# Jeremiah 7:31... HELP!



## no1special18 (Nov 13, 2004)

This verse was brought up by an open-theist in a debate forum, under the catagory of God's attributes. I made the claim that according to God's for-knowledge: one either had to become an Open-Theist and redefine it, or become a Calvinist and enjoy it. An Open-Theist brought up... 

Jer 7:31 "They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind. 

He said that this proved God does not have exhaustive for-knowledge. Obviously, I disagree with him on the grounds of the many verse that teach God's sovereignty and for-knowledge. However, I could not prove where he was wrong as far as just context, of that verse, as it stands on its own.

Is it alright to just list other verses and say their (the Open theist) interpretation cannot be right? Or is there something in the context or the Hebrew that I am missing, from which I can make my case?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2004)

The verse is a parallellism: God is saying that he never intedned this to be worship to him. OPen theism is most guilty on taking anthropomorphical language concernign God and making it say the most outrageous t hings


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 14, 2004)

There are far more "challenging" passages he might have picked than this one. Ones that speak of God "changing his mind" or "repenting" come to mind. It seems he has a more fundamental problem of reading and comprehending statements in context.

Is *he* claiming that God says he _couldn't_ have conceived of men engaged in this abomination, or that he _didn't_ conceive of it? Neither one of these interpretations is sustainable on a simple straightforward reading of the text. Is it his (ridiculous) assertion that God _might have_ authorized this behavior if he had thought of it? The statement God makes is _plainly_ that this behavior is *so* diametrically contrary to the innate justice that characterizes his nature, and to what he _had_ authorized for his worship that he never even weighed the possibility of authorizing or encouraging such behavior in any case whatsoever.

This is in distinction from certain (pointless) speculations about whether he might have considered the possibility of, say, a _yellow_ or _black_ heifer for the purification of the unclean, instead of a red one. Or some other thing. But this is all quite beside the point that God speaks to us in language that communicates powerfully and effectively. It is precisely because God uses the full range of his rhetorical skill in Scripture that careful study and exegesis of *all* of it is required to an adequate understanding of its doctrines. One cannot actually develop a full-blown, comprehensive, in-depth systematic theolgy on such assumptions as open theists have. 

This guy, and nearly every open-theist, cherry-picks his texts for developing his understanding of God, and more specifically God's knowledge. The most sweeping claims for God's exhaustive knowledge ("knowing the end from the beginning, etc.) are replete in Scripture. These are ignored for the most part, and his own assumptions about God, the _a priori_ of a god-in-his-own-image ("You thought I was altogether like as you), is what ultimately undergirds his theology.


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 14, 2004)

"Is he claiming that God says he couldn't have conceived of men engaged in this abomination, or that he didn't conceive of it?"

His claim was that God "...could not possibly have exhaustive for-knowledge."

We still hold that God sovereignly decreed the events in Jeremiah right? So at that point, should I make the distinction between God's sovereign decree and God's moral decree? 

Here are some of the scriptures that I know of that teach God's for-knowledge and decree of all things, can you guys give me some more?

Pro 20:24 Man's steps are {ordained} by the LORD, How then can man understand his way? 

Psa 139:16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained {for me,} When as yet there was not one of them. 

Isa 46:9 "Remember the former things long past, For I am God, and there is no other; {I am} God, and there is no one like Me, 
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'; "

Eph 1:11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 

Thanks guys I appreciate it.


----------



## SteelYankee (Nov 14, 2004)

There are a few places in Jeremiah which seem to reveal that certain items have "œnever entered God´s mind." Specifically, God is "œsurprised" at the sinful rebellion of Israel. This, of course, is used heavily to illustrate the "œrisk" God took in dealing as He did with His creation. Let´s look at those passages:

"¢ Jeremiah 7:31 "“ "œAnd they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind."
"¢ Jeremiah 19:4-5 "“ "œBecause they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods . . . and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind."
"¢ Jeremiah 32:35 "“ "œAnd they built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin."

Here, it appears that God is totally ignorant of some specific kind of behavior until it actually occurs via the libertarian freewill action of His autonomous creatures. When they finally choose to act, the knowledge of this behavior "œenters" the mind of God for the first time in eternity. Boyd comments on these passages and says, "œHowever we understand the phrase "˜not did it enter My mind,´ it would at the very least seem to preclude the possibility that the Israelites´ idolatrous behavior was eternally certain in God´s mind. If the classical view is correct, we have to be willing to accept that God could in one breath say that the Israelites´ behavior "˜did not enter my mind,´ though their behavior "˜was eternally in my mind´. If this is not a contradiction, what is?" 

Two responses are in order. First, open theists readily affirm God´s awareness of all knowable things past and present. Surely they must admit that it is impossible for it to be the case that "œit never entered God´s mind" that Israel would behave as she did. At the very least, according to open theists, God has known from all eternity that it could happen just as it did. 

Second, and more important, the passages in Jeremiah refer to the abhorrent practices of local idolatrous pagan communities around Israel. The specific behavior alluded to is the horrible act of Israel burning their children on the altars of pagan gods. It cannot be denied that this is the behavior God is referring to through His prophet Jeremiah. However, we must note that God warned Israel against this exact sin hundreds of years earlier. Deuteronomy 12:31 warns Israel not to follow after the gods of other nations because "œthey even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods." Later, in 18:10, God warns Israel that "œThere shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire." In light of the reference to "œMolech" in Jeremiah 32:35, Moses records in Leviticus 18:21 "œYou shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech." 

Now, can we rightly say that these statements in Isaiah accurately reflect an ignorance of God regarding the pagan practice of child sacrifice by fire? Had God truly never considered this act? Clearly not, since He several times warns them against this very same act hundreds of years prior! These practices simply could not have entered God´s mind for the first time in Jeremiah. 

Instead, we must understand that these phrases illustrate the godly hatred God has for this particular sin and the supreme displeasure God has in His children in participating in this sin. God is saying that this behavior is so vile, so wicked, so detestable that He does not want even to consider such a thing as happening "“ although, as we have seen, He in fact does know about such behavior.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 15, 2004)

A stand-out reply Jeff. Most excellent.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 15, 2004)

Very well done.


----------



## no1special18 (Nov 15, 2004)

Thank you guys, I appreciate your help! What about the distinction in God's sovereign and moral will? The Open-Theist is going to ask: how God decreed it, if He was so morally against it? So at this point, should I make the distinction between God's sovereign will, and God's moral will? Should I have done that from the beginning, before I made any ohter point? 

One more thing that would really help as well; will you guys list the verses that you know that teach God's for-knowledge, and more specifically, his decree of all things?


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 20, 2004)

Open theism is just Arminianism run amuck. Even a true Arminian is too Calvinist for an open theist.

If you have the clams, get Bruce Ware´s book, "œGod´s Lesser Glory." It deals pretty well and fairly with these guys.

For the open theist, if God doesn´t know, then how can you trust Him? Let´s face it. If God´s knowledge is just better than ours, but not complete, then what security is there for the believer?

In dealing with your friend try to realize that what the open theists offer is very attractive. Consider what Sanders says


> God, in freedom, establishes the context in which a loving and trusting relationship between himself and the humans can develop. God expects that it will, and there is no reason to suspect, at this point in the narrative [When Abraham was prepared to follow through with Isaac´s sacrifice], that any other possibility will come about. A break in the relationship does not seem plausible considering all the good that God has done. (God Who Risks, 45-46)


From their point of view life becomes more meaningful because we work along side God, striving to make the wisest choices and being directed by Him as He learns. I know it´s blasphemous, but the true challenge is trying to get them to see that the god they´re following is not the God of the Bible. Here´s another quote by Sanders that´ll set your teeth on edge.


> Is the path [to the cross] set in concrete? Must Jesus go this route even if he has misgivings? "¦Although Scripture attests that the incarnation was planned from the creation of the world, this is not so with the cross. The path of the cross comes about only through God´s interaction with humans in history. Until this moment in history other routes were, perhaps, open"¦. In Gethsemane Jesus wonders whether there is another way. But the Father and Son, in seeking to accomplish the project, both come to understand that there is no other way. (pp. 100-101)


You see, they want to be part of the process. They want to be considered. It´s part of our fallen nature to be more than we are. The open theist doesn´t realize that he´s elevating himself and denigrating God. He simply thinks that this is the way God interacts with man. In order to sustain their conclusions they also have to make claims that several of the Pauline epistles are not actually Pauline, and that they shouldn´t be in the canon. They can´t handle Ephesians for instance. It just won´t fit their theology. So some criticize it as not being authentic Scripture. 
In dealing with God´s foreknowledge Boyd makes the following claim,


> The future is to some degree settled and known by God as such, and to some degree open and known by God as such. To some extent, God knows the future as definitely this way and definitely not that way. To some extent, however, he knows it as possibly this way and possibly not that way." (God of the Possible, p. 15)


In light of this here is some Scripture that may be of benefit to you.
Deu 18:18-22
1 Kings 13:1-3
Isaiah 7:14
Isaiah 40-48 is quite useful (for instance, God names Cyrus in 44:28, 200 years before he´s born. Ware works through this passage quite decisively.
Psalm 22:18; 34:20
Psalm 139, especially vv. 3,4,5 and 16.
Daniel 11, for Dispensationalists CTs alike
John 12:37-41; 13:19, 38; 18:19-27; 21:18-19
How many times would Peter deny Jesus "“ three times "“ was that just a good guess?
Luke 22:32 Jesus predicts that Peter will turn again
Acts 2:23; 4:27-28

It´s also got to be recognized that some prophecy is conditional. God says that something will occur if we do certain things. Some of these promises were to Israel, some are to the individual. These have to be dealt with contextually, however the open theist will quite often attempt to claim that these are just ideas that God had that didn´t come about because we didn´t react the way He thought we would. 

One of the most difficult challenges with the open theists is that they do not all agree. They tend to come at it from different angles and sometimes contradict one another. The challenge here is to find out where your friend is coming from and try to address his specifics. Realize that the burden is on the claimant. You should be able to dismantle each of his arguments soundly, but sometimes you´ll just have to get back with him because you won´t have the answer right away. 

Here´s some observations made my Ware


> Notice the specificity and exactness, as well as the breadth and variety, of God´s knowledge and prediction of innumerable future items. God knows in advance our every word before we speak it, to the full number of the days of our lives. God predicts the naming of certain individuals long before they are born, as well as their places in specific kingdoms that are yet future. He declares how many kings will come at some future time, which alliances will be made, the effect of these matters on other nations and on Israel, and how long governmental structures will last. he predicts for specific situations such things as "œseven years, "œ "œfifteen years," "œseventy years," "œ400 years," "œthree denials," "œsixty-two and seven weeks." Regarding Christ, God predicts the birth in Bethlehem, the slaughter of the infant boys, the flight to Egypt, the nail pierced hands, the dividing of the garments, the unbroken bones, the death with criminals, and the burial in the tomb of the rich. (pp. 138-39)


 Again, if God is not omniscient then He must be an incredible guesser.

You might ask your friend if he prays. If he does, ask him why. How can a god who doesn´t know the future be trusted to know how to answer our prayers? I´d like to be independently wealthy. I really would intend to use the finances for God´s glory. Why don´t I get what I´d like? Could it be because God knows that I couldn´t handle it, regardless of how much I think I could? How can we trust God´s leadership if He´s still trying to figure it all out? What about suffering? If God is still figuring it all out, what could possibly be the benefit of suffering? Sanders says


> It is God's desire that we enter into a give and take relationship of love, and this is not accomplished by God´s forcing his blueprint on us. Rather, God wants us to go through life together with him, making decisions together. Together we decide the actual course of my life. God´s will for my life does not reside in a list of specific activities but in a personal relationship. As love and friend, God works with us wherever we go and whatever we do. To a large extent our future is open and we are to determine what it will be in dialogue with God. (p. 277)


 Now, isn´t that comforting?

There´s a lot more that could be said, and I´m leaning heavily on Ware´s book for information (it´s been a while since I read it). If you´re serious about wanting to refute these guys I plead with you to do it in a spirit of love and compassion, with an earnestness to see them come to a proper view of the true God of the Bible.

I hope this helps.

[Edited on 22-11-2004 by Wannabee]


----------



## just_grace (Nov 27, 2004)

*Cross examined.*

Jesus faced some tough questions from His opposition ( they believed in God though...apart from Pilate..etc.. )

He always answered them ( apart from that time when they would not answer Him ) and after, they were amazed...and at one point "did not dare to ask any more questions".

Seek God and He will give you the knowledge to answer those who oppose Him. 

He Reigns Supreme. Sovereign God.

David


----------



## Puritanhead (Dec 20, 2004)

*Open Theism*

The Scriptures use anthropomorphic language (i.e. God speaks in human terms) and reflects emotions that we humans no doubt identify with. God expresses anger, frustration, love, hatred, and no doubt has every right to throw out righteous indignation for that is what all of us sinners deserve. We're reconciled to him through Christ's meritous works, not are on of course. 

Getting to the question at hand, does anyone seriously believe God didn't know where Adam was in the Garden of Eden when he called him out? The Socratic dialogue that Christ uses is much the continuity of the same form of anthropomorphic language of the Old Testament that God the Father speaks in. When people offer questions to Christ in order to essentially eschew the commandments, Christ parries it as a temptation of the devil and only points them back to the commandment. "Who is my neighbor?" The very question was from a depraved sinner's heart. God gives us the grace to believe, and the grace to obey his commandments. 

Anyway, find all the verses that open theists claim, and learn to explain it in those terms. The Scriptures often cast God in anthropomorphic way that we may more clearly understand him and his ways.



[Edited on 12-20-2004 by Puritanhead]


----------

