We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.
How do you respond to 1 Samuel 2:25?
Eli’s sons “would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to kill them.”
Compatibilists sometimes cite this text as an example of how God determines events for which humans are morally responsible. Eli’s sons were evil in not listening to their father, yet it was the Lord who prevented them from doing this. If read in context, however, the passage does not support the compatibilist interpretation.
Eli’s three sons had willfully persisted in abusing their priestly office for a long time. The Lord detested their vile activity (1 Sam. 2:17). Eli warned his sons about the severity of their wickedness, but it was too late. God had already decided to bring judgment on them. God’s sovereign act of preventing the sons from heeding Eli’s warning was an act of judgment and was consistent with the wicked character the three sons had freely developed for years.
Now, if the passage said that the sons were wicked in the first place because God wanted to judge them, it might support compatibilism. Or if the passage said that the sons were godly people until the Lord changed their heart and prevented them from heeding their father’s words, it might support compatibilism. But the passage does not teach this. It only teaches that God determined to judge the sons because they were persistently wicked while making it very clear that this wickedness was not God’s will.
Tags: Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Providence, Predestination and Free Will, Responding to Objections
Verse: 1 Samuel 2
Doesn’t Psalm 139:16 refute the open view of the future?
One of the passages most frequently cited in attempts to refute the open view of the future is Psalm 139:16. Here David says that God viewed him while he was being formed in the womb (vs. 15) and then adds: “[Y]our eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in…
What’s your view of the tribulation period and the rapture?
I along with most other evangelicals believe Jesus is going to return one day and establish his Kingdom. Jesus himself promised his return (Matt. 24:30; 26:64; John 14:3). At Jesus’ ascension, two angels proclaimed, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking up toward heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into…
Does Following Jesus Rule Out Serving in the Military if a War is Just?
Jesus and Military People Some soldiers responded to the preaching of John the Baptist by asking him what they should do. John gave them some ethical instruction, but, interestingly enough, he didn’t tell them to leave the army (Lk 3:12-13). So too, Jesus praised the faith of a Centurion and healed his servant while not…
What is the “classical view of God” and what about it do you find objectionable?
The “classical view of God” refers to the view of God that has dominated Christian theology since the earliest Church fathers. According to this theology, God is completely “immutable.” This means that God’s being and experience never change in any respect. God is therefore pure actuality (actus purus), having no potentiality whatsoever, for potentiality is…
What Does Greg Think About _________________?
Since the launch of the new website yesterday, I’ve been browsing around the various topics to see what I can find. You can click here to join me. This is awesome. If you want to know what Greg has to say about the nature of the future and God’s knowledge of it, you can find…
Is Open Theism Incompatible With a Chalcedonian Christology?
Question: The Chalcedonian Creed says Jesus was “fully God and fully human” and that these “two natures” remained distinct in the Incarnation, even though Jesus was one united person. I’m told that part of the reasoning behind the concern to keep Jesus’ humanity distinct from his divinity was to protect the “impassibility” of the divine…