Some people find it hard to accept that the God of theism would act in history (deism). It is said that if God were all powerful and omniscient, then he wouldn’t need to act in history. He would have gotten it right the first time.
I think that assumes that by acting in history, God is in some way responding to human action as if it weren’t anticipated. But action doesn’t need to be a response. It could be that God is simply continuing his plan, and that plan rationally requires divine intervention – like a piece of wood that requires time between sealing and sanding
Some of the language of the bible sounds like God is responding rather than continuing his plan. God is responding to wickedness in Noah’s Ark, why would he have to try again? Abraham Bargained with God over Sodom and Gomorrah, how could God be bargained away from his perfect will?. Moses pleaded with God that he would not destroy his chosen people over worshipping the golden Calf while Moses was away, and God repented. How could a perfect God repent?
Bible fundamentalists will reinterpret these events in order to harmonize them with what they already believe about God. They will say that when God repents what that really means is… whatever. So they interpret away the simple clear meaning of words and passages. They have to. The bible is their epistemological foundation.
Either that or they can appeal to the mystery of God’s ways – a classic excuse to not seek.
There is another way of way of understanding these scriptures as continuing rather than responding. That is, the author just misunderstood what was going on. This doesn’t seem compatible with biblical inerrancy since inerrancy demands that both the facts and the interpretation of the facts be inerrant. But it makes sense to simply reject interpretations, even if they’re in the bible, that don’t make any sense.
