We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
What is the significance of 1 Samuel 15:35?
“…the Lord was sorry that he made Saul king over Israel.” (see 1 Sam. 15:12).
Once again, the Lord expresses his regret over having made Saul king of Israel, an emotion which is inconsistent with the classical view of God’s foreknowledge.
It’s important to note that Samuel had prayed all night trying to change the Lord’s mind regarding Saul’s dethronement (vs. 13) but in this instance it seems the Lord’s decision was final (cf. 1 Sam. 13:13–14). Hence, as Saul begged Samuel to try to change things (vs. 27), Samuel responded, “the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind” (vs. 29).
The verse does not say that God cannot change his mind (which is what the classical view requires), only that in this instance he will not change his mind. His mind is resolved on this matter and, unlike mortals, once God’s mind is truly resolved he does not change it. (There are other verses in which the Lord declares “I will not change my mind” [Ezek. 24:14; Zech. 8:14], but these exceptions prove the rule: ordinarily God is willing to change his mind if the situation calls for it [cf. Jer. 18:7–10; Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:12–13]).
Category: Q&A
Tags: Open Theism, Q&A
Topics: Open Theism
Verse: 1 Samuel 15
Related Reading
What about the Gospel of John and Calvinism?
Question: The Gospel of John seems to teach that people believe because God draws them, rather than that God draws people because they believe. If this is true, how can you deny the Calvinistic teaching that salvation is based on God’s choice, not ours? Answer: As you note, many people find support for the view…
15 Reasons Open Theism is TRUE (a reply to Andrew Wilson)
Article by Dan Kent Recently, Andrew Wilson shared an impressive critique of open theism called: “Responding To Open Theism In Fourteen Words.” Andrew’s article didn’t persuade me, but it did challenge me (seriously!). Below I will respond to each of the words Andrew presents. But first I will add one word of my own (if…
What do you think of the classical view that God is impassible?
The classical view has historically held that God is impassible, meaning he is above pathos (passion or emotions). The main reason the church came to this view was that, following the Hellenistic philosophical tradition, they associated emotions with change while believing God was above all change (immutable). Moreover, experiencing emotions implies that one is affected…
How do you respond to Daniel 2:31–45?
Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar’s dream to the effect that he possesses a kingdom of “gold” (vs. 38). After this there shall arise “another kingdom inferior to yours, and yet a third kingdom of bronze which shall rule over the whole earth. And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron…it shall crush and shatter all…
Open2013 Reflections
Both participants and leaders share about what was happening at Open2013 and some of their thoughts on Open Theism. Listen in and hear from Greg Boyd, John Sanders, Tom Oord, T. C. Moore, Jessica Kelley and many more.
Why do you have such a pessimistic view of government?
Question: I’m a Christian and serve as a servant in government and I find your book The Myth of a Christian Nation, as well as some of your sermons on Christians and politics, highly offensive. I find that while governments sometimes harm people, they also do a lot of good. The American government in particular…