Another Dangerous Heresy

[speckles]

Interesting website.

To what are you referring, there were no links in that 3 post discussion??

[speckles]

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.

I suppose you wanted LR to post entire pages? Who would read it?

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

Assuming this would be true does not yet indicate that Moral Government in the sense you understand it is true. A flaming 5 point daisy Arminian would disagree with you, son.

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).

Actually it isn't simplistic to say that, because LR was using the standard definition used by the church for years and your definition of it, even if she is partially wrong, does not match them. It is a common practice for cults, heterodox groups, and neo orthodox groups to take standard Christian terminology and redefine it to include their own definition, which is incompatible with the original definition.

The Church has a right to have a standard definition for atonement, imputation, ominiscience, omnipotence, and etc and your definition is not contained within. Therefore you do not believe in them. You may believe in a modification of some part of them, however you do not believe in them.

Sanctification does have practical implications, and nobody is suggesting you get to "live like the devil" so I think you set up a straw man to attack.

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?

It means what was presented, that is the orthodox historical understanding.

[speckles]

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.

Just because I'm not a theologian (and I'm assuming LR is not also) does not mean that we can't see that your understanding of omniscience has been modified to the point that it no longer fits within the definition understood by all branches of orthodox christianity. Biblical and orthodox understanding of omniscience includes complete foreknowledge (even if it doesn't have to include complete predestination of all things). The fact that you studied the topic for 25 years is no reason to change the definition understood and embraced by the orthodox branches of Christianity throughout history, whether I have or not. One does not have to study biology to know that there is a dead cat stinking up the yard.

LR is correct, this doctrine is heresy. Yes I'm sure that it's about as diverse in it's presentation as Baptist theology is (exactly what is the current count of baptistic denominations?), however, if you claimed to be a baptist and then embraced infant baptism, anyone with half a brain would know you were not a baptist of any sort.

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.

The orthodox non calvinist understanding is that the complete foreknowledge of God does not interfere with the free agency of man, in fact most people would say that it's like the Trinity, or the incarnation (God is one, yet three....wholly God and wholly man) that it is mysterious and incomprehensible, but still true that God is completely sovereign, plans and controls and foreknows, and yet man has a will which does what he wants and that man has moral and spiritual free agency.

Foreknowledge does not cause man to do anything. I can set out two bowls, one with brussel sprouts and the other with icecream and ask my child to choose. Without any further interference from me, I know my child will chose the icecream. The fact that I know this does not influence his choice at all.

Nonheretical christians argue about how much of that God has predestined, but we don't argue over the fact that God knows all of our choices.

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.

well the fact is that the philosophy loving augustine was not a heretic and unfortunately you are (unless of course you dont embrace MGT and OT). Scripture does in fact say that God cannot and does not change. It even says that he does not change his mind...

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither is he the son of man, that he should change his mind: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Either he doesn't change his mind or he lies here in this verse, which contradicts the other half of the verse.

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.

I didn't see any defense of gothic issues in the posts in question (and I have no idea why it would matter...this looks like another attempt to set up a straw man, which is a logical fallacy and not kosher with the laws of fair debate), nor did I see anything which indicated her analysis was unfair. The hsitorical definitions are what they are, and you don't agree with them as they are historically understood, therefore, unfortunately, this means your doctrine is heresy.

[speckles]

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.

Finney had non heterodox writings?

What is Amyraldianism?

[LadyRaven]

Assuming this would be true does not yet indicate that Moral Government in the sense you understand it is true. A flaming 5 point daisy Arminian would disagree with you, son.

Daisy? LoL, I suppose that's a word play off TULIP?

Welcome to Worthy, btw

Actually it isn't simplistic to say that, because LR was using the standard definition used by the church for years and your definition of it, even if she is partially wrong, does not match them. It is a common practice for cults, heterodox groups, and neo orthodox groups to take standard Christian terminology and redefine it to include their own definition, which is incompatible with the original definition.

The Church has a right to have a standard definition for atonement, imputation, ominiscience, omnipotence, and etc and your definition is not contained within. Therefore you do not believe in them. You may believe in a modification of some part of them, however you do not believe in them.

Sanctification does have practical implications, and nobody is suggesting you get to "live like the devil" so I think you set up a straw man to attack.

You are correct this is a common tactic amongst those who change the meaning of scripture to mean something else, they also change the terminology to match. Thus in this case Incomplete Foreknowledge can be included in the definition of Omniscience...when it isn't really compatible. He could very well protest that he believes God does foreknow some things and therefore plan some things, which doesn't mean he knows nothing if he felt I were trying to say that his version of God knew nothing. But I wasn't saying that, only that it wasn't, in his theology, possible for God to be Ominiscient in the sense that the church has known and upheld as sound, necessary doctrine from the beginning.

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?

It means what was presented, that is the orthodox historical understanding.

Some passage of scripture are clear and some are less clear, the less clear need to be interpreted in the light of the clear. Scripture is clear that man can do nothing to please God and that it is Christ which lives in me which causes good works. So when Paul says to purify ourselves, it's clear from scripture we dont do that of our own volition, we rely on God, it's not a matter of bucking up and doing right as much as giving the life over to God so that Christ's righteousness can affect my condition and Jesus lives THROUGH me.

[billie]

Thank you for posting this info, Raven. I was curious about it. I'd planned on Googling Moral Government, just hadn't got my lazy butt round to it yet. You contribute so much great stuff to the Boards! Thank you again much!

[LadyRaven]

The orthodox non calvinist understanding is that the complete foreknowledge of God does not interfere with the free agency of man, in fact most people would say that it's like the Trinity, or the incarnation (God is one, yet three....wholly God and wholly man) that it is mysterious and incomprehensible, but still true that God is completely sovereign, plans and controls and foreknows, and yet man has a will which does what he wants and that man has moral and spiritual free agency.

Foreknowledge does not cause man to do anything. I can set out two bowls, one with brussel sprouts and the other with icecream and ask my child to choose. Without any further interference from me, I know my child will chose the icecream. The fact that I know this does not influence his choice at all.

Nonheretical christians argue about how much of that God has predestined, but we don't argue over the fact that God knows all of our choices.

for some reason, my experience has been that this particular brand of theology hates calvinism more than any other. It sprang, a while ago, out of a perversion of arminianism and there are bridges they could build out of that shared history, but not with calvinism. Even though only a hypercalvinist, someone calvinists consider heretical, believes that man is merely a "sock puppet" they like to set up that strawman and try to knock it down. I personally don't care what others think of calvinism unless I'm debating it with someone, which I normally don't do anymore.

If you're defending the right to life and someone says "all right to lifers are right wing loonies" the correct response is not to get defensive and lash out, it is to say "So, lets assume you are correct. This has no bearing on whether the unborn child is alive or not." It's a powerplay, scare tactic, whatever you call it. But it only works if you fall for it.

well the fact is that the philosophy loving augustine was not a heretic and unfortunately you are (unless of course you dont embrace MGT and OT). Scripture does in fact say that God cannot and does not change. It even says that he does not change his mind...

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither is he the son of man, that he should change his mind: has he said, and shall he not do it? or has he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Either he doesn't change his mind or he lies here in this verse, which contradicts the other half of the verse.

True, I love to use this verse because people will get all bent out of shape about God changing his mind, and here there is a dilemma, it's very clear what the meaning of the verse is, and if God changes his mind, then he also lies.

I would also point out that the character and preferences of Augustine have no bearing on the heretical nature of MGT and open theism. Either what Augustine said is true or it isn't and he is human and is perfectly capable of saying some off the wall things. I really wouldn't care if someone tore Augustne to peices if it meant that they also understood that MGT was heretical and repented of promoting it. That might sound bad, esp since I love church history, but the facts are as they are, I don't worship Augustine, I worship God.

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.

I didn't see any defense of gothic issues in the posts in question (and I have no idea why it would matter...this looks like another attempt to set up a straw man, which is a logical fallacy and not kosher with the laws of fair debate), nor did I see anything which indicated her analysis was unfair. The hsitorical definitions are what they are, and you don't agree with them as they are historically understood, therefore, unfortunately, this means your doctrine is heresy.

[godrulz]

Lady:

I thought I heard YWAM has moved away from Moral Government and Open Theism? How familiar were you with Winkie Pratney or Keith Green?

The poster who looked at Wikipedia about Pelagius....not many of them around. Finney/Olson, etc. would be semi-Pelagian at best rejecting the extremes of Pelagianism.

Omniscience means that God knows all that is knowable. Omnipotence means that God can do all that is doable (He cannot do logically contradictory things like create square circles or make 2+2+ 5 and 12 at the same time). Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is a logical contradiction/absurdity. Modal logic and looking at the two motifs in Scripture (without just proof texting one and making the second set of verses figurative) will show that God settles and determines some of the future, while other aspects of the future are unsettled/open and known as possible/probable until they are actualized in the present and become certain. The future is not there to know. It is not a thing nor a place. To not know a nothing is not a limitation on omniscience any more than not creating rocks too heavy to lift is a limitation on omnipotence.

Lively discussion...I hope people do not uncritically cling to tradition and views that have been influenced more by philosophy than Scripture.

[godrulz]

Lady: I commend you for posting links from both camps. In my years of reading anti-Open view writings, I have not been impressed. Bruce Ware is famous for misrepresenting the view. Some of your links are also Calvinistic (CARM...my discussions on their boards shows their propensity to misunderstand and misrepresent the view...even Dr. Gregory Boyd's anti-Open view Baptist denomination allowed him to satisfactorially clarify his views to the point that they allowed room for him to remain, but disagree...ETS and Sanders/Pinnock is another story...though Pinnock remained a member after clarification of views). The same tired arguments used by the anti-Open Theist Calvinists are just as strongly used against other free will theisms like Arminianism. Calvinism vs Arminianism was the big debate (determinism/hyper-sovereignty) vs free will theism. Now, an alternate view that is less problematic, Open Theism, must be factored into a credible debate on sovereignty, free will, predestination, etc. MGT is not directly related to Open Theism. I coincidently resonate with both.

Albert Barnes: 'The Atonement' is from a MGT perspective. Is the atonement a literal payment of a debt (Commercial Transaction Theory of Anselm), or does it relate to public vs retributive justice? Another can of worms

God is the Moral Governor of the universe. He is the sovereign ruler (but is His sovereignty meticulous or providential control...another can of worms)? Issues of Law, justice, holiness, mercy, obligation, value, rights, etc. flow out of this. MGT is not a bad boogy man. Is God an immoral or moral Governor? Does His kingdom have a rule and subjects, a government or is the universe chaotic? Does God believe in relativism and situational ethics or does He have objective standards and expectations? Are there consequences to sin or does anarchy reign?

Properly understood, that which you label as heresy is a return to a more biblical understanding free from the trappings of Plato, Augustine, Calvin (his exegesis was bizarre at times), etc. God is omniscient and sovereign. We cannot save ourselves. Justification is by grace through faith alone, etc.

[Marnie]

Lively discussion...I hope people do not uncritically cling to tradition and views that have been influenced more by philosophy than Scripture.