cameronpickett
Puritan Board Freshman
A very compelling argument that I’d like to share regarding 1 Samuel 28:3-25, whether Saul was actually speaking to Samuel, or with a familiar spirit. Give it a watch! Do you agree?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If there wasn't, serious Christians wouldn't have been disagreeing about the matter for centuries.I didn't watch the video, but there's nothing in the text to indicate that it was anything else but the spirit of Samuel himself.
I believe this may have been the Puritan consensus too with similar remarks by Gilpin in "Demonologia" and Perkins "Combat Between Christ and the Devil."If there wasn't, serious Christians wouldn't have been disagreeing about the matter for centuries.
I'm with Calvin when he concludes that God, who refused to speak to Saul by legitimate means, would certainly not speak to him by illegitimate means.
If there wasn't, serious Christians wouldn't have been disagreeing about the matter for centuries.
OK. What weight should we grant your bald claim, accompanying a sight-unseen dismissal of the video regardless of its argument?I'm not sure that carries the weight you assign it. Serious Christians have been disagreeing about all kinds of extremely clear things for centuries.
I guess they're not all that clear after all, then.I'm not sure that carries the weight you assign it. Serious Christians have been disagreeing about all kinds of extremely clear things for centuries.
Such a strong claim for a difficult passage. I realize the vid is an artifact of the medium that validates itself by views, likes, and subscriptions; but my greatest issue with the presenter was his deliberate avoidance of any sign of authority in teaching Holy Scripture. 2-3 times he appeals to his audience to chime in. This is what he thinks, "but what do you think? Share your opinion in the comment section below."I was shocked that the author would claim that anyone thinking it actually was Samuel was not reading the passage critically.
I guess they're not all that clear after all, then.
And yet serious Christians disagree about it - by which I do NOT mean it's a debatable doctrine, but rather that throughout history there have been believers compromised in various ways who have not been able to see that Scripture teaches this. What you're missing is that it's quite clear when the Holy Spirit illumines one's heart to see Scripture as it really is.I think justification by grace through faith alone is quite clear, and yet was the root cause of one of the greatest controversies in the history of Christendom.
1 Samuel 28:15–19 (NASB95)
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” And Saul answered, “I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do.”
16 Samuel said, “Why then do you ask me, since the LORD has departed from you and has become your adversary?
17 “The LORD has done accordingly as He spoke through me; for the LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hand and given it to your neighbor, to David.
18 “As you did not obey the LORD and did not execute His fierce wrath on Amalek, so the LORD has done this thing to you this day.
19 “Moreover the LORD will also give over Israel along with you into the hands of the Philistines, therefore tomorrow you and your sons will be with me. Indeed the LORD will give over the army of Israel into the hands of the Philistines!”
Of course, any means God would use by definition is fine, if so he does. That is not Calvin's point; but that there were lawful avenues to seek the will of God, and God refused after a time to make those available or accessible to Saul. Saul cut himself off from the priests with Urim & Thummim because of their wholsale murder; and Samuel would never see Saul again after the scene with Agag, 1Sam.15:35. The voice of the true prophet is the voice of the Lord; God never sent Samuel again to see Saul, and presumably the prophet would refuse to meet Saul (had he been asked). 1Sam.28:6 states, "And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets." Direct, personal revelation (dream) is but one avenue that was cut off.The answer to Calvin's objection would run like this: God did not use an illegitimate means. The medium did not call up Samuel. God sent him at that time to confirm that even Saul's last ditch attempt to get the Word of the Lord from God (in some sort of manipulative way to try to get the answer Saul wanted) was not going to net him any new revelation, but rather the same thing that had been said before.
For those of you who deny that it was the spirit of Samuel, what motive do you think would the Devil have in having a spirit (or himself) masquerade as Samuel and deliver to Saul such an accurate prophecy?
I don't see how this event, if orchestrated by Satan, in any way furthers Satan's aims.
There's a schizophrenic quality to his declarations: at times sounding dismissive of dissent, but then eager for approval or an opportunity to debate.
Do we believe devil-worshipping witches have the power to snatch the saints from heaven?
Is the idea here that the witch covenants with Satan, Satan sends a team of demons to snatch Samuel's spirit out of heaven and make him appear in Palestine, Satan's forces not only break into heaven but locate Samuel and drag him back to earth, then Samuel, arriving at earth sees his old friend Saul and gives him some stern words?
Is there anything at all in all of Scripture that would give us the impression that this is possible?
Well, no one has directly stated that. So take this as my way of stating that I'm completely at all loss as to how a witch, through this or any other way, would be able to take a saint from heaven and make him appear on earth. I am open to any and every plausible explanation (provided there is one).Brother, with all due respect, who here is actually claiming that this is what went on?
Well, no one has directly stated that. So take this as my way of stating that I'm completely at all loss as to how a witch, through this or any other way, would be able to take a saint from heaven and make him appear on earth. I am open to any and every plausible explanation (provided there is one).
The passage talks about her bringing him up. "Then said the woman, Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel."Is anyone actually saying "the witch did it"?
She was just as surprised as anyone when Samuel actually showed up.