Posted on 11/14/2002 2:28:06 PM PST by The Grammarian
A partial salvation ...
LOL at least you have an excuse. Gram is a Holiness guy , he does not drink.
Soccer?
Hmmm... a possible redundancy on my part. I'm thinking "error of composition"; I'm not entirely certain that it "rises to the level" of an "error of grammar".
However, I'm open to correction. ;-)
Uhhh... Fold, and call. ;-)
Grammarian has already pointed out your historical astigmatism in asserting that the Puritan John Milton was an "Arminian heretic", but I personally love the fact that you now credit Milton with the founding of Open Theism, a view which was not to surface until 300 years after his death. Some guy, that Milton.
But I'm certainly happy that you won't let a little history get in the way of your varsity name-calling routine. After all, how could one possibly defend the vicious construct if he were to be deprived of his name-calling 'tools'?
You know me, winston. I always revel in correcting historical error! This case is no different.
"Open Theism" is not new at all. It's simply a renaming of an old heresy, Socinianism.
The Socinians, however, and some of the Remonstrants, unable to reconcile this foreknowledge with human liberty, deny that free acts can be foreknown. As the omnipotence of God is his ability to do whatever is possible, so his omniscience is his knowledge of everything knowable. But as free acts are in their nature uncertain, as they may or may not be, they cannot be known before they occur. Such is the argument of Socinus. This whole difficulty arises out of the assumption that contingency is essential to free agency. If an act may be certain as to its occurrence, and yet free as to the mode of its occurrence, the difficulty vanishes. That free acts may be absolutely certain, is plain, because they have in a multitude of cases been predicted. It was certain that the acts of Christ would be holy, yet they were free. The continued holiness of the saints in heaven is certain, and yet they are perfectly free. The foreknowledge of God is inconsistent with a false theory of free agency, but not with the true doctrine on that subject.
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, I.5.8.D
Socinianism, of course was a heretical spliner group during the Reformation period (that means 50 to 75 years before Milton was born, if your name starts with a 'W'.)
OP, perhaps you can look into Milton's and/or Ralston's potential flirtation with Unitarianism (which Socinianism was the precursor to).
I'd look into it, but I am to take my daughter to the "Carousel Mall" shortly!
Jean
Winston is a Wesleyan they do not generally believe ion Gods foreknowlege..it would interfer with free will too much..so most Wesleyans think God has decided not to see the future (kinnda like closing your eyes to be surprised). So open Thesism is like breathing to them
As my Nazarene Pastor once noted Foreknowledge = predestination
Jean
Ralston's Elements were intended to be a 'judicious abridgement' of Richard Watson's Theological Institutes; or a View of the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals and Institutions of Christianity. Watson--and Ralston--both speak out strongly against Socinianism in their works (Ralston less so than Watson because the Socinians were less prevalent in America than in Britain, not to mention that they were dying out by that point, anyway). I don't know about Milton, but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt since Ralston quotes him favorably.
Winston is a Wesleyan they do not generally believe ion Gods foreknowlege..it would interfer with free will too much--Mom
Actually, Wesleyans believe in God's foreknowledge. They just recognize that foreknowledge does not equal predestination, that foreknowledge isn't causative.
Sorry about not getting the stuff on moral probation to you yesterday, Mom--I was out later than I expected, and I'm about to head out again, but I will make an effort to get that to you today.
No Grammar I posted for years on a Wesleyan site.. 95% of the pastors and theologins that posted on it did not believe in God's foreknowledge. They believe God "chooses " not to use His foreknowlege..
As my Nazarene Pastor told me absolute foreknowlege = Predestination ..and gram it DOES
Regarding the roots of the " new" heresy
Some early proponents of opennes theology are Calcidius (5'th century Christian), Andrew Ramsay (one of John Wesley's contemporaries), and Adam Clarke (18'th century Methodist). For others see my God Who Risks p. 311 n. 106; p. 313 n. 122; p. 324 n. 125. John Sanders
Note your favorite commentator in there
I did a little 'googling' and found (not to my utter amazement) that the Universalists claim Milton as one of their own.
That does not necessarily mean much as they probably are willing to fudge a little bit to raise up their 'numbers'. (Homosexual groups tend to list everybody under the sun as gay as well.) However, you'd never find a Calvin, Luther, Melanchthon, Bucer, Ursinus, Olivianus or deBras listed on one of their sites.
Jean
Okay, historically, Wesleyans are not open theists.
As my Nazarene Pastor told me absolute foreknowlege = Predestination ..and gram it DOES
How? Does foreknowledge cause an event to be, or does an event cause the foreknowledge? Properly speaking, the event causes the foreknowledge. Knowledge is not necessity.
The possibility of knowledge in God is virtually denied by those who deny any distinction between knowledge and power. Knowledge, which is power, ceases to be knowledge; and therefore if omniscience is only a different name for omnipotence, it ceases to be a distinct attribute of God. It makes little difference whether we expressly deny a given perfection to God, or whether we so determine it as to make it mean nothing distinctive. It is deeply to be regretted that not only the Fathers, but also the Lutheran and Reformed theologians, after renouncing the authority of the schoolmen, almost immediately yielded themselves to their speculations. Instead of determining the nature of the divine attributes from the representations of Scripture and from the constitution of man as the image of God, and from the necessities of our moral and religious nature, they allowed themselves to be controlled by a priori speculations as to the nature of the infinite and absolute....The Scriptural view of this subject, which distinguishes the attributes in God as distinct, and assumes that knowledge in Him, in its essential nature, is what knowledge is in us, does not conflict with the unity and simplicity of God as a spiritual being. There is a sense in which knowledge and power, intellect and will, may be said to be identical in man. They are not different substances. They are different modes in which the life or activity of the soul manifests itself. So in God when we conceive of Him as a spirit, we do not think of Him as a compound being, but as manifesting his infinite life and activity, in knowing, willing, and doing. What, therefore, we must hold fast to, if we would hold fast to God, is, that knowledge in God is knowledge, and not power or eternity; that it is what knowledge is in us, not indeed in its modes and objects, but in its essential nature. We must remove from our conceptions of the divine attributes all the limitations and imperfections which belong to the corresponding attributes in us; but we are not to destroy their nature. And in determining what is, and what is not, consistent with the nature of God as an infinitely perfect being, we are to be controlled by the teachings of the Scriptures, and by the necessities (or laws) of our moral and religions nature, and not by our speculative notions of the Infinite and Absolute. God, therefore, does and can know in the ordinary and proper sense of that word. He is an ever present eye, to which all things are perfectly revealed. "All things," says the Apostle, "are naked and opened unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." (Heb. iv. 13.) "The darkness and the light are both alike" to Him. (Ps. cxxxix. 12.) "He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?" (Ps. xciv. 9.) "O Lord thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my down-sitting and my up-rising, thou understandest my thought afar off." (Ps. cxxxix. 1, 2.) "The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good" (Prov. xv. 3.) "Hell and destruction are before the Lord: how much more then the hearts of the children of men?" (Prov. xv. 11.) "Great is our Lord and of great power: his understanding is infinite." (Ps. cxlvii. 5.) "O house of Israel I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them." (Ezek. xi. 5.) "Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." (Acts. xv. 18.) "The very hairs of your head are all numbered." (Matt. x. 30.) (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology.)
Regarding the roots of the " new" heresy: Some early proponents of opennes theology are Calcidius (5'th century Christian), Andrew Ramsay (one of John Wesley's contemporaries), and Adam Clarke (18'th century Methodist). For others see my God Who Risks p. 311 n. 106; p. 313 n. 122; p. 324 n. 125. John Sanders. Note your favorite commentator in there.
Yeah, I noticed Clarke in there. I question whether Clarke would consider them orthodox, but the man wasn't the most orthodox himself, either, so it wouldn't be a great shock to me if the evidence were to mount that he was a precursor to the Open Theists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.