Another Dangerous Heresy

[LadyRaven]

While such astute theologians as Jonathan Edwards used the idea of

[LadyRaven]

2. No Omnipotence:

A.) Limited Foreknowledge:

If God knew all of our future choices, they would be no longer free. They have not been conceived of or brought into existence yet and thus are not fixed items for possible foreknowledge. Thus God

[LadyRaven]

3. No Imputation:

Not only does MGT deny the federal headship of Adam, but it also denies the imputation of Christ

[jgredline]

Interesting website.

[godrulz]

How many times have you read Olson's book? Do you own it? I have read it several times. Quoting isolated sentences does not do justice to his arguments or the many verses he cites for confirmation.

Assuming Calvinism is biblical is not defensible (it is a deductive theology based on proof texts).

It is simplisitic to say the view denies sovereignty, omnipotence, omniscience, imputation, etc. Just as John Wesley understood imputation differently than Whitefield or Edwards, so Moral Government objects to those who claim positional sanctification while living like the devil. Sanctification has real and practical implications. Peter says we are to be holy as He is holy, as obedient children, who are to be holy in all we DO (I Peter 1:13-16).

Likewise, Paul said to purify OURSELVES, perfecting holiness, in spirit, soul, and body (2 Cor. 7:1). There is more to the story that theoretical imputation. What does imputation mean and not mean?

I have studied Open Theism for 25 years. I can assure those who do not merely parrot Calvinism or straw man caricatures that we affirm omniscience. The issue is the nature of creation and the partially open future (God's sovereign choice vs determinism), not whether He is omniscient or not.

"Eternal now" is a Platonic, Augustinian concept, yet uncritically assumed to be biblical. It affects our understanding of foreknowledge, etc.

Free will is part of being in the image of God as personal beings. Without it, there is no accountability. It is self-evident as opposed to sock puppet deterministic robots. Love relationships that are genuine and reciprocal require genuine freedom. They are not caused nor coerced.

We could go on and on. Just as Warfield misquoted and misunderstood Finney (this has since been refuted and rectified point by point), so this poster is not fairly representing Olson or Moral Government.

God's character does not change, but this does not mean He is strongly immutable (i.e. He can change His mind, but His character and attributes do not change) or impassible like the pagan philosophers believe and that influenced the philosophy loving Augustine.

LadyRaven is at least attempting to post with content and conviction, but I would suggest she is not an expert on the views she attacks. I also think her defense of Gothic issues is odd at best.

[LadyRaven]

I have read the book, studied it in fact during my contact with YWAM and have had endless discussions of this subject matter with people involved in promoting this both before and after my rejection of it. It is a fair representation of the contents. The fact is that Moral Government Theology does reject the nature of God as the Bible presents it, the nature of man as the Bible presents it and the nature of Salvation as the Bible presents it. While I stuck with one source so it was easier to deal with, finding MGT ministries which say exactly what I have revealed is easy enough.

The rebuttals presented here are straight from scripture and are orthodox christianity believed by Catholics, Arminians and Calvinists alike. How those things are applied between these groups are quite different, however all who embrace non heretical christianity believe them.

Fact is, Moral Government Theology is Heresy ... Plain and simple, there is no getting around it.

and

Discussing my views on gothicism is about as pertinent to this topic as my views on tax evasion. (not at all pertinent)

[LadyRaven]

I have studied Open Theism for 25 years. I can assure those who do not merely parrot Calvinism or straw man caricatures that we affirm omniscience. The issue is the nature of creation and the partially open future (God's sovereign choice vs determinism), not whether He is omniscient or not.

We could go on and on. Just as Warfield misquoted and misunderstood Finney (this has since been refuted and rectified point by point), so this poster is not fairly representing Olson or Moral Government.

The only school of thought within this movement that does not hold to the items I presented that I know of is represented by the Oberlin School and Church, which relies more heavily on the non heterodox writings of Finney and repudiates Open Theism or Limited Foreknowledge. Since you say you are into Open Theism, discussing this is a moot point. It is also not representative of most modern MGT doctrine, it's a much older view than Olson and not what you are presenting. This would be to the MGT presented at YWAM and so far presented by you as Amyraldianism is to Calvinism. It's not *quite* the whole load of laundry.

[LadyRaven]

No I never play the jokerman

Sit around and wait to see

Or watch the outcome of a certain situation

I had in mind for eternity

Yeah it's up to me

What will be is up to me

No I never make a choice unless it's got to be

And I never give a reason

- Seven Nations "God"

For those who want to further investigate the topic....So you will see that I'm not just blowing smoke here...

This is specifically about Open Theism as is this

MGT and Pelagianism

Finney and MGT through the eyes of Spurgeonites

"The Gospel Truth" (according to them) - in their own words, plenty of articles

Lead Us Not Into Deception - YWAM and MGT, from the standpoint of Alan Gomes of Biola (note, this is NOT a calvinist institution) University

Some of Finney's Stuff so you can read it yourself

Deception in the Church articles...(as a bonus there's a link to a discussion of Benny Hinn too)

Trinitarian Class at Bible.org which discusses this topic, esp open theism

Open Theism and the Gospel

Baptists on the topic

I tried to google the catholic view on the topics but all i could find were forum comments which basically said "a non starter because it contradicts the creeds"

Anyone who reads this material will see that not only is it heresy, it is a version of a very old heresy known as Pelagianism.

[Marnie]

Very interesting postings. There is nothing new under the sun, is there? Heresies come and go and come back again. I was always troubled with YWAM but wasn't sure why. Thanks for the food for thought and all those references.

[nebula]

Anyone who reads this material will see that not only is it heresy, it is a version of a very old heresy known as Pelagianism.

"He told his followers that right action on the part of human beings was all that was necessary for salvation. To him, the grace of God was only an added advantage; helpful, but in no way essential." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism)

Ah - also the foundation of Universalism, it seems.