RobE
New member
ApologeticJedi said:Nor does it demand it in any way.
Yet, you being the challenger to the Traditional view; it is upon you to disprove it.
Rob said:As I admitted either God changed Hezekiah's future or God planned to change Hezekiah's future from the beginning. Either way, Hezekiah was headed for death until God intervened. It's on the O.V.'s head to prove that God changed it when it came up with no prior plan to do so.
No such burden of proof exists.
To “change” indicates that it was not part of the original plan. It may have been a backup plan (unlikely since it served no purpose for Hezekiah to live or die - but maybe). Either way fits into the Open model – thus no proof is necessary.
You aren't able to wriggle out of the situation so easily. To use terms such as original plan and backup plan(which require foreknowledge of action) actually defeats your premise that foreknowledge is impossible with free agents. Also in order to change an outcome, the outcome must be foreknown; otherwise, how could you know it changed. This substantiates my position that the O.V. must presuppose foreknowledge in its arguments. 'Foreknowledge based on what?', I would ask and then go on to conclude that it is based on causes and effects within human nature. Your position declares that will is above natural law and isn't effected by anything and thus human will becomes a chaotic quagmire with random unpredictable results.
Ah, but we were talking about a future that is not settled. That, has not "been in the debate since Pelagius". That has almost never been allowed into the debate. Certainly free will has been, but that wasn’t what we were discussing at this point.
Ah, but it is. According to your position free will is eliminated when foreknowledge is present. Pelagius just takes the idea of libertarian free will to its ultimate end which is a place most LFW supporters dare not look upon.
As far as we know, Pelagius did not believe in an open future, he believed in a settled future. His beliefs in Free will were not directly relatable to the teachings of Open Theism save in the way it relates to every Arminian as well.
This certainly is a valid point when relating Pelagianism to foreknowledge, but my point was towards the idea of LFW.
Incidently it was his beliefs in a lack of original sin and the lack of need for infant baptism that made him a heretic.
Actually the doctrine of original sin was developed by St. Augustine to quell the heresy.
No ... I was saying that Christ was the plan *IF* man sinned. If man did not sin man would not have needed a savior in that way.
I read it. You just refuse to see my conclusion correctly. I'll submit the entire discussion between us on this subject here except my excerpts from outside sources......
AJ said: “I think you have built a strawman argument for the Open view because you are unfamiliar with what is being discussed. We do not deny, for instance, that God had a plan to have Jesus save mankind should Adam sin … the disagreement is not that God had a plan for every contingency, but that God did not know which contingency He would need to use.”
RobE responded: “This I vehemently disagree with. I believe Jesus was the Plan for creation, not a fail-safe if man couldn't pull it off himself. This is more like Pelagianism where man is able to save himself. Because after all, if man can fall he can get back up without a saviour.”
AJ: That’s just a wild accusation on your part. That God created a backup plan to have Christ dies on a cross in the case that salvation would be needed, does not suggest that man is able to do so without a savior.
Rob: I don't think so. If Christ was a 'backup' plan then you are saying that man could do so without a 'savior'. What other interpretation is there?
RobE responded: “This I vehemently disagree with. I believe Jesus was the Plan for creation, not a fail-safe if man couldn't pull it off himself. This is more like Pelagianism where man is able to save himself. Because after all, if man can fall he can get back up without a saviour.”
AJ: That’s just a wild accusation on your part. That God created a backup plan to have Christ dies on a cross in the case that salvation would be needed, does not suggest that man is able to do so without a savior.
Rob: I don't think so. If Christ was a 'backup' plan then you are saying that man could do so without a 'savior'. What other interpretation is there?
How does your model hold in the places where Jesus makes a prediction that the Tribulation was going to come in the Apostles lifetime and doesn’t. Why did God's foreknowledge fail Him?
God's foreknowledge doesn't fail Jesus. In fact Jesus points to just this fact......
Matthew 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Here's Jesus' own words showing that knowledge of the hour and day was not the Son's even though the Father knew it.
Yours,
Rob