Regret?

[C4MERON]

Morning brethren, I have a question that I seem to be unable to find an answer to within previous threads (thats not, of course, to say that there isn’t).
In 1 Samuel 15:11 it is written “I regret that I have made Saul King for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments”. Then in verse 29 it is written “and also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret”.

It seems the same Hebrew word for ‘regret’ is used in both instances?

If someone could offer to aid my understanding of the reconciliation of these verses I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[JvMill]

Disclaimer: Not a Hebrew scholar here, nor even a Hebrew student, but just making general observations about language.

The semantic range of the word can help us out - one word has a range of meanings and just because it’s used twice in the same pericope doesn’t mean it’s used in the exact same way both times.

The CSB may help out here, as it translates the second instance as ‘change his mind.’ Of course, this is the basic meaning of repentance, and the word used here, but the CSB helps the English reader see the nuance in meaning. The KJV uses ‘repent’ for both, but the former is passive (‘it repenteth me’) and the latter is active (‘the lord of glory does not lie or repent’). Honestly, seems the ESV has the wrong was of it here using regret twice.

From a theological perspective, the former is an anthropomorphic statement, wherein scripture uses human categories to describe God (repent or regret. A passive thing, which is impossible for God). The second is a statement of God’s decree and faithfulness - once he says something, that’s it. So the word does not have the same function even though it is in the same general context.

Hope that helps.

 

[chuckd]

Morning brethren, I have a question that I seem to be unable to find an answer to within previous threads (thats not, of course, to say that there isn’t).
In 1 Samuel 15:11 it is written “I regret that I have made Saul King for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments”. Then in verse 29 it is written “and also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret”.

It seems the same Hebrew word for ‘regret’ is used in both instances?

If someone could offer to aid my understanding of the reconciliation of these verses I would greatly appreciate it.

Regret is an emotion brought on due to some external circumstance. Any thread on God's impassibility would help understand that God does not have regret as v29 says. He doesn't have emotions like we do as if creatures or external circumstances could affect him.

v10 helps understand why it was said. The word of the Lord came to Samuel: "I regret that I have made Saul King."

It wasn't a theological statement on God's actual regret, but anthropomorphic language to communicate to Samuel God's "feelings" on the matter and the seriousness of the offense. It's like saying God holds the world in his hands to communicate his love, care, and sovereignty over all things. He doesn't have actual hands.

 

[DNM300]

“With man, repentance is the changing of his will. With God, repentance is the willing of a change.” - John Trapp.

 

[C4MERON]

Interesting thoughts, thank you for these explanations brothers.

 

[DavePost]

Morning brethren, I have a question that I seem to be unable to find an answer to within previous threads (thats not, of course, to say that there isn’t).
In 1 Samuel 15:11 it is written “I regret that I have made Saul King for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments”. Then in verse 29 it is written “and also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret”.

It seems the same Hebrew word for ‘regret’ is used in both instances?

If someone could offer to aid my understanding of the reconciliation of these verses I would greatly appreciate it.

All doctrine false or true we test by remembering God's revealed nature and holy perfections. His grace towards those he has chosen is unchanging to his mind and heart and power. His decrees as to his rule upon earth can and do appear to change but only to us. Not to His divine majesty. All his will comes to pass.

One thing true that we all (with a new heart) sin from our old man and with the deterioration of our minds can seriously loose regulation of ourselves. All kinds of miseries afflict every one of us. We are able to fall apart. Yet God saves wicked believers. That’s us no matter how hard we “pinch” to proceed along in sanctification, knowledge and grace. If a common believer who loves Christ is tested by God according to his law, we flunk. If God looks at us through his private arrangement of eternal love, it’s through the atoning work of his beloved son. That’s the only gospel that exists.

If God’s book reveals that Saul was given a new heart (seat of values in the person) Saul had the love of Christ. Final argument. The heart is not changeable emotions which are mostly liars. A new heart is an implant from above. It is always a gift of God’s eternal justification. Our justification is kept secret to others, only revealed to ourselves as we aim towards Christ and believe and love Him. But in this case God revealed it to all of us about crabby, envious, narcissistic, murderous ol’ fallen in Adam Saul and his old man nature.

Check it out. If God’s book reveals truly changes based on a believer’s piety or lack thereof, we’re all damned.

God has always save by grace and still does today. He has always ruled all by law and still does today.

 

[C4MERON]

All doctrine false or true we test by remembering God's revealed nature and holy perfections. His grace towards those he has chosen is unchanging to his mind and heart and power. His decrees as to his rule upon earth can and do appear to change but only to us. Not to His divine majesty. All his will comes to pass.

One thing true that we all (with a new heart) sin from our old man and with the deterioration of our minds can seriously loose regulation of ourselves. All kinds of miseries afflict every one of us. We are able to fall apart. Yet God saves wicked believers. That’s us no matter how hard we “pinch” to proceed along in sanctification, knowledge and grace. If a common believer who loves Christ is tested by God according to his law, we flunk. If God looks at us through his private arrangement of eternal love, it’s through the atoning work of his beloved son. That’s the only gospel that exists.

If God’s book reveals that Saul was given a new heart (seat of values in the person) Saul had the love of Christ. Final argument. The heart is not changeable emotions which are mostly liars. A new heart is an implant from above. It is always a gift of God’s eternal justification. Our justification is kept secret to others, only revealed to ourselves as we aim towards Christ and believe and love Him. But in this case God revealed it to all of us about crabby, envious, narcissistic, murderous ol’ fallen in Adam Saul and his old man nature.

Check it out. If God’s book reveals truly changes based on a believer’s piety or lack thereof, we’re all damned.

God has always save by grace and still does today. He has always ruled all by law and still does today.

Apologies friend, Ive read your response a few times and not really making the connection/understanding..

 

[DavePost]

Apologies friend, Ive read your response a few times and not really making the connection/understanding..

That’s ok. The Puritans were often justification by faith plus piety. So many of us not of the further reformation are sensitive to that. I hear many view Saul as lost in God’s determination because he had issues. I just took the opportunity to repeat the fact that God justifies us without us from his eternal throne.

 

[Theoretical]

The Puritans were often justification by faith plus piety.

That's far, far too broad of a brush. Baxter, sure to a degree, but many others, especially of the English side were far sounder on these matters.

 

[paranymph]

That's far, far too broad of a brush. Baxter, sure to a degree, but many others, especially of the English side were far sounder on these matters.

Yeah, exactly. See chapter 18 of WCF/2LCF on Assurance.

 

[EmilyF]

I read somewhere recently that it was like a sigh (experts feel free to correct). So it's an anthropomorphism that indicates God's displeasure that man has deteriorated since creation.
[automerge]1783456144[/automerge]

That’s ok. The Puritans were often justification by faith plus piety. So many of us not of the further reformation are sensitive to that. I hear many view Saul as lost in God’s determination because he had issues. I just took the opportunity to repeat the fact that God justifies us without us from his eternal throne.

Piety as in believers should be pious to be most pleasing to God. True believers will naturally produce good works, but of course some more than others. We should hate to show a lack of love towards God and pursue holiness. Without holiness we will not see God.

The only time I've seen MOST Puritans read otherwise is out of context. Many of their works were to encourage believers; and seeing you fall short of it, come to the throne of grace.

That's far, far too broad of a brush. Baxter, sure to a degree, but many others, especially of the English side were far sounder on these matters.

Wasn't Baxter neonomian? Wouldn't that blur the line even more than Dave is saying other Puritans do?

 

[DavePost]

That's far, far too broad of a brush. Baxter, sure to a degree, but many others, especially of the English side were far sounder on these matters.

You would have to ask the Lord for the numbers to state that. I see a bald assertion. Let us leave it to justification occurring in eternity and brought to the conscience in time by a new heart that loves Christ and looks to his promises. Humans desperate to size up another’s election are not equipped by God to see another’s election.

Yes, other groups are notably faith plus piety = salvation. But no group is monolithic. Even Roman Catholicism has people, priests who will deny (once biblically educated and taught by the Spirit) that salvation is worked by the Trinity alone). But but but, read all the Puritan writers and you will find that many even dare even to publish it in their writings. Jonathan Edward’s even took a little girl to size up if she were saved in God’s eyes. Her mother wanted the assurance. Go to the minister to see if your baby is saved or not yet saved in God’s secret knowledge? For shame.

Many Puritan ministers fled to the Netherlands and became pastors there. The effect was division between the Calvin Reformation churches and the Further Reformation folks, still numerous there. “You gotta be pious for God to love you someday.” Piety was taught to gain assurance of pardon. More prayer, more Bible reading, more prayers. Then someday through experience “experiential teaching” . you can be removed from an external covenant of God to his “internal” covenant. Experience gets everyone into Christ. This we deny.

I’m not the best writer or apologist, so please forgive my lack of whatever. At the same time as the Canons of Dordt state: “He saves us without us”. Faith from above is not a door of entrance into Christ. It is a mere tool that God gives to seal to our conscience that we are his unchangeably his.

 

[paranymph]

You would have to ask the Lord for the numbers to state that. I see a bald assertion. Let us leave it to justification occurring in eternity and brought to the conscience in time by a new heart that loves Christ and looks to his promises. Humans desperate to size up another’s election are not equipped by God to see another’s election.

Yes, other groups are notably faith plus piety = salvation. But no group is monolithic. Even Roman Catholicism has people, priests who will deny (once biblically educated and taught by the Spirit) that salvation is worked by the Trinity alone). But but but, read all the Puritan writers and you will find that many even dare even to publish it in their writings. Jonathan Edward’s even took a little girl to size up if she were saved in God’s eyes. Her mother wanted the assurance. Go to the minister to see if your baby is saved or not yet saved in God’s secret knowledge? For shame.

Many Puritan ministers fled to the Netherlands and became pastors there. The effect was division between the Calvin Reformation churches and the Further Reformation folks, still numerous there. “You gotta be pious for God to love you someday.” Piety was taught to gain assurance of pardon. More prayer, more Bible reading, more prayers. Then someday through experience “experiential teaching” . you can be removed from an external covenant of God to his “internal” covenant. Experience gets everyone into Christ. This we deny.

I’m not the best writer or apologist, so please forgive my lack of whatever. At the same time as the Canons of Dordt state: “He saves us without us”. Faith from above is not a door of entrance into Christ. It is a mere tool that God gives to seal to our conscience that we are his unchangeably his.

I'm finding it hard to follow what you're saying. Are you arguing for eternal justification? Jesus does tell us that we will know people by their fruits, and it is the work of the pastor to guard the flock from wolves. While these ideas can lead to morbid introspection, the Puritans that I read continually encourage the people to look to God's love in Christ.

 

[DavePost]

No. We dummies cannot be a judge of fruits unto election. For decent teachers on the earth as the passage says. For friendship matches yes. This is not heavens judgment that fallen minds are give holy judgment.

I think you would do well to read the creeds with prayer and Gods mercy to change your mind. You need to stop your corrupt judgment of fruits. The damned can mimic holiness of life, even better than the elect.

 

[paranymph]

No. We dummies cannot be a judge of fruits unto election. For decent teachers on the earth as the passage says. For friendship matches yes. This is not heavens judgment that fallen minds are give holy judgment.

I think you would do well to read the creeds with prayer and Gods mercy to change your mind. You need to stop your corrupt judgment of fruits. The damned can mimic holiness of life, even better than the elect.

I don't claim the ability to determine with absolute certainty whether someone is elect.

And I'm not sure why you're making this personal.

 

[DavePost]

I don't claim the ability to determine with absolute certainty whether someone is elect.

And I'm not sure why you're making this personal.

We can not be theoretical when it is Christ lining in us and with us. Theory is not Bible. Only truth. I’m recommending to you personally to “dump” your judgment of others. It’s a good idea also that I apply to myself personally. You recommend to me that Christ wishes us all to size up the piety of others. I deny that. We are not allowed to conveniently use our flawed mind (as you say) to judge how good the works are of others. Don’t you and I have enough to work on our own sanctification? Bible says “judge righteous judgment “. Try reading the Canons -a personal recommendation our Savior would say “yes” to.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart •produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. (Luke 6:43–45, ESV)

There is a genuine observation of a person's fruit that we can see and observe, and yes, even judge. Though it is not a judgment as to their election, only a judgment of the fruit that they are producing at the moment. This is why the Corinthian church expelled the sexually immoral man, why Paul handed men over to Satan and why he also judged that Demas had abandoned him in favor of the world.

I don't think anyone here is saying that we can see into the secret decrees of election.

 

[John Nyberg]

@DavePost

Hey Dave. It takes quite a bit of grace and understanding on all sides to have great conversations on the board. I see you are new and haven’t really posted much. That can make it hard for everyone to know where you are coming from. We have not had time to learn about your personality, theological positions, etc. Also, it looks like you need to create a signature. Anyway, welcome to the board!

 

[EvanF]

I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that Dave may come from a Dutch background, and may have a unique perspective on the legacy of experimental religion and the nadere reformatie in the Dutch churches. From his point of view, perhaps it seems like the progeny of the Puritans, like Jonathan Edwards, put too much emphasis on experienced conversion, including piety, as the basis of assurance and their influence lead to the situation in some Dutch churches where assurance is totally absent and believers are left wondering if they are like Saul, who at first did well, but later was cursed for his presumption and was cut-off even from hearing the council of God.

 

[py3ak]

That’s ok. The Puritans were often justification by faith plus piety. So many of us not of the further reformation are sensitive to that. I hear many view Saul as lost in God’s determination because he had issues. I just took the opportunity to repeat the fact that God justifies us without us from his eternal throne.

May I ask, if that's your view of the Puritans, why you joined the Puritan Board?

 

[darrellmaurina]

May I ask, if that's your view of the Puritans, why you joined the Puritan Board?

Fair question. @DavePost : I see from your signature that you are in Hudsonville, Michigan. You wouldn't know it from my Missouri residence, but I'm a Grand Rapids native, a Calvin graduate, and have known Dr. Beeke for decades, so I think people who know me well on the Puritan Board know that I know the Dutch Reformed about as well as an Italian possibly can.

Are you perhaps an immigrant with English not being your first language? Some of your posts have "Dutchisms" that I often saw among people of an older generation who were first-generation immigrants following World War II, which might explain a lot.

For Ruben -- I'm not necessarily defending Dave Post, but I do sometimes run into people from the Dutch "Nadere Reformatie" tradition who say they have seen the excesses and extremes of Dutch Pietism and defend English Puritanism but not the Dutch version. Or they say that the English of the 1600s had some problems of hyper-introspection that were corrected by the later Old School Presbyterians, but the small seed of a problem in the English Puritans of the 1600s turned, among the Dutch Reformed, into more serious issues at a later date, particularly in the late 1700s and early-to-mid 1800s, with what became the Gereformeerde Gemeenten and Oud Gereformeerden in the Netherlands.

The confessional traditions are **NOT** the same here and there is more allowance for things among the Dutch, including problematic things, than there is with the tradition of the Westminster Standards and its derivative documents, the 1658 Savoy Declaration for the Congregationalists and the Second London Baptist Confession.

Hyper-introspection really IS a problem among some of the Dutch, who to be fair to them, by the late 1800s and early 1900s, were no longer Ledeboerians, etc., but rather reacting against Kuyper's presumptive regeneration.

We may be dealing with a Dutchman who sees the Dutch problem and thinks the WCF tradition is better.

My views on this are well known. I love Kuyper's Reformed understanding of how to apply faith to political and cultural engagement. I believe he went horribly wrong in his presumptive regeneration, but I recognize he was reacting against types of Puritanism that we in the American context would not recognize, and would criticize as Pietism, not really Puritanism at all.

Accusations of "morbid introspection" are almost always off-the-mark when applied to English Puritans and New England Puritans. They are not always wrong when applied to some of the extremes in the Dutch wing of that movement.