no1special18
Puritan Board Freshman
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?
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?