Hi Ed-

The whole question of the history of open theism is still waiting to be explored and answered. There are bits and pieces, but no exhaustive study.

You have Calcidius, a 4^th/5^th century Christian philosopher who clearly was an open theist (Calcidius on Fate: His Doctrine and Sources, J. Den Boeft, Brill Academic Publishers, 1997). He was well-respected and so far as we know was never accused of heresy for his views. Greg is reading more carefully through Calcidius (and other neo-platonists, and Cicero). He was saying the other day how unusual it would be if Calcidius were the only person of his day or previous to his day to hold such views. When you read Calcidius he’s very casual about his views and doesn’t give any indication of an ongoing debate or of the possibility that anyone would think they posed a problem for Christian faith.

As for others who held to an open view but who were thought to be heretics, what’s the point? Guilt by association? I mean really, what then should we conclude about Calvinists because they have in common with Muslims the belief that God unconditionally determines everything that happens in the world? Are Calvinists as religiously lost and in error as Muslims? Look, we’re ALL (as Christians) going to have SOMETHING in common with Christian heretics. They were CHRISTIAN heretics after all, something they couldn’t be unless we had a good deal about which we agreed on and other things we disagreed over! So Socinius was an open viewer. Big friggin deal. And Muslims are theological determinists. So friggin what.  

So far as I know, nobody in ancient church history was ever condemned as a heretic simply because they held to the open view. In fact, there is not a single word in any of the ecumenical councils about the manner in which Christians were expected to believe God was omniscient or the nature of foreknowledge. On the contrary, you have at last one example of an open theist who was not condemned, Calcidius. Then you have to come all the way up to the 18^th century to discuss others. If you see the online version of my paper (http://www.opentheism.info/pdf/belt/summary_aog.pdf), footnote no. 38, there's a bit about Billy Hibbard, Adam Clarke, and Lorenzo McCabe. There is an awesome article on McCabe here: http://www.opentheism.info/pages/information/porter/things_only.php. There was no tribunal and no charge of 'heresy' in the cases of Hibbard, McCabe, and Clarke. I think too many evangelicals have just grown Pharisaical and are control-mongers. They get life and fulfillment out of being increasingly in a position to tell people "this is wrong," "that's right," "you're OK," "you're not OK."

But of all the things that we use to measure the likelihood of a belief’s being true, tradition/history is the last (in my mind) in importance. Think of Wesley’s Quadrilateral: Reason, Scripture, Experience, & Tradition (I’m not assuming a particular priority by listing them this way; just getting ‘em out there). If we have three of the four that strongly support the truth of our claim and SOME support from Tradition, then I think we’re in a very good position! Sure, we should never dismiss church tradition lightly, but everybody in this debate admits that tradition (church councils and decrees) can be wrong. So the argument against the open view from history/tradition is the weakest possible objection there is. I'm not sure there's any real 'bite' to it at all.

Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 3/15/2006 12:57:07 PM (GMT-6)

Yo, Stark. Yeah, I see your point. And Ed asks a good question. Deciding how much weight to give to tradition is a balancing act. An art as much as a science (if it's a science at all!).

It simply can't be that tradition is infallible (if Protestants are right on Scriptural authority and even close on the unique character of Scripture as inspired). For starters, we Protestants (Ware included) reject elevating tradition to such a level of authority (though Ware essentially does this). We only recognize Scripture as bearing that kind of authority. If this is the case, then in principle we have to concede that the Church can be wrong. And since the Church has believed a great many things, a lot of those in the Church have been wrong a lot, a lot of the time.

Ware's point seems to be this: some of the Church can be wrong some or all of the time, but ALL of the Church can't be wrong ALL of the time. God just wouldn't permit it. The correct view HAS to exist in some ongoing tradition of the Church. Moreover, whatever the Church has unanimously affirmed as true HAS to be true. But this assumes God has inspired church leadership and councils throughout Church history in the formation of doctrine to an extent that’s very difficult to defend. Look at what this amounts to. God is able to and has determined universal affirmation of correct doctrine in SOME instances (like omniscience) but not in others. There is longstanding difference of opinion over so many doctrinal issues it’s not funny. There was never universal agreement over the nature of justification, salvation, views of the atonement, the nature of grace, the identity and validity of the gifts of the Spirit, nature and extent of divine providence, human freedom, eschatology, ecclesiology, inspiration of Scripture, understandings of sin, nature of the Fall, biblical history, gender issues, church discipline, evangelism, the fate of the unevangelized, the nature of hell, divorce & remarriage, the nature of church authority, the ordination of clergy, the priesthood of all believers, the role of prayer, physical healing, veneration of the saints, status of Mary, and try this one—the TRINITY!—and let’s not forget Christology! We could go on and on listing important doctrinal matters over which the Church historically has NOT been in totally agreement.

Ware essentially claims that though God is perfectly capable of guaranteeing universal agreement on some doctrines (very few in fact, but omniscience is one of them!) God just didn’t see the need to do the same in all these other areas. Ware wants us to believe that because the Church has universally affirmed that God eternally knows all that shall ever come to pass it must be the case that GOD is the one who guaranteed that the Church got it right? What, don't these other doctrines matter? If the omnipotent God can with little effort guarantee that the WHOLE Church throughout history got it right on omniscience, where was God on all these other doctrines? Puuuleeease.

Historical theology is important. I want to know what Christians before me have believed, what questions they've struggled with, what answers they've found, WHY they felt believing this or that was important, etc. It's all important. We'd be insane to ignore history. Open theists have an interest in history too--Calcidius! But the Reformers were prepared to start over. Look at Luther and the Epistle of James (the "Epistle of Straw" I think he called it). Luther was open to redefining the canon. Imagine that. Were he to apply for membership to the ETS they'd slam the door in his face.

Gotta run!
Tom

Post Edited (TGB) : 3/19/2006 2:17:22 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Sir_Edward) : 3/28/2006 12:03:46 PM (GMT-6)

http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/servlet/WLAHoldingServlet?query=no%3A335389&sessionid=BDAC6936597EC737251E2553FF1F37DD.two&recno=1&zip=Michigan

Ave Maria college has Calcidius on Fate and it's checked in:

http://library.avemaria.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?session=U143T72O36161.485&menu=search&aspect=basic&npp=10&ipp=20&spp=20&profile=main&ri=&term=Calcidius+on+Fate&index=.GW&aspect=basic&x=15&y=15#focus

 
Tom, my alma mater has three Calcidius on tap:

http://saturn.oit.umn.edu/F/5IHS6PUUEKK1E8TH1ELF284Y75V85352RB456RV3NEYMB55PC1-10933?func=scan&scan_start=Calcidius&scan_code=TTL&x=48&y=7