Socinianized Arminianism

From Robert Culver's "Systematic Theology"

According to this theology, mankind was created in the condition of mortality. The first man possessed no high degree of wisdom or knowledge. Since
his knowledge was imperfect and his will untried, desire (concupiscence) was stimulated by the command not to eat and being overpowered by it he yielded. It is almost as if God,Himself,were responsible for Adam's sin. The fall deprived neither Adam nor his descendants of the power of the will to good or evil.There is no inherited inclination to sin. Socinianism holds that scriptural commands to repent and believe show conclusively that ordinary people have inherent power to do either. (page 389)

Socinianism was essentially a revival of ancient Pelagianism and forerunner of the optimistic view of modern liberalism which views man as morally good at heart, to be saved by good environment, teaching, example,etc. All God requires for forgiveness is repentance by the sinner . In such a case atonement is unnecessary, even immoral. The pattern for salvation (forgiveness)is the Parable of the Prodigal Son ( Luke 15:11-32) not the cross of Christ. This is to be found in the literature of 'liberal' religion from Socinus to John Hick ( who espouses it vigorously). ( page 564)

 

Rippon=

wow, hadn't heard this before. recently there was a discussion like his in Sunday school, many were either saying or agreeing with this kind of thinking. This is not taught at our church, not believed by leaders, certainly not the pastor, this comes from some people, who are armanian, and who do not know what the bible says because they never bother to study, or to fully study a topic if and when they do some type of study. What surprises me is these are all older people, at 43 I'm the baby in the class, some old enough to be my parent or grandparent, and yet on average, they know basically nothing past Jn 3:16. We've been there since 1991 and have found good teachings, good classes available, where have these people been, and what have they been listening too outside of church.

 

I hear you Donna . In some of the soundest churches a number of the people still seem untaught .The biblical understanding of these old infants is limited to the surface level of a fraction of the Bible .
And that's a good question about what have they been listening to outside of Church. It's a good possibility that their own Pastor's sermons are being contradicted by the other stuff they listen to .The itching ear syndrome perhaps . They have been on a milk diet for a while now .

 

A lot of folks on the BB hold to this idea .

 

Our old teacher, who was very indepth, pastor says some of his teaching was seminary level, always said, they may have been christians for 40 years, but they've repeated year 1 40 times and babes still on milk.
It takes work to advance.

 

It seems to me that some people just have a barrier to advanced learning that they can't overcome. And I don't think it's an issue of intellect, but one of attitude.

In my own teaching, I feel so frustrated because there are certain people that simply shut down mentally as soon as I use a word over two or three syllables or ends with "ism" or "istic", no matter how elemental I make it. With these people, I have to resort to children's Sunday School methods to teach the subject, howbeit ever so shallow.

 

I agree, these are reasonably intelligent people, some went to college, one is a doctor, a couple were school teachers. They chose not to learn and understand, it's their way or it doesn't exsist.

 

Who's to say they don't want to learn...but reject what you are teaching? Some on this thread are sounding quite judgemental.

 

No, mister quick trigger, that's not what's happening. For example, I have one student that is a life-long dispensationalist. She can map out the entire Clarence Larkin time line with scripture proofs, but as soon I say the word "dispensationalist", her face goes blank. She asks me why I have to use those "big words". This has been going on a long time. To this day, whenever I say "dispensationalism", I have to look at her and say "you know, what you believe about the tribulation, the rapture, the Church, Israel, etc.", to which she used to always reply, "why didn't you just say that", to which I reply, "it's easier to say 'dispensationalism' than it is to say 'the teaching that there are seven dispensations beginning with the dispensation of innocence, followed by..[all the other dispensations]...and then finally the lost are cast into Hell and the eternal state of bliss begins".

 

Quite funny actually..... :laugh:

 

I've experienced what others have said on here, and it doesn't have to deal with doctrines of grace. One time I discussed with an individual about a pastor being someone who can "feed us meat" to chew on, they replied, "nah...I want someone that'll give me the gist of what they are saying, you know, like the top layer." It went something along those lines.

 

I don't find it funny. What is funny about someone belittling a class they are teaching? What kind of teacher does this?!?

 

If this is what they want to learn they are in the wrong church.

 

I found this little bit of information really intresting since you want to compare socinianism to Arminianism.
"Socinians held views rooted in rationality only and rejected orthodox teachings on the Trinity and on the divinity of Jesus, as summarised in the Racovian Catechism. They also 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. They are to be differentiated from Arians, who believed in a preexistent Christ. The Socinians held that the Son of God did not exist until he was born a man."
quote above taken from wickipedia:
I would say this sounds more akin to Calvinism than Arminianism
MB

 

I would say that your understanding of Calvinism is in need of dire repair."More akin to Calvinism" -- that's nonsense.Care to demonstrate anywhere in which we deny the Trinity or say Christ did not exist until His incarnation ? Have you even glanced at the 1689 London Confession of Faith ?And we certainly do not believe that God takes contingencies into account .He not only knows the future ,He determines it .All the prophecies in the Bible which have been fulfilled were brought about from His All-Powerful Hand.The Lord is not looking for possible contingencies.If you think one can harmonize Socinianism with Calvinism you're barking up the wrong tree Bud.

 

When did you consider Arminianism?

There really is no such thing as Socinianized Arminianism. Arminians believe in the trinity and the preexistance of Christ before the physcial Life of Jesus. To lump all Arminian's with Socinian's is deceptive. The moment they became Socinian's they were no longer Arminian's

Socinianism is now unitarianism. To assume that it must be Arminianism is hog wash. Arminianist are not Antitrinitarianist

Not true at all. The moment any Arminian would change there belief about the eternal existance of Christ and the trinity, they became unitarianist.

Yale and Harvard both taught Calvinism exclusively of course there view would be slanted towards what they presume to be there enemy. "The dreaded Arminians".

There doesn't seem to be much come about in two thousand years to stop the gospel, or hinder the Holy Spirit my friend. The Romans the Russians the Islamics and Hitler all tried and failed. To a Calvinist any one who denies the doctrines of Grace is either Catholic or Arminian. Being in love with the idea that (Other than Calvinism) there just isn't any other doctrine worthy of a believer.
It seems the Socinian's and Calvinist have more in common that you're willing to admit since they both have the same views on limiting God on who He can save. He must save those whom He knew He would, no exceptions. That is the similarity between the two. There are no other possibilities. This limits God when it comes to All things are possible with Him.
As far as man's rebellion of God it happens to be our nature to rebel against Him and as long as we do we will not be saved. It isn't that we cannot be saved because we have some power God can't over throw. Men have to be convinced and convicted before they can wear the righteousness of God.

What this boils down to is can we call someone a Socinianized Arminianist when the two do not believe the same things. That would be like calling Calvinist, "Catholic Calvinist". Is there such a thing? who knows anything is possible. I mean we have African Americans and Mexican Americans Why not go all the way and start calling people "Catholic Calvinist Arminianist" We all have something in common we all claim Christ. Being a separatist is easy. To say you as a Calvinist have nothing in common with Socinianist just isn't true. The truth is you have more in common with them than you are willing to admit.
MB