explain why God was sorry he made man?

[truthbringer]

the foreknowledge of God knew that man would sin in the Garden or Eden..wonder why he later repented that he has made man...when he

new before had he would become a sinner..just a thought if anyone has any things that might shed some light on this?

God didn't know before, Otherwise why would He repent.

the two are not exclusive. I can know my son is going to lie to me and when he does it still be sad that he did so.

Keep to the truth, not your own opinion.

[truthbringer]

the foreknowledge of God knew that man would sin in the Garden or Eden..wonder why he later repented that he has made man...when he

new before had he would become a sinner..just a thought if anyone has any things that might shed some light on this?

He was heart broken. Gen 6:5-6

yes he was. this does not preclude knowldge the event was going to take place

Stick to the truth, not your own opinion.

[Guest man]

explain why God was sorry he made man?

[Guest eagle12]

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. KJV.

Here is, I. God's resentment of man's wickedness. He did not see it as an unconcerned spectator, but as one injured and affronted by it; he saw it as a tender father sees the folly and stubbornness of a rebellious and disobedient child, which not only angers him, but grieves him, and makes him wish he had been written childless. The expressions here used are very strange: It repented the Lord that he had made man upon the earth, that he had made a creature of such noble powers and faculties, and had put him on this earth, which he built and furnished on purpose to be a convenient, comfortable, habitation for him; and it grieved him at his heart. These are expressions after the manner of men, and must be understood so as not to reflect upon the honour of God's immutability or felicity. 1. This language does not imply any passion or uneasiness in God (nothing can create disturbance to the Eternal Mind), but it expresses his just and holy displeasure against sin and sinners, against sin as odious to his holiness and against sinners as obnoxious to his justice. He is pressed by the sins of his creatures (Amos ii. 13), wearied (Isa. xliii. 24), broken (Ezek. vi. 9), grieved (Ps. cxv. 10), and here grieved to the heart, as men are when they are wronged and abused by those they have been very kind to, and therefore repent of their kindness, and wish they had never fostered that snake in their bosom which now hisses in their face and stings them to the heart. Does God thus hate sin? And shall we not hate it? Has our sin grieved him to the heart? And shall we not be grieved and pricked to the heart for it? O that this consideration may humble us and shame us, and that we may look on him whom we have thus grieved, and mourn! Zech. xii. 10. 2. It does not imply any change of God's mind; for he is in one mind, and who can turn him? With him there is not variableness. But it expressed a change of his way. When God had made man upright, he rested and was refreshed (Exod. xxxi. 17), and his way towards him was such as showed he was pleased with the work of his own hands; but, now that man had apostatized, he could not do otherwise than show himself displeased; so that the change was in man, not in God. God repented that he had made man; but we never find him repenting that he redeemed man (though that was a work of much greater expense), because special and effectual grace is given to secure the great ends of redemption; so that those gifts and callings are without repentance, Rom. xi. 29. (Matthew Henry Commentary).

I don't know how to say it any better. We realize that God is love. He made us in His image and likeness. (Gen. 1:26). In so doing He has a kingdom to govern, (Heaven), and He gave us a kingdom to govern, (Earth). He also gave us our free will, to sin or not to sin. (Obey or disobey). Through it all, the beginning of last sentence of the above text say a lot. "God repented that He made man, but we never find Him repenting that he redeemed man...".

[EricH]

the foreknowledge of God knew that man would sin in the Garden or Eden..wonder why he later repented that he has made man...when he

new before had he would become a sinner..just a thought if anyone has any things that might shed some light on this?

This assumes exhaustive definite foreknowledge which is problematic in light of free will. God knew of the possibility of man's fall since love/free will necessitates the possibility (not certainty or necessity) of misusing the will in selfish rebellion. God had a perfect, potential plan of redemption that was only implemented after the Fall (Gen. 3) and did not become actual until the first century.

So, God knew of the possibility, not certainty of the Fall. Originally, He said things were 'very good'. When the contingency changed, He was then grieved. A wrong view of foreknowledge compromises the reality of a very good creation that delighted God becoming a fallen one that broke His heart. There was no good excuse for the Fall in light of paradise and God's reasonable requirements.

He created Lucifer, not Satan, Paradise, not pollution.

Open Theism is the view that recognizes that exhaustive definite foreknowledge is not compatible with genuine libertarian free will.

www.opentheism.info

www.gregboyd.org

Open Thesism is Arminianism gone to seed (just as Hyper-Calvinism is Calvinism gone to seed). Both positions are not biblically derived but based on people logically wrestling with the tension that their position creates in the larger framework of scripture.

Scripture affirms 2 things clearly:

1. God is completely soveriegn and has complete foreknowledge of all things

2. Human being make descisions for which God holds them morally accountable, are not coerced, consistent with their own desires and natures; and that have real consequences.

Both of these statements are completely true. They constitue a duality or paradox (not a contradiction). Scripture never explains how the tension in this particular duality resolves itself. It only states them. The Hebrew mind was fine with this because they think in terms of block logic. The western mind demands full resolution of all tension. Neither way of thinking is more Godly than the other, or more correct than the other. But, because most of the Bible was written by Jews, we should expect a Jewish way of resolving dualities (which was to fully embrace both while admitting we cannot fully understand both until we have more information).

The problem for both Open Theists and Hyper-Calvinsits is that they have committed a key logical error known as duality reductionalism. This logical error occurs what one aspect of a duality is raised to the prime datum status. The other aspect of the duality is then forced to fit under that aspect that is considered to be prime.

For the Open Theist, human freedom is so raised. This results in any scripture that does not support the idea of non-contingient human freedom (passages speaking to predestination, Divine soveriegnty, and complete and exhaustive Divine foreknowledge), to be reinterpreted in light of the primary status given to non-contingient human freedom (i.e. that for a choice to be free it cannot be influenced in any way and must be unpredictable regardless of the environment).

Limiting Gods foreknowledge is a key component of Open Theism. This position was a logical derivative of wrestling with the tension created for Arminians who raised human freedom above Divine soveriegnty (when scripture did not). For them a choice could not be trully free (non contingient), if the result is known in advance. Just as removing human responsibility for choice is a logical derivative for Calvinists who raised Divine soveriegnty above human choice when scripture did not. One resulted in a doctrinally incorrect view call Open Theism, the other in a doctrinally incorrect view called Hyper-Calvinism.

So the problem for Open Theists is one of definition (an unbiblical notion of freedom) and one of logic (the fallacy of duality reductionalism). For Hyper-Calvinisits the problem is one of definition (an unbiblical notion of Divine soveriegnty) and one of logic (the fallacy of duality reductionalism).

[SeekingHeart]

Would it be PLAUSIBLE (obviously there are so many oposing views on here) then, to believe that God is all-knowing of the past, present, and future, BUT when it comes to the future he knows all the POSSIBILITIES of what COULD happen, depending upon the decisions that man makes, and therefore makes the wisest decision to respond to whatever man chooses to do? It seems the bible most supports this theory, as it clearly states in some passages that God changes his mind, BUT other passages clearly state that He knows ALL. Therefore, the most plausible assumption, I would think, is that because he cannot affect free will, and must wait for the human to make a choice, he therefore knows everything that COULD happen, and simply has to hope that man chooses correctly so he dosn't have to do A instead of B?

I'm not saying this is definately correct, I'm just asking if my conclusion I have drawn is something that is PLAUSIBLE?

[EricH]

Would it be PLAUSIBLE (obviously there are so many oposing views on here) then, to believe that God is all-knowing of the past, present, and future, BUT when it comes to the future he knows all the POSSIBILITIES of what COULD happen, depending upon the decisions that man makes, and therefore makes the wisest decision to respond to whatever man chooses to do? It seems the bible most supports this theory, as it clearly states in some passages that God changes his mind, BUT other passages clearly state that He knows ALL. Therefore, the most plausible assumption, I would think, is that because he cannot affect free will, and must wait for the human to make a choice, he therefore knows everything that COULD happen, and simply has to hope that man chooses correctly so he dosn't have to do A instead of B?

I'm not saying this is definately correct, I'm just asking if my conclusion I have drawn is something that is PLAUSIBLE?

You have raised an important concept. The type of knowledge you are describing here is called middle knowledge. God's middle knowledge means that He knows all things possible (what decisions / actions people would have made given different circumstances). An example of this can be seen in Matthew 11:23

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until today. (Matthew 11:23 HCSB)

Here Jesus tells us that Sodom would have repented if it had seen the miracles that were performed in Capernaum. This is middle knowledge. The knowledge of what would have happened had circumstances changed

God's soveriegnty certainly includes middle knowledge. But it also includes actual knowledge. God knows all things actual (what has and will happen) and possible (what could have happened). Middle knowledge is a key concept in helping us understand how God's complete soverignty and human freedom intersect. It also helps us to biblically define both concepts.

[Guest]

PLAUSIBLE?

Yes!

Jesus Is LORD

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Revelation 1:8

And He Wants Us

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Hosea 6:6

To Know Him

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Matthew 11:28-30

>>>>>()<<<<<

Be Blessed Beloved

Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

Ephesians 5:19

Love, Joe

[godrulz]

Would it be PLAUSIBLE (obviously there are so many oposing views on here) then, to believe that God is all-knowing of the past, present, and future, BUT when it comes to the future he knows all the POSSIBILITIES of what COULD happen, depending upon the decisions that man makes, and therefore makes the wisest decision to respond to whatever man chooses to do? It seems the bible most supports this theory, as it clearly states in some passages that God changes his mind, BUT other passages clearly state that He knows ALL. Therefore, the most plausible assumption, I would think, is that because he cannot affect free will, and must wait for the human to make a choice, he therefore knows everything that COULD happen, and simply has to hope that man chooses correctly so he dosn't have to do A instead of B?

I'm not saying this is definately correct, I'm just asking if my conclusion I have drawn is something that is PLAUSIBLE?

This sounds like a view called Molinism that talks about 'middle knowledge' and counterfactuals of freedom. It is a confusing, convoluted view that ultimately fails (one issue is that it is not just what would or would not obtain/happen, but might/might not counterfactuals that are overlooked).

I disagree with Eric's assessment of Open Theism and believe that a resolution of sovereignty and free will is possible if we have biblical concepts of each (which hyper-Calvinism does not, as pointed out). Moderate Calvinism still defaults to mystery, paradox, antimony, despite a reasonable, biblical resolution being available in Open Theism (which most detractors do not understand).

[Guest]

.... a reasonable, biblical resolution ....

Sin

Of sin, because they believe not on me;

John 16:9

Is Death

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:23

Jesus

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.

1 Corinthians 2:2

Is Life

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

John 10:10

And He

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Hebrews 12:2

Knew

The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.

Jeremiah 31:3

So Whosoever Will

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Joel 2:32

Can

A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth.

Isaiah 42:3

Praise His Holy Name