What is the significance of 1 Samuel 15:10?

In light of Saul’s sin the Lord says, “I regret that I made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me.”

Common sense would suggest that one can only regret a decision one makes if the decision results in an outcome other than what was expected or hoped for. If God foreknows all that shall ever occur, however, he can never truly expect or hope for something to occur which doesn’t come to pass. Hence it rules out God experiencing bona fide regret over his own decisions. Could God genuinely confess “I regret that I made Saul king” if he could in the same breathe also proclaim “I was eternally certain of what would happen if I decided to make Saul king”?

Some may object that if God truly regretted a decision he made, he must not be perfectly wise. Two considerations alleviate this objection, however. First, it is better to allow Scripture to inform us regarding the nature of divine wisdom than it is to reinterpret the clear meaning of a passage of Scripture in order to make it square with our preconceptions of what divine wisdom must be like.

Second, once we consider that the future is partly open and humans are genuinely free, the paradox of how God could experience real regret over a decision he made disappears. God made a wise decision because it had the greatest possibility of yielding the best results. But God’s decision isn’t the only variable in this matter: there is also the variable of Saul’s will. Saul freely strayed from God’s plan, but that is not God’s fault. Nor does it make his decision unwise.

The God of the possible always makes the best decision: but because he is dealing with possibilities and not certainties—because he is dealing with free moral agents—he cannot guarantee that things will always go as he would wish. The God of the possible is, to a limited extent at least, a risk-taking God.

Many reject the notion that God takes risks of any sort. To them, it seems to undermine his sovereignty. Two further comments may be made about this, however. First, do we not normally regard someone who refuses to take risks as being insecure? Don’t we normally regard someone who is compelled to meticulously control everything as evidencing weakness, not strength? Of course we do. So why do we reverse all of our ordinary assumptions about this when we think about God, especially since Scripture depicts God as taking risks?

Second, the only way to deny that God takes risks is by maintaining that everything that occurs in world history is exactly what God wanted to occur. Sin, pain, child mutilations, eternal hell—all are exactly according to God’s will. Some Calvinists are willing to accept this, but most of us find the idea deplorable. And this means that we must accept the idea that God is a risk-taking God. His risks are always wise, but they are risks nonetheless, for some things may not turn out as he wishes. While some things about the future are settled according to God’s will, it was also God’s will to create a cosmos populated by free agents. This means that the outcome of some things will to some degree be uncertain.

Category:
Tags: ,
Topics:
Verse:

Related Reading

How do you respond to Proverbs 16:4?

“The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble.” Calvinists often cite this verse to support the conclusion that some people are created wicked for the expressed purpose of being sent to hell. Since Scripture teaches that God is love (1 John 4:8, 16), that God loves all…

What is the significance of Deuteronomy 8:2?

Moses tells the Israelites that the Lord kept them in the desert forty years “in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments.” In the classical view, God would have of course eternally known the character the people would develop in the…

Topics:

Molinism and Open Theism – Part II

In the previous post on this topic I briefly outlined Molinism and then discussed “the grounding objection.” In this post I’ll first discuss another fundamental objection to Molinism and then discuss how it is overcome by the Open View of the Future. In the process it will be clear how the Open View differs from…

Does God Intervene?

The Open View of the future recognizes the vast influence of all the angelic and human wills God created, which, in turn, influences the various outcomes and circumstances in life. Therefore life is arbitrary because of the way the decisions made by an unfathomably vast multitude of free agents intersect with each other. How life…

Topics:

Isn’t Open Theism outside of historic orthodoxy?

The Church has never used one’s view of divine foreknowledge as a test for orthodoxy. And while the open view has always been a very minor perspective, it has had its defenders throughout Church history and it has never been called “heresy” (until in mid 1990s when some started using this label). According to some…

Does God Intervene?

Given the vast influence of angelic and human free will, what influence does God have in determining what comes to pass? While God has an important role to play in anticipating and creatively responding to decisions agents make, is God only a responder? Does he have anything to do with what’s going on in creation?…