We surely aren't to compare God's repentance with ours, because the two are completely different.

"'God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the Son of man, that he should repent; hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?' ... In this prophecy Balaam sets forth the unchangeable character of God. Men are fickle, unreliable; especially is this the case when their minds are not under the direction of the Holy Spirit. When men are controlled by the prince of darkness, no dependence can be placed upon their promises or engagements. But God being infinite in wisdom and goodness, his purposes and decrees are immutable. It is stated in the Scriptures that God repented that he had done so much for man, when only ingratitude and disobedience were the return for all his mercies. Here the Lord speaks after the manner of men, that finite man may understand him." {ST, December 9, 1880}

"God's repentance is not like man's repentance. 'The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.' Man's repentance implies a change of mind. God's repentance implies a change of circumstances and relations. Man may change his relation to God by complying with the conditions upon which he may be brought into the divine favor, or he may, by his own action, place himself outside the favoring condition; but the Lord is the same 'yesterday, and to day, and for ever' (Heb. 13:8). Saul's disobedience changed his relation to God; but the conditions of acceptance with God were unaltered--God's requirements were still the same, for with Him there 'is no variableness, neither shadow of turning' (James 1:17)." {CC 157.3}

"Christ can look upon the misery of the world without a shade of sorrow for having created man." {MB vii.5}

So when the bible twise records God as repenting of making Saul king of Israel, what did God/the author mean by that? What are we to understand from that declaration attributed to God?

That, since Saul had become disobedient, God could no longer approve him as king of His people.

They are different because God is perfect, and we aren't. When we repent, it is because we have done something wrong, and are sorry about that, and want to do differently. But God is perfect, and everything He does is wise and good. So these are indeed very different.

So when God says He is sorry He created man, or for choosing Saul as king, there is no implication that God did anything wrong.

MM: Well, I was kind of hoping you would respond to the idea I presented. Do you agree the ways start on the other side of the gates and go on from there? Or, do you the ways end at the gates? The distinction might effect what we believe about the ways, whether there are two ways or many ways. Do you see what I mean?

MM: Good questions, Tom. Thank you. Here is the rest of what posted (after the ellipse above):


This explains why I prefer to believe knows precisely how the future will play out, that He makes certain decisions in spite of knowing how they will play out, that He isn't surprised when they turn out the way they do. However, it does not explain why God used words that indicate He was disappointed at how things turned out.

First of all, the fact God said He regrets how things turned out does not mean He had absolutely no idea it would turn out the way it did. Even from your perspective, God knew it might turn out that way, thus, He wasn't totally surprised. Knowing ahead of time that it could go wrong means God had time to think about it, time to wrestle with strong feelings, etc.

But, in spite of these strong feelings, God chose to go through with it, with whatever decision He was dealing with at the time. Afterwards, when things did go wrong, His feelings would have intensified, would have gotten stronger. It is these feelings, in this context, that God shared with His people. His feelings mean to Him what they mean to us. He felt sad and sorrowful.

However, given the context, the fact God knew things could go wrong, it is clear to me that His words do not mean He did not know things would turn out the way they did. Thus, I cannot cite these kinds of passages, the ones where God says, "It repenteth me", and conclude it means He did not know ahead of that things would go wrong.

Do you see what I mean?

MM: Tom, in light of what you posted above, do you still think God would have decided against creating FMAs if He had known ahead of time that they would rebel?

Also, in light of the following insight - "Man's repentance implies a change of mind. God's repentance implies a change of circumstances and relations." - do you still believe the phrase, "It repenteth me", means God regretted creating mankind, or that He regretted a particular decision He made?

MM: Tom, in light of what you posted above, do you still think God would have decided against creating FMAs if He had known ahead of time that they would rebel?

I've said a number of times I don't believe God would create beings He knew was certain to sin.

Also, in light of the following insight - "Man's repentance implies a change of mind. God's repentance implies a change of circumstances and relations." - do you still believe the phrase, "It repenteth me", means God regretted creating mankind, or that He regretted a particular decision He made?

Yes. When a man repents, it is because He made some mistake, and is acknowledging the mistake. God made no mistake. He is perfect. He would have made the same decision in the same circumstances. It seems to me this is what EGW's point is. God had no change of mind regarding His decision.

You're using a different basis than I use, and not a good one, I don't think, to determine that God's word is trustworthy. You are basing it, it appears to me, on the basis of His being able to see the future in a certain way, and are saying you couldn't trust Him if He didn't see the future that way. I based it on His character, and His track record revealed in Scripture, revealed in Christ, on being trustworthy.

The problem with the attitude you have is that you couldn't possibly admit you were wrong, because to do so would make God untrustworthy. That's a terrible position to put yourself in! God would still be trustworthy, even if He didn't see the future the way you think He does.

Our positions should be grounded on what they tell us about God's character, and nothing else. This idea just popped into my head, so I haven't thought about it a lot, but my initial impression is that it is correct. That is, if we took the position that all that matters is that we learn the truth about God's character, I think that would lead us to correct positions.



No one has claimed God had "absolutely no idea" it would turn out the way it did.



From my perspective, yes. But not for yours. From yours, God is above time, or not in time, or timeless, or beyond time (I'm not sure how you would want to express this, but you get the idea) so God's feelings would always be the same. They couldn't change, because changing feelings would mean that God is in time.



But no more sad and sorrowful than at any other time. You're not being consistent with your perspective here.



I'm not following this. The fact that God knew things could go wrong does not mean He did not know things would turn out the way they did? This doesn't make any sense. Why would the fact that God knew things could go wrong imply He wouldn't know they wouldn't turn out the way they did?



No, I'm not following this last part. It seems like you're arguing in a circle. It sounds like you're saying, "God knows exactly what will happen. Therefore passages that say that He doesn't can't mean what they say," which is circular, and the point I made before we even started considering the Biblical passages.

It's not possible for you to accept any Biblical passage (on this subject) that says something different than what you believe as meaning what it says. It must mean something different, because if it didn't mean something different, your presupposition would be wrong (in regards to how God sees the future).

I want to make clear what is circular here. I also have a strong conviction that God would not create a being that He knew would sin. But I don't start any argument with this as a presupposition. Therefore there's no circular reasoning. If I started an argument with, "God does not create beings He knows would sin. Therefore this passage cannot mean such and so" that would be circular.

Hmm, thats what I would have said. Makes perfect sence if God changes His plan after circumstances change. But if God knew from before it happened that Saul would defect, why didn't God choose someone like David right away? Or if God stood outside of time and looked at the whole thing at once, if He'd always know that Saul would loose his way after becoming king, why did God make Saul king?