But the Socinian heresy is not dead. There are various anti-trinitarian groups today including large ones like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons. There are others who share their annihilation of the doctrine of eternal damnation and substitute ... annihilation. (Yes, I was playing with words there.) A large number of people calling themselves "Christians" would agree that the Bible was inspired but contains error. But the one I am concerned about is this one. Among their key beliefs, the Socinians were very concerned about the Free Will of Man. The article in wikipedia includes this paragraph:
The Socinians believed that God's omniscience was limited to what was a necessary truth in the future (what would definitely happen), and did not apply to what was a contingent truth (what might happen). They believed that, if God knew every possible future, human free will was impossible; and as such rejected the "hard" view of omniscience. (Italics in the original)Does that sound familiar? It should. I referenced it back in my Absolving God recently. It is one of the key tenets of Open Theism: God is not Omniscient.
There is a problem with that, of course. I mean, if it was no big deal, I'd keep quiet about it. But it is a big deal. It speaks to the character of God and the reliability of Scripture. The Bible repeatedly claims for God that He knows all things. I won't belabor the point about knowing what we've done or what we think. They don't deny that. But there are repeated references over and over to God knowing more than what simply is or has been. Peter argued that Jesus knew all things (John 21:17). God claims for Himself, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose'" (Isa 46:9-10). The very existence of a prophet (including Christ) says that God knows the future. And how many references are there to either God's foreknowledge or His predestination? (Oh, oh! I know! I found 5 references to some form of "predestine", 7 references to "determine" in the sense of determing in advance, and 3 references to God's foreknowledge. That, of course, is without reference to prophecies and statements about the future. An example would be 1 Sam 23:10-12.) (There is also a phrase, used in various places, about "long ago" or "of old" or the like. Acts 15:18 says that God declared what would be "from long ago". Jude 1:4 references people who were ordained to condemnation "from of old". So the number increases.) God's Omniscience with a capital "O" -- knowing all things including the future -- is supported over and over in Scripture, starting with prophecies as early as Genesis 3 and ending with the certainties of Revelation, the end declared from the beginning.
If Omniscience were alone here, perhaps it would be negotiable. Maybe we could discuss an alternative meaning. But it's not. If God is not Omniscient -- knowing everything -- then other characteristics change. God would necessarily be constantly learning as new things happen ... and we have eliminated the certainty of His claim, "I am the Lord, I do not change" (Immutability). He changes continuously! God claims to have no regrets (1 Sam 15:29), but if He is constantly seeing new things, it is inevitable, isn't it? Of course, if God is incapable of knowing the future and unwilling to do anything about it, the concepts of both His Omnipotence and, more importantly, His Sovereignty are moot. He cannot alter the future. He cannot control His creation. All He can do is muddle about after the fact and hope to fix the messes we make.
Heresies come and heresies go. Generally, after they go they resurface. The Socinians were eliminated some time ago, but they're not gone. Their heresies are alive and well. Painfully, some of them reside in groups that consider themselves "Christian" and even "orthodox". It is clear to me, however, that the god of Open Theism is not the God of orthodoxy.
18 comments:
Hi there Blind Men,
After reading your [not particularly friendly] post the only thing that is absolutely clear is the fact that you don't understand the issues that you are attempting to discuss. It's either that or you are intentionally misrepresenting the views of Open Theism.
First, I am an Open Theist and I do not deny God's omniscience just as I do not deny His being all powerful. I do not, however, believe that God knows the unknowable the same way I believe God can not lie, "un-create" Himself or do anything that is illogical. Do feel free to believe that He can do all of those things. I suspect you are well aware, and faithful practitioners, of the "mystery" defense and if that works for you, great!
I think it's absurd to imply that the infinite God, the creator of the universe would be threatened by the finite, His creation, in any way shape or form. I have a bunch of "free will" hamsters in my house and they are no threat to my sovereignty. Gentlemen, I think your god might be too small.
Finally to compare Open Theism with Socinianism is rather silly. It's like saying John Piper is a Muslim just because he is a theological determinist. Or perhaps Paul Helm is a Radical Behaviorist just because his views on the nature of man is very similar to that of BF Skinner?
Calvinism and Islam has many similar ideas about the nature of God. Yet, any fair minded person would have to say they are not the same. Nice try but your "guilt by association" attempt just doesn't work.
It is with some measure of amusement that I read two Calvinists get all worked up about universalism and the fact that utterly abhors the notion that everyone "goes to heaven".
The devil want's everyone to go to hell. Universalism wants everyone to go to heaven. The god of Calvinism want's *some* people to go to heaven while he want's the rest to go to hell (all for his "glory", of course).
Calvinism has more in common with universalism then you'll ever want to know! Open Theism, on the other hand, rejects the "limited universalism" of Calvinistic determinism.
Just some friendly thoughts.
- Leo
Hi, Leo. Perhaps your final sentence, "Just some friendly thoughts", should have included quotation marks around "friendly". The sneer and sarcasm of your comments sound anything but "friendly". Honesty is a virtue, you know. I didn't take offense. I was just noting.
Now, as to your "friendly" thoughts...
If you read my post carefully, you will see that I did not call your beliefs the Socinian Heresy, but, rather, that your beliefs share one point with theirs. Since that heresy is most notably anti-Trinitarian and no such belief exists in Open Theism, it clearly is not the same heresy.
Open Theism uses the word "omniscient" and affirms the term, but it doesn't mean the same thing. Nice move, but it's somewhat dishonest, isn't it? Traditional, historical, orthodox Christianity has always understood "omniscient" as knowing all things perfectly, including the future. Interestingly, I offered that definition and the argument to support it and the biblical reasons for it, none of which you addressed. Claiming "I do not deny God's omniscience" when you mean something radically different than I do by "omniscient" is not an argument. Nor does it address the ramifications of your position.
You satirize my concern ("It's absurd" were your words) about God being at the mercy of His creation. True, your "free will" hamsters may be no threat, but if they were actually running free and if you actually had to clean up after them when a visitor embarrassingly sits on a surprise pile of their dung, then perhaps you'd see my point. You still have to clean up after them. That's not Sovereignty. (I use the capitalized version for a reason. I am fairly sure, as in "omniscience", that you mean something different by the term "sovereignty" than I do.)
I am sorry you feel insulted. I took care not to aim at anyone in particular (and, thus, in my mind "not particularly friendly" is an unfair characterization). I was aiming at ideas, not people. Your affirmation of limited omniscience and limited sovereignty (and what appears to be an affirmation of universalism) don't answer the concerns I stated or the Scriptures I offered.
Hi Stan,
I do "take offense", at least "some offense" when opponents of Open Theism attempts the "Socinian Connection". Are you saying that Open Theism is NOT a heresy in your opinion? If so, I'll gladly stand corrected. However, I could have sworn you were just throwing OT in with the rest of the heretics through the ages.
With regard to the use of the word "omniscient" I also provided my definition as that of God only being able to know what is knowable. Therefore I find the charge of "dishonesty" a bit strange. I think you know exactly where I am coming from. However, for someone that is completely new to discussion more can obviously be said. see www.opentheism.info for example.
I do agree that definitions are important. We can probably have the same argument about "sovereignty". Many people, and maybe you are one, believes that God can only be sovereign if he controls everything meticulously. Meaning, in order for God to be truly sovereign freedom has to be essentially eliminated. However, my definition of sovereignty includes a God that can control the future and accomplish his ends despite the "free will" of His creation.
Thus, it's all about definitions and meaning of words, I agree. My definitions of both omniscience and sovereignty are every bit as "biblical" as yours.
I do not "affirm" universalism and my point was that I think Calvinism and Universalism has a lot more in common than OT and Universalism. Both are completely transactional. In Universalism god has decided that everyone goes to heaven. In Calvinism god had decided that only some go to heaven.
On the other hand, being strongly trinitarian, Open Theism emphasizes the relational aspects of the God/Man interaction. It's a relationship not everyone wants and since heaven is the "place" where we will hang out with Jesus for eternity I can only assume that there are those that doesn't want to be there.
One could say that Jesus came to clean up our dung, to use your words. Because we're free it's our mess, and Jesus truly comes to save mankind. In your version of the story God makes the mess.
Anyway, I don't think we will agree on much and maybe we can leave it at that.
- Leo
Leo: "I don't think we will agree on much and maybe we can leave it at that."
Yes, I'm pretty sure that is the truth. So I respond only so that my readers will have a response, not so much to continue an argument.
First, my understanding of Open Theism I got from reading Boyd and Pinnock and from the very website you suggested. Just so you know I wasn't sourcing a "hostile witness" or some such.
The problem that I have encountered over and over and over is when two people use the same word to mean two different things and then say, "See, I believe in ___." Two people separated by a common language. So it isn't quite reasonable or fair to say "I believe in Omniscience" when you're defining it differently. We need to come up with different words. I differentiate in a slightly obscure way by the capitalization. You believe in omniscience, and I believe in Omniscience, and they aren't the same. You believe in sovereignty and I believe in Sovereignty and they're not the same. The two are related in each case, but not the same. Oh, (and this is important), there is another concept of Sovereignty (my version, not yours) that does not require that God eliminate all freedom. Actually, I spent some time on the topic recently. In fact, the most recent one was the one that spawned this post. Oh, and please note that I didn't suggest your definitions were or were not biblical. They simply weren't the same ones. (I offered my source. I didn't see yours.)
I'm still not clear on what you were doing with the comparison of Calvinism and Universalism (over against Open Theism, I assume). I see how in one God chooses everyone and in the other God chooses some. In Open Theism God chooses none? Seems like a strange assertion, so I'm assuming that was NOT it. But that seemed odd to me.
There is one thing on which I want, for your sake and for others, to be absolutely clear. I do not link Open Theism with the Socinian Heresy. I simply note that it shares a component. But, to be completely unequivocal, I do consider it heresy. I do so for the reasons I listed. The ramifications it has on the character of God (His Omniscience, Omnipotence, Sovereignty, Immutability, etc.) are not trivial. I see it as a direct contradiction to so much Scripture that I can't avoid the conclusion. I apologize that it sounds so harsh and I mean no insult to you personally, but the doctrines of Open Theism as they differ from historical, orthodox Christianity are not merely different; they're dangerous.
It is, then, that fact that leads me to agree with you that we won't agree on much. If it was a matter of small differences, a matter of nuance or minor variation, then we could agree on some things I'm sure. (And, I suppose, we do.) But these are basic things to me, fundamental doctrines and baseline characteristics of God without which I cannot maintain any confidence in God, the Scriptures, or Christianity.
Hello, Blind Men,
I don't know if you are Calvinistic(if you are, shame on you) or if that is just what these open theist heretics are associating you with. I didn't really see anything objectionable in your post- as far as the Bible goes- and these people obvoiusly DON'T CARE what the Bible says and prefer their own faulty logic and philosophical speculations to the inspired Word. Oh, by the way, I am NOT an Arminian either; "lose your salvation" is a heresy and blashpemy and is salvation by WORKS! Calvinism and Arminainism- one blasphemy to another- and open theism brings up the rear.
Barry P. Sanzone
Italian Baptist- New York
Fundamentalist
Hi, barryp, and welcome.
First, I'm glad we agree that nothing I wrote in the post was objectionable. Good start.
Now, just for information, the terms "Calvinism" and "Arminianism" are somewhat misleading, but we should be clear on them. Jacob Arminius had some objections to the doctrines being taught in his day. His students raised those objections to the Church of their day at what is called the Synod of Dort. Those objections were dealt with and those who hold some or all of those objections are classified as "Arminians" because they object to one or more of those items (not because they are followers of Arminius, any more than those who are "Calvinists" are followers of Calvin). If you disagree with what is classically referred to as "Calvinism", you are classified as an "Arminian". I, for instance, classified myself as a "Calvinist" growing up because I believed you couldn't lose your salvation and those rotten Arminians did. Turned out I was a half-point Calvinist and a 4-point Arminian.
Just to be clear, I have not come to where I stand today based on anything John Calvin wrote. I came to where I am today based on what I see as abundantly clear in Scripture. If that is something for which I should be ashamed, then we're going to have trouble talking, aren't we? If I should be ashamed because I believe what I see in Scripture, then where do I go from here?
Stan you are a very wise man. Thank you for sharing this and thank you for your well thought out non-accusatory and kind responses. I applaud you. Well done.
Troy Asher
There's nothing wrong with Socinianism as defined in the Racovian Catechism. Its the free-lance capital U Unitarians and the fake unitarians who are really Arians (e.g. JWs who believe Jesus is Michael the archangel) that have it all wrong.
David,
If your standard of truth is the Racovian Catechism (rather than, say, the Bible), then I'm sure Socianianism is just fine. I'm equally sure that the Bible disagrees.
Of course, the point of the post was not Socinianism, but Open Theism, Socinianism's offspring.
Hi Stan,
Interesting to see the longevity of a blog post and comments being added 4 years later.
I would like to ask why you choose to call Open Theism (OT) an "offspring" of Socinianism? When I read these words from you I was reminded about your previous comments in this thread where you made some good points about the importance of definitions.
The word "offspring" is typically defined as "the product or result of something". From Wikipedia: "In biology, offspring is the product of reproduction of a new organism produced by one or more parents."
So, since you use the word "offspring" should I take that to understand that you are saying that Socinianism is somehow the root or the "parent" of OT?
I think it would be fair to say that Socinianism and OT share the same idea about God's foreknowledge but I think that it's incorrect to say that OT, be it from a historical, theological or philosophical perspective somehow has its root in Socinianism. Thus, if that's how you are using the word and if that's what you are trying to suggest I'd say that is a false statement. Maybe it's just a poor choice of words?
I say that because you also said this previously:
"There is one thing on which I want, for your sake and for others, to be absolutely clear. I do not link Open Theism with the Socinian Heresy. I simply note that it shares a component".
I agree with that statement but when you use the word "offspring" you seem to say something totally different.
Simply because two completely different theological systems share one common denominator doesn't make one system the "offspring" of the other.
To quote George M. Porter (D.Phil) "The resemblance between Socinian formulas concerning divine omniscience and similar expressions in open theism, though remarkable, are actually historically accidental rather than relationally dependent."
You can read more about OT in it's historical context here:
http://opentheism.info/information/things-may/
- Leo
Interesting, also, Leo, that you're still monitoring this old entry.
I used "offspring" in a less-than-technical manner, I suppose. I meant it in the same sense that this article says, "The Socinians also developed one of the earliest forms of the heterodox belief known today as open theism as they believed God only knew necessary truths ...". Perhaps not shared source, but shared concept.
Hi Stan,
"Shared concept" seems fair enough.
I think it's important to avoid "guilt by association" when comparing systems. Thanks for the clarification.
- Leo
PS. Whenever I post a comment in a blog I usually sign up to receive future comments posted by others. That's better than actually monitoring a blog. Now you know it's working : )
Its also clearly a shared concept of the author of Genesis.
David, not entirely sure to what you're referring by "the shared concept." If you're talking about the Trinity or about Open Theism, then we're done. We have no reliable document. The "Word of God" doesn't exist. If the author of Genesis holds true what the the rest of Scripture argues that God is both triune or Omniscient, then we have a genuine contradiction and we can all quit and go home. But perhaps your terse statement meant something different. The problem of communication on the Internet.
Socinianism is related to Open Theism in the same way that Islam is related to Calvinism
The former two have some overlapping beliefs and the latter two have some overlapping beliefs. That is a different thing than saying one is derived from the other (or implying it).
Not many Socinian around today.
Then you disagree that the Socinian quote is not the same thing you'd hear from Open Theism?
The shared concept between Open Theism and the book of Genesis that I was probably referring to back in May of 2015 is that God is not omniscient in the sense of knowing the future exhaustively but only of conceptual knowledge, that omniscience is limited by the nature of time (not by a defect in God himself). Genesis clearly recognizes that exhaustive knowledge of the future is an impossibility. If God knew the future exhaustively before creating the world he could not have "repented him that he made man" in Genesis 6 or in any sense responded to mankind becoming violent "and every though of his is evil constantly" could not have upset or surprised him in any way and there would have been no flood, and furthermore he could not have repented of the flood as a rash solution and made a covenant to never flood the earth again. We're not dealing with the Calvinist (or Muslim classical theist) concept of God in Genesis, or anywhere else in the Old Testament for that matter. The Trinity, I'll pass on discussing. Not interested.
Now you can always say that the story of the flood is "condescending to our stupidity" (John Calvin) but that won't work very well. Because if God knew everything that would happen from all eternity there would have been no flood. If he knew mankind would become that violent and evil before creating them, and knew that the flood would not be an actual solution but they would continue to be so, and knew that if he did a flood he would afterward merely come to realize that he just has to deal with mankind's flaws and overlook them to some extent (Genesis 8:21 The Lord purposed is his heart [after the flood] "I will no longer destroy the whole world with a flood because I understand that mankind's heart is evil from his youth). If he completely realized it all from eternity past, this little learning experience would have been skipped, he would not have tried to correct mankind's flaw with a flood, and there would be no flood story in the Bible. Sorry, but Calvin's "condescending to our stupidity" theory just doesn't float.
David,
It appears that you are suggesting that the verse in Genesis (yes, there is one or two more with the same term) where God "repented" (King James translation) that He had made man on earth (Gen 6:6) is proof that all of orthodox Christianity for all time has been wrong. When John writes "God is greater than our hearts, and He knows everything" (1 John 3:20), it wasn't actually everything. When the psalmist penned "His understanding has no limit" (Psa 147:5), there actually was a limit. When David declared, "In Your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." (Psa 139:16), it was clearly an overreach. When Paul referred to God as "Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will," he did so without accurate or full comprehension because God repents of some of what He has done. Further, the logical conclusion can only be that the Holy Spirit has failed to bring about leading His own into all truth because the vast majority of Christendom has understood God's Omniscience to refer to knowing all things, but now we understand that He does not.
In the end, what we have here, David, is a bona fide contradiction. Large portions of Scripture argue that God knows everything. He knows past, present, and future, motives, thoughts, intents, all possibilities and contingencies, as well as all actualities. Other portions like the one you cite say ... He does not.
Or, could it be that "repent" is the wrong word (at least in today's vernacular)? The ESV says "relented". Some of the the translations says that "It repented the Lord" which is not the same as "The Lord repented". The word is literally "to sigh" which suggests that He was sad about something without requiring that He was caught off guard or unaware, just that He wasn't delighted with things as they were. It does not require that He didn't see it coming or even that He, in some sense (because He allowed it knowing it was coming) couldn't grieve over it.
Biblically, God says both in 1 Samuel 15. God told Samuel, "I regret (repent) that I have made Saul king" (1 Sam 15:11) and in the same chapter Samuel declares "The Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret." (1 Sam 15:29) So, which is it? Was God right and all of Scripture that says otherwise wrong, or was Samuel right along with all the rest of Scripture that agrees with him right and your understanding of "repent" in error? I obviously think the latter. So do others.
Nor would I nor could I classify anything that God does as "rash" or ineffectual. Indeed, both your version of "repent" and your representation of God's actions as "rash" require an imperfect God, eliminating God as God.
And something I don't understand is why Calvin plays any part in this question. This isn't a question of Calvin or Calvinism -- which are not the same thing and, in fact, are only vaguely related to each other and not at all to this conversation.
Post a Comment