Jeremiah 32:35
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.
Dave Hunt writes: “God calls Israel’s sin ‘this abominable thing that I hate’ (Jeremiah 44:4), yet we are called upon to believe that He foreordained it? We are to believe that God caused Israel to practice things that were abominations to Him?” (Debating Calvinism, p.313)
One Calvinist explains: “Apparently, according to this text, there were people who were saying that God had commanded for them to do these wicked things. God is simply denying this charge, and telling him that it never once crossed his mind to command them build high places to Baal. Also, I do think that such an understanding of this passage leads to open theism. If it never entered God’s mind in a crassly literal sense, then it seems to me that it would mean it never entered his mind in terms of his foreknowledge either.”
Why do Calvinists like to play dumb? Calvinists are intelligent people, and surely they can recognize the difference between something that never entered God’s mind to “command” vs. something that never entered God’s mind would occur. There is a big difference between God disavowing divine origin behind child sacrifice vs. claiming ignorance altogether, and yet, Calvinists play dumb, in order to blur the distinction between the two. Their attitude is to say, “See, you can’t use this verse, or else it proves Open Theism.” But it doesn’t prove Open Theism, regardless of whether Open Theists cite it as a proof-text. The fact is that God is not claiming ignorance that this event would have ever come to pass; He is simply disavowing a divine origin to it. That’s it. Nevertheless, the Calvinist strategy appears to be this: Let’s destroy any credibility behind a literal interpretation of this passage, by using the scarecrow of the heresy de jure, so that we can just call it an Anthropomorphism and be done with it.
The problem with the Deterministic decrees of Calvinism is that what God says never entered His mind that they “should do,” was precisely what entered God’s mind to decree that they “must do.”
Calvinist, Erwin Lutzer explains: “Calvinists pointedly admit that God ordains evil--this is consistent with both the Bible and logic. In ordinary discussions about human events, we can say that God permitted evil, as long as we understand that he thereby willed that the evil happen. Calvinists agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith that says God ordains all that ever comes to pass. In a word, what God permits, he ordains.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.210, emphasis mine)
Lutzer writes: “Nonetheless, his permission necessarily means that he bore ultimate responsibility for it. After all, he could have chosen ‘not to permit’ it.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.210, emphasis mine)
Lutzer adds: “In a word, what God permits, he ordains.” (The Doctrines That Divide, p.210, emphasis mine)
John Calvin writes: “We also note that we should consider the creation of the world so that we may realize that everything is subject to God and ruled by his will and that when the world has done what it may, nothing happens other than what God decrees.” (Acts: Calvin, The Crossway Classic Commentaries, p.66, emphasis mine)
Does it make sense to say that God secretly “decreed” what never entered His mind to “cause”? Even if the Calvinist argues that this passage should only be interpreted symbolically, rather than literally, as an anthropomorphism, the Calvinist must still face the fact that their theology portrays God as a liar, who openly says that He never caused what He secretly decreed. What the Deterministic Calvinist says that God did do, God says that He never did. This is a much more difficult verse than the Calvinist will admit because it strikes right at the heart of Determinism. This is the primary reason why I left Calvinism, because I could not endure the secret-will arguments. God either means what He says, or what He says, has no meaning at all. I chose to believe God, and showed Calvinism the door.
Josh Thibidaux explains: “It’s hard to imagine what else He could have been expressing. A good parallel is a possible answer to the question, ‘have you ever cheated on your wife?’ I could rightly answer, ‘No, I wouldn’t think of it.’ Which idiomatically is true even if the actual thought of such a possibility had crossed my mind in the past, or even hard temptation had been placed in front of me. The thought expressed in ‘I wouldn’t think of it’ is not that the possibility had never occurred to me, but that doing such a thing was far from my thoughts and intentions. Whereas if I actually had cheated on my wife or was planning to, such an expression would be a lie, in that there is not even a figurative or idiomatic sense in which it could be true. Calvinism simply has God saying, ‘It never entered my mind for you to do this....but I actually did decree it all from the beginning.’ Must be a mystery.” (In Death or Life, emphasis mine)
The only way that I have ever heard a Calvinist explain this passage is by warning that if pressed too far, will lead to Open Theism, which of course is nonsense. You can press this verse as far as you wish, because God is specifically saying that it never entered His mind that they “should do this abomination,”
that is, “to cause Judah to sin.” God is clearly denying responsibility, rather than knowledge. So the Calvinist’s only hope to explain this verse is by using a smoke-screen, because indeed, there is no literal, figurative or idiomatic sense in which this passage could be harmonized with Deterministic Calvinism.
Question: One thing that Jeremiah 32:35 firmly establishes is that God is not the author of sin. For if He hadn’t commanded it, caused it, directed it, nor ever having had it enter His mind that Israel “should” commit this abominable sin, how then, can the Calvinist simultaneously claim that it did enter God’s mind to decree it?
Answer: It appears that God denies, exactly what Calvinists allege. However, to a Calvinist, if God did not decree the atrocities committed in this image, then He cannot be truly sovereign, and thus we would not have a God in whom we could have any real confidence. On the other hand, to an Arminian, the God according to Calvinism is the very one sitting in the center of the picture above.
Question: How do Calvinists explain this verse?
Answer: Anthropomorphism, that is, God feigning human traits. A Calvinist views Jeremiah 32:35 in the same way as Genesis 6:6, which states: “The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.” Calvinists feel that if this passage is interpreted literally, that it would lead to Open Theism and a denial of the omniscience of God.
Question: Given the importance of children for the people of this generation, and what a curse it was for the women to be barren, and how devastating it was for a poor father to have to sell one or more of his children into slavery, how on earth could they ever consent to killing them?
Answer: They wouldn’t have done these things because they wanted to, as in entertainment, but because they felt that they had to, such as appeasing a deity in the midst of a famine. Likely, a prophet who claimed to speak on behalf of God would have told the people that if they ever wanted to see their crops grow again, or see an end to a particular disease, they must sacrifice their children, and hence the pressure to comply.
True or False: Jeremiah 32:35 tells us that God had absolutely no clue that they would do this, in that it caught Him totally off guard?
False. This verse is not telling us what never entered God’s mind that they would do, could do or might do, but rather what never entered God’s mind that they “should do,” that is, to “cause” Judah to sin. God is not denying His omniscience. He is denying responsibility. God is essentially denying that He ever instructed any prophet to have the people commit the abominable sin of child sacrifice.
