Saw that line on a church reader board this weekend. Is it true or not?
Does God have a plan B? Unfortunately there’s no more context for the question, so take it as you will. But do answer.
So far I have one True and one False.
a Kyle Dresback production
Saw that line on a church reader board this weekend. Is it true or not?
Does God have a plan B? Unfortunately there’s no more context for the question, so take it as you will. But do answer.
So far I have one True and one False.
May 3, 2005 at 2:31 am
Context is everything. Are they meaning this in the evangelical/outreach way? If that’s the case, then orthodox Christians would say that God does not have a “Plan B”, that Christ and the resurrection were the culmination of his plan to reach out to man and create a means of salvation that all could partake in.
If we’re talking omniscience here, then I’d have to say the say the same thing but for different reasons. We humans use the concept of “Plan B” as a back up or a contingency, in case things go wrong with Plan A.
Say, for instance, that God does have a Plan B. Does he doubt himself? Did he not plan wisely? Did things happen that he did not foresee? Did he make a mistake? Was he wrong?
To further muddy the waters, let’s think about the fact that God exists outside of time. A part of the function of his omniscience is that he has seen the ends of all labors, the stopping place of all ends and events. He knows everything because he has “read the end of the book”. Why would he have need of a Plan B in that case?
OK, say that is the case (as my mind spirals out of control at 2:30 in the morning), if God exists outside of time and sees the ends of all things, is the ending still fluid or is it locked down? Can he make changes in any time frame he wishes that affect the outcome of everything? Perhaps that was what the Incarnation and Resurrection were for, God, not liking the ending, intervenes in time at a timeframe of his choosing, changes the ending.
May 3, 2005 at 7:08 am
Good stuff, Arnold. The only other thing that this question can lead us to is the debate over who is more powerful – us or God? To put it another way, which carries more weight – God’s sovereignty or our free will? The concept of a Plan B implies that Plan A did not or could not work out. First, we assume that Plan A is God’s plan. That begs the question as to whether or not Plan A is the better plan. Personally, I would much rather have the God of the universe, who is ultimately for me, planning things for me. So I therefore assume that Plan A is the better plan.
So now we get to the supposed existence of a Plan B. That could come from one of two things – either God decides to scratch Plan A once He is “presented” with Plan B (which we must present to Him), or we take ourselves on Plan B while God watches and allows it. From my argument above, I highly doubt that God would scratch His plan in favor of something that we offer to Him. So that leaves us with the possibility that we might ourselves change the plan while God sits back.
This would be where the sovereignty/free will debate comes in. When we exercise our free will, is it possible that we could surprise God with something that we do? For instance, could I take one job instead of another, or even turn left instead of right in an intersection and have God sit up and say, “Wow, I didn’t see THAT one coming!” This would, in effect, make us more powerful than God, if He is constantly having to keep up with our choices. That is not the God that I worship. Plan A is what God has for us and all that He has for us, not because He is a stubborn, control-freakish God, but because He wouldn’t settle for anything less than the best for us.
May 3, 2005 at 12:22 pm
Cubby, what you’re getting at (if I read you right) is can we change God’s will. The answer is yes.
but, the people did something unexpected (to me and probably Jonah), they repented in a big way.
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.
May 3, 2005 at 12:48 pm
Arnold, but maybe it was God’s plan all along to have compassion on the people when/if they turned from their evil ways. Eh?
May 3, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Good thoughts. Now what if we were to confine our answers to the narrative of scripture?
Was Israel’s monarchy part of God’s plan A? Israel becomes disobedient after the conquest and God, out of anger (hardly fitting for a God who knows and predetermines all things) turns them over to their enemies and then raises up Judges–Judges 2.10-23 gives God’s response to their disobedience and what looks to be his “contingency plan” which, for convenience, we’ll call “Contingency Plan A” (amending his original plan of direct rule).
Soon the people turn on the judges, unkindly rejecting poor Samuel (1 Samuel chapter 8 is their complaint and his response). They want a king like everyone else. God had warned them against the dangers of a monarchy–idolatry comes to mind–but they would not listen. Even after his scare tactics in 1 Sam. 8 they persist. Finally, God instructs Samuel to give them a king. Let’s call this monarchy “Contingency Plan B.”
And no one is surprised that the monarchy fails and Israel falls, putting into action another plan that results in the coming of the Messiah (“Plan C”?). Israel is famous for not knowing what they really want…which highlights precisely the point I want to make. God honors the will of his people, even when it is doomed to failure and stands completely contrary to his original intent.
The concern stated above was that we shouldn’t worship a God who has to keep up with our choices. My question is, Why not? Did God’s original design for this world include Israel’s rejection of him, their idolatry, their defeat and exile, and eventually his becoming one of them only to suffer abandonment, mockery, torture and death? Maybe it is. I don’t know for sure. But that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
God’s interaction with humanity seems to be a true exchange, like a chess match. After all, the better chess player is the one who doesn’t have to play both sides of the table to win…
May 3, 2005 at 12:57 pm
Well….
I can either believe that God does what he says he will do and is dependable on his word
or
I can believe that God is sneaky.
I prefer the first.
May 3, 2005 at 12:57 pm
The previous post was supposed to go right after Cubby’s. You guys are fast.
May 3, 2005 at 1:00 pm
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that God’s Plan A could have been to judge the people if they didn’t repent and to have mercy on them if they did. Eh?
May 3, 2005 at 1:23 pm
Ah. That’s the discrepancy. I read Plan A as: “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned.”
May 3, 2005 at 1:24 pm
So here’s the answer that you probably won’t be too happy with. Many people might consider it a cop out, but it’s the only way that I can resolve those kind of verses with my high view on the sovereignty of God.
In those verses, the question still remains as to what God knew in those discussions and what He didn’t know. Did He already know that He would “change His mind,” so was, instead, teaching those that came to Him something about the importance of petitioning? I would say yes. It’s all about a relationship, and when we go through trials, God wants us to turn to Him for help and strengthen that relationship. From here we could get into the debate over whether or not God orchestrates those trials in order for us come to Him, but that’s not a road that I think is beneficial for this blog. Suffice it to say that the point of Moses’ and Jonah’s petitioning was to grow in their relationship with Almighty God. I would venture to say that God would have relented regardless of Moses’ and Jonah’s respective actions, but they wouldn’t have grown as much. Yes, they would have seen the power of God, but the relationship is stronger because of the effort that those who petitioned put forth.
May 3, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Good points, Cubby. But how does one relent unless one has already steadfastly made up his mind?
May 3, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Kyle, I especially agree when you write, “I don’t know for sure.” Me neither, and it makes alot of sense to me that we just aren’t going to be able to understand God’s plan with any kind of clarity from our human, finite perspectives.
A comment: It’s not clear to me how God’s omniscience (if God is omniscient) would be incompatible with God’s anger (if God does get angry).
May 3, 2005 at 1:28 pm
You guys are fast.
May 3, 2005 at 2:26 pm
Germerian, my comment was not about omniscience. It was about predetermination. Punishment (e.g. God’s treatment of Israel’s disobedience) seems incompatible with an action that is predetermined and therefore inescapable.
Now, how relevent that is to the present discussion may be arguable. But since when do we stay on topic?
May 3, 2005 at 3:04 pm
Kyle, I see what your’e saying, I think. I guess it would be important to distinguish determinism from foreknowledge from sovereignty. If God forces someone to do something, and then punishes them for doing it, you’re right, that seems silly.
However, If God knows that someone will behave in certain ways, God’s response, whether it be anger, joy, punishment or whatever, wouldn’t seem to be problematic, necessarily. If we’re talking about God’s plan(s), it seems to me we don’t have to limit ourselves to a deterministic view of God. God’s plan, even God’s PLAN, could have everything to with God’s omniscience and omnipotence–that is, God’s ability to accomplish exactly what he wants to accomplish, in whatever manner he chooses.
May 3, 2005 at 5:34 pm
Germerian, we’re agreed.
So when we speak of God having a “Plan B,” then we are at least infringing on the concept of his foreknowledge and we’re explicitly ruling out the possibility of determinism, right? Are these the classical attributes of God that are challenged by the “Plan B” idea?
Does his sovereignty remain intact in a Plan B scenario? If he is influenced by people or events, spurred by human events and decisions to react in a certain way–e.g. “anger,” “sadness,” “repentance”–is he still sovereign? Maybe, but it seems like he has willingly relinquished some part of his power to humans and given them some real responsibility in that transfer or power. It depends on your exact definition of “sovereign” as it relates to God, but if I’m the sole source of power and influence in the universe then I don’t think I can be angry or sad or jealous…or even loving.
May 3, 2005 at 7:13 pm
How about this:
1. God is the ultimate source of power; i.e. He is sovereign, sustains the universe, etc.
2. We have genuine, yet obviously limited autonomy and agency, by God’s grace.
3. God can respond to the way in which we use our God-given “power” in any number ways.
May 3, 2005 at 7:44 pm
In Katherine Tanner’s book, _Jesus Humanity and the Trinity: A Brief Systematic Theology_, she begins by articulating two guiding principles: first, “a non-competitive relationship between creatures and God,” and second, “a radical interpretation of divine transcendence” (2).
These might be helpful in this discussion. That God gives us the gift of freedom need not mean that God looses freedom. Maybe the chess analogy is misleading. And maybe the idea of God transferring power isn’t quite right either. Couldn’t God give power without diminishing his own?
May 3, 2005 at 7:46 pm
sorry, it should be Kathryn, not Katherine.
May 3, 2005 at 10:14 pm
That’s certainly a new concept for me. Can God give us power without losing some himself. Power (at least absolute sovereignty) seems to be mutually exclusive–if I have real power over a certain situation then God does not have that power anymore. But I may be missing some aspect of power.
He could give us his authority as his “agents” or “representatives”, thereby giving us the power to carry out things in his name (remember Walterstorff’s Divine Discourse?), but then, I think, he has still effectively given up power in that situation–i.e. we could misrepresent him.
I’m interested in hearing more about the non-competitive relationship between creatures and God. Maybe power can be shared without being diminished?
(And then we’ll have to bring this back to the original question)
May 3, 2005 at 11:24 pm
Kyle, I saw that messageboard and was going to say something, but totally forgot, so I’m glad you did. I’ll just get straight to the point. As some previous posters touched on, this really can be drawn back to the question of God’s sovereignty vs. our free will. I do believe you know where I stand on that issue, but for argument’s sake, I’ll try both sides for a while. We are to assume that God is soveriegn, all knowing, all doing, all creating. That is also to say that he is withdrawn from the barriers of time and space, then there is no need for a plan B. Plan A will work out because that is how God intended it to be. God knows what will happen, when it will happen and what the reaction will be for the past, present and future. If we are to start assuming that God may want to “change his mind”, then we are also to assume that our free will has a lot to do with how things are supposed to happen. If God is observing us and decides that something in his plan, that by the way in theory is just being played out, needs to be tweaked a little, then we could also argue that he would not be all knowing because obviously he didn’t know that he was going to have to change something, or it would have started out that way to begin with…wow…a mouthful…sorry if I ramble. I hope this make sense. What do you think
May 4, 2005 at 7:56 am
More from Kathryn Tanner on the non-competitive relationship between creatures and God:
“Within God’s intra-trinitarian life and in God’s relations with us, God’s gift-giving is non-competitive in that (1) the giver’s remaining giftful does not come at the expense of gifts to another, (2) giving to others does not come at one’s own expense, and (3) being one’s own and having for one’s own do not begin where relations of active reception from another end—indeed, we are our own and have for our own only as we, and what we have, are a beneficent other’s.
Competitive relations are avoided because gift relations here are not in any usual sense exchanges or transfers. The Father need not begrudge the Son or Spirit anything; the triune God need not begrudge the world anything; the Word need not begrudge Jesus anything; Jesus need not begrudge us anything, since in giving to all these others nothing is being given away. What is given remains the possession of the one giving. Nothing is transferred, as if these gifts involved the moving of material goods from one site to another. For example, creation involves no simple transfer because there is nothing to us prior to God’s giving to take the gift in hand; we as a whole are the gift, rather than being the gift’s already existing recipients.
Moreover, we never take possession of what is given as if God’s giving to us became at some point simply the given, the product of a completed transfer, the therefore simply ours. The gift is never separable from the giver: creatures would not remain what they are without a constant relation of dependence upon God, we are covenant partners with God only to the extent God remains present to us, we have gifts in Christ—say, eternal life—not in an of ourselves in the form of some new ‘supernatural’ properties, but only as we remain one with Christ in faith and love by the gracious workings of the Holy Spirit. Our coming to be and to act independently of God is never the ground, then, of becoming, and making things, our own. We are our own and have for our own only as what we are and have are God’s own.”
–Jesus, Humanity, and the Trinity, 90-91.
May 4, 2005 at 5:17 pm
The following two quotes addressed the topic most directly:
The first is merely an assertion based on restating my question–i.e. how can real power be given without being transferred?–as a positive statement–i.e. “it’s just different.”
The second is more interesting in that it starts to touch on what makes the God/creature relationship (or gift-giving) different from our creature/creature gift-giving…but I would still be interested in hearing your explanation of this.
May 4, 2005 at 6:03 pm
What makes the difference, in Tanner’s view, is God’s radical transcendence. She understands the two “guiding principles” mentioned bellow to provide a context for understanding the incarnation, which is, if at all, only tangentially relevant to our discussion about God’s sovereignty and human freedom. But this will provide food for thought, nevertheless:
Tanner writes, “Rather than coming at the expense of divinity, incarnation is the very thing that proves divinity….Because divinity is not a kind, God is not bound by apparent contrasts between divine and creaturely qualities; God is thereby free to enter into intimate community with us, without loss to the divine nature, without sacrificing the difference between God and us.” (JHT, 11).
She then goes on to quote a big chunk from Barth: “’We may believe that God can and must only be absolute in contrast to all that is relative, exalted in contrast to all that is lowly, active in contrast to all suffering, inviolable in contrast to all temptation, transcendent in contrast to all immanence, and therefore divine in contrast to everything human….But such beliefs are shown to be quite untenable, and corrupt and pagan, by the fact that God does in fact be and do this in Jesus Christ….By doing this God…shows Himself to be more great and rich and sovereign than we had imagined…. He is absolute, infinite, exalted, active impassible, transcendent, but…He is all this as the Lord, and in such a way that He embraces the opposites of these concepts even while He is superior to them….His particular…presence…in the man Jesus…is itself the demonstration and exercise of His…perfection…His omnipotence is that of a divine plentitude of power in the fact that (as opposed to any abstract omnipotence) it can assume the form of weakness and impotence and so as omnipotence, triumphing in this form”’ (Barth, CD IV/1, 186-187, quoted in Tanner, JHT, 11-12)
Picking back up with Tanner: “It is the very transcendence of God, then—a transcendence beyond simple contrasts—that enables intimate union with creatures like humans….Because God differs differently, the characteristics that distinguish God from creatures need not be covered over or held in abeyance, God’s characteristics need not be made more like those of our common life, for God to be brought near to us, indeed to become one with us….Immanence and transcendence, closeness and difference, are simply not at odds in God’s relations to us” (12-13)
May 4, 2005 at 11:48 pm
Traditional Christianity says something like: “We can only know God as he is manifested in his Word and works, not as he is in himself. But we accept by faith that his Word and works give a true picture of God.”
Another line of thinking would seem to be saying: “We can only know God as he is manifested in his Word and works, and therefore that is the extent of what God is.”
I think it’s within human nature to attempt to describe God and understand God in the only terms we know how, human terms. Just like a dog is incapable of understanding the concepts of work, or honor or devotional time, there are aspects of the divine that are simply beyond our understanding. I cannot help but wonder if our desire to make God into our friend, our confidant, and our partner in the chess game of life is consistant with the God Isaiah met in the temple, who spoke to Paul on the road to Damascus, who spoke to Moses with a voice of thunder.
Sure Jesus walked among regular people, lived as a person did, and lived the whole human experience. And yet this person of the trinity must still be reconciled with another person of the trinity, God the Father of the Old Testament.
I think what you guys are espousing is that God freely limits himself to “really” and freely interact with his creatures thereby demonstrating his omnipotence in weakness. This seems incoherent to me.
May 5, 2005 at 1:56 am
Arnold, that kind of “weakness” seemed incoherent to Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries as well. Interesting that we’re still scandalized today by power demonstrated in weakness.
But I absolutely agree that we cannot know God in and of himself. We know what he demonstrates and reveals and all of our language is metaphor. (I don’t really think God plays chess.)
May 5, 2005 at 3:14 am
I think we can know God as God truly is, not of any human capicity of our own, but because God graciously reveals himself to us–he gives himself to be the true object of our knowledge. The God who we know in Jesus Christ is not other than who God really is. Otherwise, revelation wouldn’t be revelation.
May 16, 2005 at 11:20 am
I’m not sure about Plan A or Plan B, but I know Plan C involved outsourcing to foreign countries where underage workers would toil for pennies an hour.
Thank the Lord it never came to that.
Kevin sounds more and more like this sweet Barth/Newbigin smoothie every time he speaks. I love it, because I’m with him on that path.
Interesting stuff from all.
Doug
June 25, 2005 at 8:20 am
Hi, I love your pensieri and I hope you are continuously seeking the full awareness of Thought you seem to be searching for.
And can you assist me in managing this following page: it’s becoming too much for me to contain — it’s an Explosion of God! Here:
http://www.kinkagod.blogspot.com
I know now what Moses must have felt on the mountain…
Ciao
K
September 30, 2005 at 11:55 am
Yeah I’m suuuuuuure that God could have done something else to redeem mankind besides having Christ die for our sins on the cross…. -_-
God is Sovereign
Omniscient
Omnipresent
Omnipotent
If he had fall back plans depending on how His creation would react… He wouldn’t be God…
Can man go against God’s will
Sure…
Do all things in the end work out for God’s self-glory
Yes
What may seem like alternate plans in scripture or man’s free will overriding God’s Soverignty is nothing more than our man-centered view that is a distortion of Scripture
Psalm 147:4,5
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.
Acts 15:18
Known to God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Psalm 33:13
The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.
II Kings 13:19
And the man of God was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouldest have smitten five or six times; then hadst thou smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it: whereas now thou shalt smite Syria but thrice.
Jeremiah 38:17-20
Then said Jeremiah unto Zedekiah, Thus saith the Lord, the God of hosts, the God of Israel; If thou wilt assuredly go forth unto the king of Babylon’s princes, then shall this city be given into the hand of the Chaldeans, and they shall burn it with fire, and thou shalt not escape out of their hand. And Zedekiah the king said unto Jeremiah, I am afraid of the Jews that are fallen to the Chaldeans, lest they deliver me into their hand, and they mock me. But Jeremiah said, They shall not deliver thee. Obey, I beseech thee, the voice of the Lord, which I speak unto thee: so it shall be will unto thee, and thy soul shall live
Romans 4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickened the dead, and calleth those things which be not though as they were.
Isaiah 46:10
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.
Matthew 11:21-23
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
I Samuel 23:5-14
So David and his men went to Keilah, and fought with the Philistines, and brought away their cattle, and smote them with a great slaughter. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand. And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars. And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. Then said David, O Lord God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake. Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O Lord God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the Lord said, He will come down. Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord said, They will deliver thee up. Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth. And David abode in the wilderness in strong holds, and remained in a mountain in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God delivered him not into his hand.
Conclusion:
God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. He knows when we do things for the wrong reasons and when we do things for the right reasons. All things we do should be to serve Him and bring glory to Him.
God not only foreknew but He has absolute control. Some may argue this gets rid of free will, however I believe the contrary. Because God is Sovereign, we have free will, but it never overrides God’s will.