top of page
Writer's pictureBible Brian

Calvinism and the sons of Eli: Yes, they had free will


Scripture tells us two things: "A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps." (Proverbs 16:9). This very simple proverb tells us a lot, and it pairs quite nicely with Proverbs 19:21, which tells us "There are many plans in a man’s heart, Nevertheless the Lord’s counsel—that will stand."


These two proverbs alone tell us that the free will of man is in no way in conflict with the plans of God. But this simple concept is made quite difficult by the existence of a very strange, yet apparently Biblically sound philosophy, known as Calvinism. Calvinists typically reject the idea of free will (though some accept it to varying degrees), and they have a wealth of examples to back it up. Take, for example, the meme in the header image, made and posted by the Facebook page "The Reformed Sage".


The meme cites 1 Samuel 2:25, suggesting this opposes free will. Let's expand the reading a little for context, and begin at verse 22: "Now Eli was very old; and he heard everything his sons did to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. So he said to them, “Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people. No, my sons! For it is not a good report that I hear. You make the Lord’s people transgress. If one man sins against another, God will judge him. But if a man sins against the Lord, who will intercede for him?” Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to kill them." The Reformed Sage suggests, then, that the sons of Eli, at least in this case, had no free will. God desired to kill them, and so they were not able to heed their father's voice. But is that what the verse is actually saying? I'm going to contend that the answer is no, and of course, I am going to back it up with Scripture.


First, let us establish what free will is. Free will is not, as Calvinists often erroneously assume, the ability to do anything and everything regardless of the will of God. It does include the ability to resist and contradict the will of God (e.g. Luke 7:30, James 1:13-14), but there are a number of ways in which it is limited, all of which, ultimately, allow God to overrule us every time, without taking control of us like some voodoo puppet master.


Interestingly, the easiest way for God to do this is to just not intervene. We do a perfectly good job of sinning on our own. Note what James says: "Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed." (James 1:13-14). So, a counter question for the Reformed Sage: Could the sons of Eli, when they were sleeping with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting, have said "God is tempting us"? James, under divine inspiration, precludes this possibility.


So what's the alternative? Put simply, they wanted to. Sex is a pleasurable thing, and in the context of marriage, it is a very good thing. We are naturally designed to want sex, and when we receive it, it is a very enjoyable thing. The trouble is, as with all good things, sex is corrupted by sin. Thus, the sons of Eli sought it in sinful ways, and it brought them sinful pleasure. What would motivate them to listen to their father, therefore? Perhaps love for him, but it doesn't seem they loved their father as much as they loved their sexual immorality. Therefore, if God wanted them to die for the sins they chose, it seems all He would have to do is step back and allow them to continue using their free will to choose it. Offered the choice between sin and repentance, they chose the more pleasurable option. And God knew they would.


God also knew the alternative future of, for example, Sodom and Gomorrah. Note Jesus' words in Matthew 11:20-24: "Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you,it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”"


Now, we know it was God's will to destroy Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon. Why? Simply because it happened. But here, Jesus describes an alternative reality in which these cities repented, which would have lead to ongoing prosperity. How would this happen? Jesus does not say "my Father would have drawn them in", but "if the mighty works which were done in you had been done" in them.


So this is actually where I find common ground with the Calvinists; I fully agree with Scriptures like John 6:44: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him...". The dispute isn't on whether it happens, but how? In the case of Jesus' mighty works, He did those by His Father's power (John 5:19; John 10:32).


So how does this translate to the sons of Eli? Well, it's possible that if God had wanted to save them, He could have simply showed them a mighty work. Eli himself could have given them wine, made of water, if God had empowered him to do so. But it's also possible, as the Pharisees and lawyers did in Luke 7:30, that they would have still rejected God's will for themselves. Whatever would have caused them to repent, if anything, God simply did not show it to them.


In their hearts, the sons of Eli planned to continue enjoying their sexual immorality. Therefore, they rejected their father's rebuke. This fit perfectly with God's plan. God did not need to step in at all. And this was entirely just. God did not force these men to sin, nor did He prevent them from repenting. Both of these are beyond His capabilities as a Holy and incorruptible being, as we have already seen He has told us through the brother of our Lord. So did they deserve the condemnation God planned to bring upon them? Absolutely so!


So does this example prove there is no free will? Absolutely not. When you factor in other Scriptures, particularly those dealing with God's foreknowledge and the depravity of man, it becomes clear that free will is never in conflict with God's sovereignty. If His plans require us to do good, He steps in. If His plans require us to do evil, all He has to do is leave us alone to do what we do best. And if I'm wrong about that? Well, my friends, it must be God's will that I am wrong.

11 views
bottom of page