Readings today.

I regret that I(God) have made Saul king for he has turned back from following me and has not performed My commandments.

Curious as to what you folks think about the concept of God "regretting".

God certainly changed His mind about Israel after their disobedience. Similarly, He changed His course of action regarding destruction of Nineveh after they repented.

https://www.ligonier.org/blog/does-prayer-change-gods-mind/

anthropomorphism

How in-depth a discussion are you looking for? I'm always ready to break out my favorite medieval theologian Duns Scotus on the subject of God's free Will and man's contingent free will. I could even throw in a dash of open theism. Not sure if you're looking for what would amount to a long essay though.

dermdoc said:

---

Readings today.

I regret that I(God) have made Saul king for he has turned back from following me and has not performed My commandments.

Curious as to what you folks think about the concept of God "regretting".

---

So it is passages like this that support free will...in my opinion of course. Why would God regret the circumstance that He ordained? If He created Saul purposing him to fail then why would He regret it? His plan just followed through as planned.

Bring it on.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

dermdoc said:

---

Bring it on.

---

It might be a day or two. Otherwise occupied this weekend

Frok said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Readings today.

I regret that I(God) have made Saul king for he has turned back from following me and has not performed My commandments.

Curious as to what you folks think about the concept of God "regretting".

---

So it is passages like this that support free will...in my opinion of course. Why would God regret the circumstance that He ordained? If He created Saul purposing him to fail then why would He regret it? His plan just followed through as planned.

---

I agree.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Bring it on.

---

It might be a day or two. Otherwise occupied this weekend

---

Thanks.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

---

God condescends and uses language for our understanding. He doesn't actually regret. It would be a big problem if he could. see v29 in the same chapter.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

---

God condescends and uses language for our understanding. He doesn't actually regret. It would be a big problem if he could. see v29 in the same chapter.

---

So I am confused. The Scripture clearly states God regretted. And verse 29 does not take that away.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

---

God condescends and uses language for our understanding. He doesn't actually regret. It would be a big problem if he could. see v29 in the same chapter.

---

So I am confused. The Scripture clearly states God regretted. And verse 29 does not take that away.

---

"And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."
1 Samuel 15:29

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

---

God condescends and uses language for our understanding. He doesn't actually regret. It would be a big problem if he could. see v29 in the same chapter.

---

So I am confused. The Scripture clearly states God regretted. And verse 29 does not take that away.

---

"And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."
1 Samuel 15:29

---

So that verse takes precedence over 1 Samuel 15:11? Why?

And I am loving this discussion. Thanks.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

---

Maybe we could look at regret as the more "sadness/disappointment" understanding of the word here. If we understand God is a personal God, I would say a personal God would be disappointed with Saul

Ordhound04 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

---

Maybe we could look at regret as the more "sadness/disappointment" understanding of the word here. If we understand God is a personal God, I would say a personal God would be disappointed with Saul

---

Agree. And I believe it is all about a personal relationship.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

---

God condescends and uses language for our understanding. He doesn't actually regret. It would be a big problem if he could. see v29 in the same chapter.

---

So I am confused. The Scripture clearly states God regretted. And verse 29 does not take that away.

---

"And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."
1 Samuel 15:29

---

So that verse takes precedence over 1 Samuel 15:11? Why?

And I am loving this discussion. Thanks.

---

Takes precedence? Do you think Scripture can disagree with itself? Much less in the same chapter? What do you think the author meant?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

---

God condescends and uses language for our understanding. He doesn't actually regret. It would be a big problem if he could. see v29 in the same chapter.

---

So I am confused. The Scripture clearly states God regretted. And verse 29 does not take that away.

---

"And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."
1 Samuel 15:29

---

So that verse takes precedence over 1 Samuel 15:11? Why?

And I am loving this discussion. Thanks.

---

Takes precedence? Do you think Scripture can disagree with itself? Much less in the same chapter? What do you think the author meant?

---

From reading the author I would say he said God regretted.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

anthropomorphism

---

All I did was quote the exact Scripture. So are you saying that the author of the Scripture was erroneously attributing human traits to God? Because I sure was not.

---

The author is just recording history. How could it be erroneous?

---

Agree. So did God have "regret"? And if so, what does that mean?

---

God condescends and uses language for our understanding. He doesn't actually regret. It would be a big problem if he could. see v29 in the same chapter.

---

So I am confused. The Scripture clearly states God regretted. And verse 29 does not take that away.

---

"And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."
1 Samuel 15:29

---

So that verse takes precedence over 1 Samuel 15:11? Why?

And I am loving this discussion. Thanks.

---

Takes precedence? Do you think Scripture can disagree with itself? Much less in the same chapter? What do you think the author meant?

---

From reading the author I would say he said God regretted.

---

What did you mean by "takes precedence"?

Don't say I didn't warn you.

The first thing we need to establish is whether God has free will. There are actually arguments to say that He does not. There are two main of which I am aware.

First, God is always good, and therefore He must always do the good thing. He has no option or freedom to do otherwise. The refutation of this argument is that it elevates goodness to some level independent and superior to God. If that is the case, then God isn't God, goodness is now God and God is just a servant of goodness. If we're talking about the first cause, omni- God, then the relationship is backward. God is good because He is good, not due to some independent criteria for goodness. Whatever God wills is good, and God has the freedom to will as He chooses.

Second the foreknowledge. The same argument of predestination and free will can apply to God as well. The problem is as follows. God knows the future. The future exists because of God's will. So since God can't be wrong in His future knowledge He can't Will other than He will Will. Or less confusingly, He can't do other than He will do. Duns Scotus spent a lot of ink refuting this. The basis of his argument is that God knows the future only because God Wills the future. If He willed otherwise, the future would be otherwise and He would know otherwise. At the time of His act of willing, He is entirely free and His foreknowledge is a consequence of His will and not the other way around. This gives the basic idea that God knows because God wills, and I will come back to this eventually.

So in this situation, God willed Saul to be King. He could have willed otherwise if He wished, so in that context the idea of regret is not absurd.

Next we need to establish human free will. In this context, if Saul is predestined to displease God, then it doesn't make sense to say God regrets anything in regards to Saul. Saul could never have done otherwise, and God would have foreseen His displeasure at the time He elevated Saul. For God to regret, He needs the ability to will differently and there needs to be preferred and non-preferred outcomes not entirely dependent on God. So in this case, God wills Saul to King and Saul displeases God. For regret to make sense, God needed the option to not elevate Saul, and there needs to be a case where God elevated Saul and is not eventually displeased.

Duns Scotus actually talks a fair bit about this as well. First, he argued that humans are coauthors of their own will with God. God always wills good by definition. If a person wills as God wills, then the person does good. If the person does not, then the person sins. So sin is always a deficiency in human Will and not God's will. So God may will that I give to charity, but unless I also will this it won't happen. Now I cannot donate to charity unless God wills it. So I have contingent free will. I cannot do good things without God willing it, but I also cannot do good things without me willing it. Good human acts are always a sum of cooperative will with God, and sin is a mismatch between my will for me and God's will for me.

Now to the problem of God's foreknowledge and man's contingent free will. If God knows the future, then it cannot be different than He knows and I cannot do differently than He knows I will. Duns Scotus resolved this by saying that humans have freedom to make other choices even to the exact point of making a choice. So even though my choice is foreknown, the possibility of my other choice exists even as I make my preknown choice. I split with Duns Scotus here and will finish in the next post

Finally, we get to the sum of the positions. First, God has unrestrained free will, and He has foreknowledge only because He wills the future. Second, God freely chooses to restrain His own will in regards to humans so that our goodness can be cooperative with Him. Third, God foreknows because He wills, and He chooses to restrain His will in regards to humans. Therefore, He freely chooses to restrain His foreknowledge with respect to humans. IE, God does not know the future choices of men. This position in general is known as open theism. It comes with it's own large set of theological arguments, but it is useful in this case.

So applying this to God and Saul: God freely willed Saul to be King. God willed Saul to be a good king, but limited His own will (and foreknowledge) so that Saul's will would be necessary to be a good king. Saul did not will as God willed and therefore sinned and was not a good king. God thereafter regretted making Saul king.

So in this context, God's foreknowledge and will is limited only when God carves out an area for human will. So God can only regret His actions that relate to humans. In all other things God does not limit His will, and he has full foreknowledge. For example, God knows exactly when Betelgeuse will supernova, and He would never regret making Betelgeuse.

Thanks. Interesting stuff to chew on.

By takes precedence, I was just trying to figure out why in the same chapter that it is said that God expressed regret and then later Samuel says that the Glory of Israel could not express regret.

It is hard for me to put those two together as they seem to be contradictory. If someone could explain it to me, I would love it because I am confused.

dermdoc said:

---

By takes precedence, I was just trying to figure out why in the same chapter that it is said that God expressed regret and then later Samuel says that the Glory of Israel could not express regret.

It is hard for me to put those two together as they seem to be contradictory. If someone could explain it to me, I would love it because I am confused.

---

I've said it above. God is speaking in human terms so that we can understand. It's an anthropomorphism. Describing God with human language. To then think he actually regrets would be making him in the image of man. Just like when it says God hates or desires or feels sad. It's only a contradiction if you don't recognize the anthropomorphism, think he actually regrets, and then 18 verses later says he doesn't.

Just a thought - anyway it could be a translation issue? Haven't looked into it, but I'm wondering if the actual word the author wrote down translates another way.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Don't say I didn't warn you.

The first thing we need to establish is whether God has free will. There are actually arguments to say that He does not. There are two main of which I am aware.

First, God is always good, and therefore He must always do the good thing. He has no option or freedom to do otherwise. The refutation of this argument is that it elevates goodness to some level independent and superior to God. If that is the case, then God isn't God, goodness is now God and God is just a servant of goodness. If we're talking about the first cause, omni- God, then the relationship is backward. God is good because He is good, not due to some independent criteria for goodness. Whatever God wills is good, and God has the freedom to will as He chooses.

Second the foreknowledge. The same argument of predestination and free will can apply to God as well. The problem is as follows. God knows the future. The future exists because of God's will. So since God can't be wrong in His future knowledge He can't Will other than He will Will. Or less confusingly, He can't do other than He will do. Duns Scotus spent a lot of ink refuting this. The basis of his argument is that God knows the future only because God Wills the future. If He willed otherwise, the future would be otherwise and He would know otherwise. At the time of His act of willing, He is entirely free and His foreknowledge is a consequence of His will and not the other way around. This gives the basic idea that God knows because God wills, and I will come back to this eventually.

So in this situation, God willed Saul to be King. He could have willed otherwise if He wished, so in that context the idea of regret is not absurd.

---

But you missed the most critical argument to God not being able to change his mind. It isn't free will, it's that God cannot, if truly omniscient gain new information or apply new reasoning since he already knows everything. It's a logical contradiction for an omniscient God to say I changed my mind.

This isn't to say the authors of scripture didn't mean it, but rather the complete omniscience we see attributed to God is a more modern understanding.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Finally, we get to the sum of the positions. First, God has unrestrained free will, and He has foreknowledge only because He wills the future. Second, God freely chooses to restrain His own will in regards to humans so that our goodness can be cooperative with Him. Third, God foreknows because He wills, and He chooses to restrain His will in regards to humans. Therefore, He freely chooses to restrain His foreknowledge with respect to humans. IE, God does not know the future choices of men. This position in general is known as open theism. It comes with it's own large set of theological arguments, but it is useful in this case.

So applying this to God and Saul: God freely willed Saul to be King. God willed Saul to be a good king, but limited His own will (and foreknowledge) so that Saul's will would be necessary to be a good king. Saul did not will as God willed and therefore sinned and was not a good king. God thereafter regretted making Saul king.

So in this context, God's foreknowledge and will is limited only when God carves out an area for human will. So God can only regret His actions that relate to humans. In all other things God does not limit His will, and he has full foreknowledge. For example, God knows exactly when Betelgeuse will supernova, and He would never regret making Betelgeuse.

---

In what work did Scotus write this? I'm actually very interested to look it up.

Just to be clear, Duns Scotus was not an open theist. To me though, that's the natural next step of his arguments and conclusions.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/453694

Here is a treatise by William Lane Craig explaining Duns Scotus argument regarding divine free will and divine foreknowledge.

https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/56601/MPAT_2__1159540664_142_164_pdf.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Here is another that discussed the cooperative nature of human and divine will when human goodness is involved.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/#WilFreMor

Here is a general overview of Duns Scotus' work. It's a bit light on the determinism/free will issue though. It does a good short overview of voluntarism though.

Sorry for no original references, but philosophy makes a lot more sense to me filtered through commentary

Edit: for quick hits, the podcast "The History of Philosophy without any Gaps" is amazing. He's gone through ancient Greek and Roman, medieval Scholastic, medieval Islamic, and medieval Byzantine philosophy so far. He's working on the Renaissance now. Also has a full podcast on Indian philosophy up to about 1100 AD and is nearly done will a full history of African and Black philosophy. I'll probably start quoting a lot more Renaissance and modern philosophers when I make it that far in

Aggrad08 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Don't say I didn't warn you.

The first thing we need to establish is whether God has free will. There are actually arguments to say that He does not. There are two main of which I am aware.

First, God is always good, and therefore He must always do the good thing. He has no option or freedom to do otherwise. The refutation of this argument is that it elevates goodness to some level independent and superior to God. If that is the case, then God isn't God, goodness is now God and God is just a servant of goodness. If we're talking about the first cause, omni- God, then the relationship is backward. God is good because He is good, not due to some independent criteria for goodness. Whatever God wills is good, and God has the freedom to will as He chooses.

Second the foreknowledge. The same argument of predestination and free will can apply to God as well. The problem is as follows. God knows the future. The future exists because of God's will. So since God can't be wrong in His future knowledge He can't Will other than He will Will. Or less confusingly, He can't do other than He will do. Duns Scotus spent a lot of ink refuting this. The basis of his argument is that God knows the future only because God Wills the future. If He willed otherwise, the future would be otherwise and He would know otherwise. At the time of His act of willing, He is entirely free and His foreknowledge is a consequence of His will and not the other way around. This gives the basic idea that God knows because God wills, and I will come back to this eventually.

So in this situation, God willed Saul to be King. He could have willed otherwise if He wished, so in that context the idea of regret is not absurd.

---

But you missed the most critical argument to God not being able to change his mind. It isn't free will, it's that God cannot, if truly omniscient gain new information or apply new reasoning since he already knows everything. It's a logical contradiction for an omniscient God to say I changed my mind.

This isn't to say the authors of scripture didn't mean it, but rather the complete omniscience we see attributed to God is a more modern understanding.

---

I probably explained it poorly. For Duns Scotus, there is a desire for goodness and a desire for justice. God choosing justice over goodness or vice versa is not in contradiction to His nature. So God can freely choose between them. To me that terminology is confusing, though. I'd say justice and mercy. Both are good and both is God's character so God could do either.

Though, I obviously agree with you on the omniscient part. I would argue that open theism allows for a different flavor of omniscience, but that's an entirely tangential argument