Somebody pointedly asked me “Can God have a plan B?” as his coup de
grace ending the discussion that everything happens because God
purposefully makes it happen. His main thrust was that the Fall of Man
was a good thing because aspects of God would never have been seen if
it weren’t for the fall and thus God wouldn’t have been receiving that
due glory. Now that got me thinking.
Mind you, I ended the discussion with a smile and a shrug knowing
that this argument was going to go nowhere and the man is older and
wiser than me, so I had better rethink things once more.
So here I am thinking aloud.
I think we can agree that God is perfect and perfectly
self-sustaining. There is nothing in his character that is flawed or in
variance with perfection. In fact, I think we can agree that God is
independent in His (I refer to the tri-unity here) existence. If he is
perfect I think we can say that his independence is perfect as well.
So if God is perfectly independent why would He need man to
bring Him glory? I mean, sure the mountains sing to his glory and the
rivers clap their hands but it is the only just response by a creation
that acknowledges its master. It would stand to reason that God had
perfect glory before the creation of the Universe and He will have
perfect glory after the Universe is rolled away. He may not be
receiving perfect glory from His creation now, but it doesn’t mean that
He doesn’t have it. For instance, Jesus has perfect authority but he
hasn’t removed the Prince of the Power of the air from his position
just yet.
So if God had perfect glory in His independence would he need
anything to bring about more glory? Why would He need to depend on
creation to give Him due glory at all? Would His glory be tarnished if
it weren’t for creation? And if creation was adding to His glory, was
God then really perfect? If everything is a Plan A before the annals of
time to bring about maximum glory to a member of the trinity does that
mean that that member of the trinity did not have maximum glory before
creation?
So now that leaves me in a bit of a stump. Maybe there’s
something missing in the argument like “Since God is perfectly loving
He must create creatures which can appreciate His glory” but then it
winds up not being about only for the glory of God but also for the
enjoyment or appreciation of that glory.
Now, how can we say that God doesn’t have a plan B? Is it
possible that God could’ve completely wiped out mankind showing his
righteous indignation and therefore the angels would experience His
love that He didn’t do likewise to them? And beyond that, is it
possible that the Godhead would have experientially known perfect Love
and glory within the tri-unity without the need of a Creation?
It all seems to me as putting God in as much as a box as the
Open Theists who say “God can’t know” but then again, I probably took a
wrong turn at Albuquerque.
[Update: Pastor Russ mentions this guy Peter Lynds and this blogger
linked to the archive with a pretty interesting look at Peter Lynds
work to look at what God determines. Keep up the good bloggin’
PhilThreTen!]
-r-