I submit free-will theism's approach to the text as superior because it maintains the integrity and holisticness of Biblical passages within a personal and consistent understanding of God.  Contrast this with the classical interpretation which faces the following issues (in order of importance):

1.  The integrity of the texts is jeopardised; the word translated as 'repent' - 'naham' - is conveniently modified as and when it suits a preconceived doctrine (what bothers me is how DH neatly removes the 'repentance' element of 'naham' from vs.11, inserts it back in vs.29, only to remove it again in vs.33) - what textual warrant do we have to do this?  On what basis can we selectively remove the integral meaning of certain words?  Why is one set of statements 'literal' and the other two 'anthropormorphic', especially when these latter sandwich the former?

2.  The thinking of the Bible writers is made unnecessarily complicated - if 'grieve' was all that was intended to be meant, why use 'naham'?  Why use it three times in one chapter if the repentance element was meant for only one of the usages?  There are many better words to use if this was the main meaning desired, e.g. 'yagon', 'kaas', 'kera', etc.  Why would the writer choose a word KNOWN for its 'mind-changing' content if he didn't have that in mind (pun intended)?

3.  Exhaustive foreknowledge is made to bear upon the interpretation of the passage without any warrant from the text itself - from where in the passage do we obtain the impression that God knew all along that Saul was going to be disobedient (especially if it's recorded that God changed His mind)?  And why do we unilaterally dismiss and water-down verses directly telling us that God repented of His decision?  If we're merely qualifying it, then fine.  But here we have a case where the primary meaning of the word is rejected; we may as well use another word.

Thus, we're basically given a rather disturbing picture of a God who tells everyone that He changes His mind (and does this many times) yet wants people to NOT believe that He changes His mind.

4.  (In the case of Reformed theology) We are given a picture of a pretty paradoxical God, one who:

Ordains for a particular king to be appointed only to ordain later the king's downfall (yet rebukes and charges the king as having rejected God's Word - something Saul could NEVER have chosen NOT to do, remember!).

 

Causes grieve to Himself (consistent Calvinism must state that God desired grief for Himself from all eternity apart from His creation or creatures) yet makes it seem as if it was humans doing it.  Are we required to believe that God enjoys making Himself feel sad?  One of DH's statement appears truly bizarre:

"God wills to do some things which he then genuinely grieves over in part when the grievous effect comes to pass."  How does this differ from someone who takes an instrument, deliberately hurts his ears with it, yet after that smashes and condemns the instrument for having grieved him.  Yes I'm sure Calvinists would deny this but I invite them to show me how this is not logically the case with their assumptions.

Conclusion:  The classical interpretation of 1Samuel 15 that God does not change His mind needs to be rejected in favour of that of open theism's, which is more contextually relevant, maintains the integrity of the passges and strengthens the overall Biblical portrait of God as Ultimately Loving Person in relationship with us.
 

AL