He knows He will come to regret? I won't bury this OP in citations (they aren't hard to find), but I'll just use this one to start the conversation.

Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the Lord said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them. (Gen. 6:5-7) If we take God's self-declaration here at face value, doesn't it sound like the flood was plan B?

I know what the answer from the Calvinists on here is likely to be: it's just an anthropomorphism. I think this is too much of a "pat answer" and doesn't really do justice to the weight of this theme in Scripture, but let's set that aside. Even if it is just an anthropomorphism, what conclusions are we to draw from the fact that this "anthropomorphism" is found so frequently in the Bible? It seems to me that at the very least we are made to think that God changes His mind in response to His creation because the biblical authors would not have used this language otherwise!

In this regard I think that Calvinism tries to be smarter than the Bible. It's as if we know better than the biblical writers themselves what God is really like, and we don't dare use the verbiage that the Bible uses lest we be guilty of offending His grandeur somehow. But how can it ever be wrong to describe God using the same verbiage that Scripture uses?

In light of all the stuff that's happened, and is happening in the world, the idea of a plan B, C, D, ......., ZZZZZZZZZZZ-n.... makes sense until you read the Bible, and see that God knew beforehand how ugly and bad it'd get.

Then to read that he'll bring it altogether, and actually accomplish his purposes....
Plan A was the only plan necessary.

To me this makes it all the more profound,impressive and utterly awesome to consider.

I'll have no problem whatsoever worshipping so powerful and gracious a God as YHVH!