|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 31, 2008 23:58:32 GMT -5
Newly Discovered Open Theists in Church HistoryAugust 24th, 2008Hello bloggers, For the last several decades Thomas and Christine Lukashow have been discovering orthodox Christians from the 17th through the 19th centuries who were open theists and who, so far as I’m aware, no one else knew about. Over the last year they’ve been gracious enough to not only keep me informed about their on-going research but to also send me photocopies (and even a few original works) of the material they’ve retrieved. (Thank you Tom and Christine!). To date, defenders of Open Theism have usually appealed to Calcidius in the 4th century and a number of 18th and 19th century theologians and preachers, including Adam Clark, Lorenzo McCabe, Billy Hibbert, Joel Hayes, T.W. Brents, Isaac Dorner and the renowned 19th century Bible commentator Adam Clark. In light of Tom and Christine’s research, it’s now beginning to appear that this may just be the tip of the iceberg. The open view seems to have been espoused and discussed much more frequently than we previously thought. Of particular interest is an 18th century minister named Samuel Fancourt (1678-1786). He wrote several works in the early 18th century defending the view that the future is partly open, including Free Agency of Accountable Creatures Examined, Liberty, Grace and Prescience and The Greatness of Divine Love. These book generated a lot of discussion, as evidenced by the dozens of books, journal articles, pamphlets and letters published at the time which the Lukashows have uncovered. Other 18th and 19th century orthodox Open Theists I was unaware of are J. Jones, J. Greenrup, W. Taylor, and D. U. Simon. The Luckashows have also recovered a number of 18th century anonymous booklets espousing Open Theism, and Tom has recently uncovered some evidence of Open Theism being espoused by 17th century Arminians. It seems to me that these discoveries are significant in as much as critics of Open Theism have often alleged that it is an entirely new teaching and even made the [entirely baseless] charge that it derived from Process Philosophy (a 20th century school of thought). I haven’t worked through this material yet, and, frankly, it’s not the easiest stuff in the word to read because most of it is in very old English. (Tom tells me he and Christine are in the process of “updating” some of it). But from my initial cursory review of the material, it seems that these folks based their Open Theism primarily on Scripture, using many of the same arguments Open Theists use today. It’s also significant that, while these debates were sometimes passionate, I haven’t yet found anyone accusing anyone of “heresy” for holding the open view (though again, I’ve only skimmed this material). Hats off to Tom and Christine for the tireless work in this area. One of these days, somebody needs to thoroughly digest this material and write a monograph on the history of Open Theism in the orthodox Christian tradition. (Anyone out there looking for a great doctoral dissertation topic?). It’s definitely a story worth telling. Blessings, Gregory Boyd www.gregboyd.org/blog/newly-discovered-open-theists-in-church-history/
|
|
|
Post by swordsmith on Sept 6, 2008 22:23:37 GMT -5
This is a good discovery!
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Sept 8, 2008 19:54:50 GMT -5
I've been spending some time talking to Orthodox theologians and even went to visit an Orthodox congregation over the weekend. Although most Orthodox thinkers don't know the terminology, they tend to agree with the open view. I am planning on visiting an Orthodox monastery in the near future to spend some time discussing theology with the monks. I will post more info when I have it. Thus far, I have learned that they have some valuable insights that have not been filtered through Catholic or Reformed dogma.
|
|
|
Post by John McGlone on Sept 8, 2008 21:31:18 GMT -5
Very interesting and encouraging. It may be a whole movement of people who when pondering and discussing these ideas, quickly learned how hated they would be if they were to be too public about this theology.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Sept 9, 2008 7:52:23 GMT -5
Very interesting and encouraging. It may be a whole movement of people who when pondering and discussing these ideas, quickly learned how hated they would be if they were to be too public about this theology. It's probably more a matter of ignorance on our part, when it comes to not realizing what the Orthodox have taught for years. Over the past several months, I have been amazed at my own ignorance concerning the Orthodox's teachings. We don't share the same presuppositions; we don't approach our studies the same way and we certainly don't have the same understanding of things such as Church, indwelling of the Spirit, Baptism, Communion, Liturgy, etc.. My suspicion is that I am engaged in a sloppy form of Western Christianity that would be completely foreign to the Early Church. I don't agree with many things the Orthodox teach, but looking past the concentration on Mary and the icons, I see that they have some important insights that "evangelicals" have ignored. A Deacon at the church I visited over the weekend was quick to tell me that the Orthodox Church was founded by Christ and retains first century teachings. He went on to say that they have many other traditions that were accepted by the church, but that they know which traditions those are, where they came from and why they were accepted, and openly share these things with their congregations. Western Christianity, in the eyes of many Orthodox, is a far cry from the faith embraced by the Early Church. Maybe he is right. In their mind; Why would we sign on to a Reformed dogma that resulted as a failed attempt to correct false teachings of the Catholic Church, when the Orthodox Church separated itself from the papal heresy at the very beginning? If you could travel back through the ages, past the Reformers, past the Roman Catholic church, you would end up with the Orthodox faith. Again, I don't agree with all they teach, but I plan on figuring out exactly what all they do teach before I pretend to have a good handle on it all. I suspect it will help me understand who we are called to be and how the Church is meant to operate.
|
|
|
Post by aymaco on Sept 9, 2008 14:42:00 GMT -5
Very interesting and encouraging. It may be a whole movement of people who when pondering and discussing these ideas, quickly learned how hated they would be if they were to be too public about this theology. It's probably more a matter of ignorance on our part, when it comes to not realizing what the Orthodox have taught for years. Over the past several months, I have been amazed at my own ignorance concerning the Orthodox's teachings. We don't share the same presuppositions; we don't approach our studies the same way and we certainly don't have the same understanding of things such as Church, indwelling of the Spirit, Baptism, Communion, Liturgy, etc.. My suspicion is that I am engaged in a sloppy form of Western Christianity that would be completely foreign to the Early Church. I don't agree with many things the Orthodox teach, but looking past the concentration on Mary and the icons, I see that they have some important insights that "evangelicals" have ignored. A Deacon at the church I visited over the weekend was quick to tell me that the Orthodox Church was founded by Christ and retains first century teachings. He went on to say that they have many other traditions that were accepted by the church, but that they know which traditions those are, where they came from and why they were accepted, and openly share these things with their congregations. Western Christianity, in the eyes of many Orthodox, is a far cry from the faith embraced by the Early Church. Maybe he is right. In their mind; Why would we sign on to a Reformed dogma that resulted as a failed attempt to correct false teachings of the Catholic Church, when the Orthodox Church separated itself from the papal heresy at the very beginning? If you could travel back through the ages, past the Reformers, past the Roman Catholic church, you would end up with the Orthodox faith. Again, I don't agree with all they teach, but I plan on figuring out exactly what all they do teach before I pretend to have a good handle on it all. I suspect it will help me understand who we are called to be and how the Church is meant to operate. Hello I am new here and this is the first time I post. I know this may deviate a bit from the topic (Open Theism) but I recently found some writings about what the Orthodox Church teaches concerning sin and it is indeed interesting. Ancestral Sin Vs. Original Sin www.antiochian.org/ancestral-versus-original-sinDifferent quotations from Orthodox Divines concerning their doctrine of Ancestral Sin. razilazenje.blogspot.com/2006/12/ancestral-sin-quotations-from-orthodox.htmlGod Bless.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 9, 2008 15:11:03 GMT -5
Joe-
I hope you share your findings with us concerning the Orthodox Church. The little that I have discovered about Orthodox spirituality (from the Philokalia, for example) has been a great blessing in my walk of faith.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Sept 10, 2008 7:06:30 GMT -5
Antony Hughes, the author of the first article you referenced, articulates the same position that I have come to over the years on many subjects without ever studying the Orthodox position. After reading the ECF's extensively, studying scripture for what it says and not what we make it to say and through personal devotions, I arrived at the same view of the atonement and OS that Hughes describes. My pastor and I have vowed to spend the next few years studying the Orthodox teachings and I imagine that it will continue to transform my walk with Jesus. In the article you referenced; www.antiochian.org/assets/asset_manager/da42e6049df1d08bff1865c1ac19e759.pdfHughes presents a case for the Theosis, Open Theism, Salvation as a process, Salvation from Sin and Death, a correct understanding of Original Sin and explains some of the differences between the Early Church's teachings and post-Augustine teachings. Reading it makes me feel like I finally found someone in complete agreement with the positions I arrived at. This is really how I got turned on to the Orthodox in the first place. Someone was accusing me of heresy (again), for having come to an understanding outside of orthodoxy, as I explained my position on Theism, atonement, perfection, etc.. A third party came into the conversation and said, "He's not a heretic, he is an Orthodox." This surprised me and I started trying to figure out why this guy would say such a thing. I didn't know what the Orthodox taught at the time, but after some study, I have found that I identify more with them than I do with protestants. I will definitely keep you all posted.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Sept 10, 2008 22:52:36 GMT -5
Can anyone provide any early church father quotes that support open theism or are there any that strictly refute it (i.e. support complete foreknowledge)?
Just curious. I haven't looked yet and was wondering if anyone compiled anything yet. I heard mention of someone 4th century... anything earlier?
Blessings,
Miles
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Sept 10, 2008 23:07:36 GMT -5
Some of the major leaders in the Early Church were converted philosophers who seemed to continue to hold to Plato's view of "Eternal Now". This affected their understanding of foreknowledge. So many of the quotes I have found on the issue are in favor of "eternal now", that God lives without succession, or more specifically that He lives in the past, present, and future all at once. But it seems clear to me that they learned this understanding from Plato and not from the Apostles. That is just my conclusion from my studies.
But ALL of the Early Church leaders taught free will. And the very definition of a "free" will is that certain decisions "may or may not" occur. And that is precisely what the open view says, that because there is free will, moral decisions have alternative possibilities, there is a "may or may not" element in reality.
To say that the future is certain (because of foreknowledge) and to say that the future is contingent (because of free will) is a contradiction. A certain event will happen, a contingent event may or may not happen. The same event cannot be both contingent and certain. You cannot say that an event will happen and that it may or may not happen.
So the concept of an open system is found in the Early Church at least in "seed" form, because of their understanding of free will over against the concept of fate, destiny, etc.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Sept 11, 2008 8:00:26 GMT -5
In Two Ancient (and Modern) Motivations For Ascribing Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge to God by Greg Boyd, the historical development of several positions on theism are cited. Note that these positions were not formed by Christians, however some were adopted by Christians. Below is a few of the points he makes in the paper.
1) All propositions must be either true or false, all prophecies must be either true or false - Chyrissipus
2) Prophecies/propositions are neither true nor false - Epicurus
The remaining three views were born out of attempts to avoid determinism while affirming bivalence (all statements are either true or false).
3) Prophecies may be true or false but the future is open- Carneades
4) Prophecies are either true or false, but are open to interpretation- Aristotle
5) The gods must perfectly know everything as certain, so they must be separate from time and all contingent events- Iamblichus, Proclus and Ammonius
Augustine and Boethius (The Boethian Wheel or Wheel of Fate) chose position #5 and the discussion about foreknowledge or determinism switched from the nature of what can be known to the nature of the ones who can perceive what can be known. The assumption then became that everything can be known by the gods who exist outside of the known universe (Augustine gave it a Christian slant). This is the same argument used by Classical Theist today.
The point is this; There has never been a single, universally accepted view of theism. What people call the Orthodox view is not what the Orthodox Church holds to, nor was it universally accepted by the Early Church. After Augustine’s position was picked up during the reformation, Classical Theism became the proof text for Calvinism. Prior to the Reformation, Classical Theism was not so classical and it was not universally accepted or used as a proof text for anything. Making the conversation about the nature of the gods instead of the nature of time or what can be known, is how the current model has stuck throughout history. The different views of theism held throughout history have little or nothing to do with the Bible. Open Theist are simply bypassing the different theories of impassibility in order to come to a position they feel best represents the nature of God as presented in scripture. The irony is that most of the animosity towards open theism comes from the Sola Scriptura crowd. Go figure…..
I am going to be giving some lectures on the open view in the near future where I will be covering this material thoroughly. When I get them on film, I will post the link.
|
|
|
Post by frankf on Sept 11, 2008 10:28:45 GMT -5
Some of the major leaders in the Early Church were converted philosophers who seemed to continue to hold to Plato's view of "Eternal Now". This affected their understanding of foreknowledge. So many of the quotes I have found on the issue are in favor of "eternal now", that God lives without succession, or more specifically that He lives in the past, present, and future all at once. But it seems clear to me that they learned this understanding from Plato and not from the Apostles. That is just my conclusion from my studies. Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) would suggest that Plato's ideas regarding time find their origin in the writings of Moses (i.e. Genesis) - specifically, that time is a created entity. And from what source did Plato draw the information that time was created along with the heavens? For he wrote thus: Time, accordingly, was created along with the heavens; in order that, coming into being together, they might also be together dissolved, if ever their dissolution should take place. Had he not learned this from the divine history of Moses? For he knew that the creation of time had received its original constitution from days and months and years. Since, then, the first day which was created along with the heavens constituted the beginning of all time (for thus Moses wrote, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and then immediately subjoins, And one day was made, as if he would designate the whole of time by one part of it), Plato names the day time, lest, if he mentioned the day, he should seem to lay himself open to the accusation of the Athenians, that he was completely adopting the expressions of Moses. And from what source did he derive what he has written regarding the dissolution of the heavens? Had he not learned this, too, from the sacred prophets, and did he not think that this was their doctrine?Justin also explains Plato's ideas of "eternal now" as originating from Moses. And whatever he thinks fit to tell of all that he had learned from Moses and the prophets concerning one God, he preferred delivering in a mystical style, so that those who desired to be worshippers of God might have an inkling of his own opinion. For being charmed with that saying of God to Moses, I am the really existing, and accepting with a great deal of thought the brief participial expression, he understood that God desired to signify to Moses His eternity, and therefore said, I am the really existing; for this word existing expresses not one time only, but the three— the past, the present, and the future. For when Plato says, and which never really is, he uses the verb is of time indefinite. For the word never is not spoken, as some suppose, of the past, but of the future time. And this has been accurately understood even by profane writers. And therefore, when Plato wished, as it were, to interpret to the uninitiated what had been mystically expressed by the participle concerning the eternity of God, he employed the following language: God indeed, as the old tradition runs, includes the beginning, and end, and middle of all things.
|
|
|
Post by joemccowan on Sept 19, 2008 11:13:51 GMT -5
Justin was really mirroring Philo. Philo had previously connected Pythagoras to Moses, which obviously is a reference to philosophy rather than Theology. Artapanus in the second century BC connected Moses with Musaeus and with Orpheus. Justin was an apologist, using the best philosophy of the day to convey the Christian faith. Connecting Plato and Pythogoras to Moses who had already been connected to other Greek philosophers, gave his contentions some weight among his audience.
|
|