From Norman Geisler’s Creating God in the Image of Man (p 87):
Proponents of the new theism assert that “God repents in a variety of circumstances.”… However this allegation overlooks several important things. For one thing Genesis 6:6 does not use the same Hebrew word for “repent” as does 1 Samuel 15:29. Samuel uses shaqar, which means that God will not cheat, lie, deceive, break a convent, act falsely, or be untrue. But the Hebrew word nacham used in Genesis 6:6 is translated “sorry”.
Calvinism is based on lies. It is no wonder Geisler would publish a boldface lie in his text against Open Theism. The word nacham is used for repent in 1 Sa 15:29. Maybe Geisler was not counting on free Bible software accessible to everyone, instantly, when he first penned the lie. Here is the verse:
1Sa 15:29 And also the Strength of Israel will not lie (shaqar) nor repent (nacham): for he is not a man, that he should repent (nacham).
Of course Calvinists have a hard time with this verse. They want to claim it is a universal truth: that God never repents ever. But the Open Theists point out that Calvinists take this verse woefully out of context. Not only is the same word used in Genesis 6:6 (“ And it repented (nacham) the LORD that he had made man on the earth”), but 1 Sam 15:29 is literally sandwiched between two verses saying God repents:
1Sa 15:11 It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.
And,
1Sa 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
So why would God (through Samuel) say he is not a man that he would repent and then place this literally between verses saying he repents? The answer is that this is about God’s relationship with Saul. After God is betrayed by Saul, he decides he is through with Saul. He repents of making Saul king. He casts Saul out of his favor and says he is not a man that he would take Saul back. It is human to be persuaded to allow abuseful and disappointing individuals back into favor. An abused wife might invite her abusive husband back home. God is rejecting this. He confirms he is through with Saul. He repents of making Saul king. And then doubles down saying he will not repent of taking away Saul’s kingship.
These verses show God’s personal interaction, his hurt, and his nature. It is no wonder the Calvinist lie about these verses.
reality is not optional 
· David twice forgoes opportunities to kill Saul – cutting a part of his robe on one occasion and stealing his spear and jug from his tent on another. Both times, Saul repents and is humbled by David’s show of forbearance.
Pingback: God begrudgingly appoints a king | reality is not optional
Pingback: Calvinist Dogma Trumps the Bible | God is Open
From a debate I had a while back: I made this general comment.
“When interpreting a passage, if it is comprehensible in its proper local context, then that comprehension is the meaning of the passage. No other considerations need to be applied and if that comprehension is in conflict with some other passage or some other principle, then that conflict should remain rather than reinterpret the passage to mean something other than what it clearly means in that proper local context.”
My interlocutor, discussing 1 Samuel 15 specifically, wrote:
“1Sa 15:35 And Samuel never again saw Saul until the day of his death, for Samuel mourned for Saul.
And Jehovah repented that He had made Saul king over Israel.
Interpretation: God changes His mind.
1 Samuel 15:29 the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He
should change His mind.”
Normative Interpretation: “relent” here cannot mean changes His mind, because we are told just 7 verses earlier, God doesn’t and nowhere do we find the words “God changed His mind.” ”
I responded:
“You’ve got a huge problem of inconsistency here. The fact is that in both these verses the same Hebrew word is used – nicham – which earlier you made a big point of in saying that it has a wide variety of meanings in Hebrew (and that therefore the idea of it meaning ‘God changes his mind’ is unsupported).
It would surely be an example of special pleading of the first magnitude for you to argue that verse 35 cannot mean that God changes his mind because it states (as you suggest) only in verse 29 that God does not change his mind. If your argument were valid, then you would be arguing that nicham in verse 29 means to change one’s mind and thus you are arguing against yourself.”
The full debate was here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81570
“When interpreting a passage, if it is comprehensible in its proper local context, then that comprehension is the meaning of the passage. No other considerations need to be applied and if that comprehension is in conflict with some other passage or some other principle, then that conflict should remain rather than reinterpret the passage to mean something other than what it clearly means in that proper local context.”
That is an excellent observation. The Calvinist never sees the irony of their own position on the mater.
Pingback: repent is a figure of speech | reality is not optional