 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/7/2004 10:58 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hey all,
This past month I got a new roommate. His name is Scott and he is a very good friend from college. He's a very smart kid and we enjoy alot of the same stuff, so I think that we're gonna get along just great. But we do have one major point of contention -- he's a Calvinist, yeah, one of those five pointers  He just graduated from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the school that has probably been the most adament in its condemnation of Open Theism. And he's very much a disciple of Bruce Ware and Al Mohler.
Anyway, he just about flipped when I told him that I was a supporter of Open Theism (still not totally in the Open Theist camp yet) But because of our friendship, he says that he'd like to discuss theology constructively instead of just accusing me of heresy. So we've started an ongoing discussion that I hope will be fruitful, debating mainly Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
We spent some time laying the groundwork for the discussion, and where we kind of ended was in our discussion of original sin. Actually, this is where I have the most trouble with what I believe. Here's a basic summary of the conversation.
Scott- Do you believe that we are guilty for original sin?
Ross- No, I believe that we are guilty of sins that we have committed. We can only be guilty of something if we had the ability to do otherwise.
Scott- So do you believe that we have the ability to choose the good in every situation?
**Here's where I hesitated and thought. If I say yes here, then I think that a person could live a perfect life. I don't believe that.
Ross- No, I believe that the fall has affected the human race and the world in such a way that our "default" position is alienation from God. Our fallenness manifests itself in a propensity, but not a necessity, to sin.
Scott- But it is just a propensity to sin then it is possible to live a perfect life. This is clearly Pelagianism. Also you do admit that we have a propensity to sin that we receive due to original sin, and that is something that we have no control over...
The conversation went on from there, and I made some passing comments, but I told him that I really wanted to take some time and think through the subject of original sin. So I would love to get a thread started about original sin form an Arminian perspective. If there have been pertinent discussions before, post the links. I know that it is a pretty broad discussion, but it is one that I think will be definitely fruitful (for me anyways).
Doc, Alan, Tom, I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this....
Looking forward to everyones thoughts,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tigress
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 1/7/2004 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
Hey all,
This past month I got a new roommate. His name is Scott and he is a very good friend from college. He's a very smart kid and we enjoy alot of the same stuff, so I think that we're gonna get along just great. But we do have one major point of contention -- he's a Calvinist, yeah, one of those five pointers He just graduated from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the school that has probably been the most adament in its condemnation of Open Theism. And he's very much a disciple of Bruce Ware and Al Mohler.
Anyway, he just about flipped when I told him that I was a supporter of Open Theism (still not totally in the Open Theist camp yet) But because of our friendship, he says that he'd like to discuss theology constructively instead of just accusing me of heresy. So we've started an ongoing discussion that I hope will be fruitful, debating mainly Calvinism vs. Arminianism.
We spent some time laying the groundwork for the discussion, and where we kind of ended was in our discussion of original sin. Actually, this is where I have the most trouble with what I believe. Here's a basic summary of the conversation.
Scott- Do you believe that we are guilty for original sin?
Ross- No, I believe that we are guilty of sins that we have committed. We can only be guilty of something if we had the ability to do otherwise.
Scott- So do you believe that we have the ability to choose the good in every situation?
**Here's where I hesitated and thought. If I say yes here, then I think that a person could live a perfect life. I don't believe that.
Ross- No, I believe that the fall has affected the human race and the world in such a way that our "default" position is alienation from God. Our fallenness manifests itself in a propensity, but not a necessity, to sin.
Scott- But it is just a propensity to sin then it is possible to live a perfect life. This is clearly Pelagianism. Also you do admit that we have a propensity to sin that we receive due to original sin, and that is something that we have no control over...
The conversation went on from there, and I made some passing comments, but I told him that I really wanted to take some time and think through the subject of original sin. So I would love to get a thread started about original sin form an Arminian perspective. If there have been pertinent discussions before, post the links. I know that it is a pretty broad discussion, but it is one that I think will be definitely fruitful (for me anyways).
Doc, Alan, Tom, I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this....
Looking forward to everyones thoughts,
Ross
Waaaiiiiiiiit a minute - wait a minute - wait a minute. Don't OV'ers believe in original sin? I mean the Bible is clear on that. We are born with it.
Tigress 
"Name a shrub after me. Preferably one that's prickly and difficult to eradicate."
-Captain Jack Aubrey
"Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World" | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/7/2004 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Classical Arminians believe in the Augustinian concept of Original Sin, though they typically teach that God's prevenient grace provides all with the ability to come to God.
OVers who believe in Moral Government Theology (such as myself) do not feel the need to bow to "Saint" Augustine with respect to his inventive idea of Original Sin:
http://biblical-theology.com/originalsin/index.htm
Of course, it should be said that Moral Government Theology teaches that all sin, just that babies aren't ever sent to hell, and that all are truly responsible for their own actions.
But as far as Arminianism is concerned, it does teach the Augustinian concept of Original Sin. However, it is important to note that the historic Eastern branches of Christianity never bought into this novel doctrine of Augustinianism.
As far as Drs. Boyd, Pinnock, etc., I seem to recall Pinnock saying he did not believe in Original Sin. I honestly don't know how one can claim to believe in libertarian free will and at the same time believe in Augustine's doctrine of Original Sin.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/7/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Ross,
I glad you brought up this topic, as it has been on my mind of late. I don't have a fully worked out position on this, so I'm keen to find out what others think.
Some things I am pretty confident about:
1) That we do not inherit guilt for Adam's sin. (There's a couple verses in Ezekiel that are very clear that God will only judge a person for his own sins.)
2) That because of what Adam and Eve did we are born in a morally weakened state that makes it practically inevitable that each of us will sin within our first few years.
3) That we are not born in a state of actual guilt, but rather with a propensity to sin.
4) That God's grace is necessary before anyone can exercise saving faith. (cf. John 6:44 "No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.")
Now for some rambling thoughts:
An analogy that seems somewhat apt to me is to think of our propensity to sin as like trying to drive a car with wheels that are seriously out of alignment. It is possible, in principle, to drive straight, but takes a continuous effort. Since no one can in practice maintain the level of vigilance needed to resist the constant tug of the wheels, it is inevitable that everyone will sooner or later veer off the straight and narrow. That's sin.
Calvinists will say that our state after the Fall is non posse non peccare - an inability not to sin. I disagree. I think is it perfectly possible for us apart from God's grace not to sin some of the time, but not all of the time. And even one sin, if not forgiven, is enough to merit God's judgment.
The charge of Pelagianism is, I believe, unfounded. As I understand it, the breakdown of views goes, roughly, like this:
A) Pelagianism: God's grace is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation. It is possible in practice (not just in principle) for someone to live a perfect life without God's assistance.
B) Semi-Pelagianism: "While not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later." {Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross, Oxford Univ. Press, rev. 1983, p.1258}
C) Arminianism: God's grace is necessary from the very beginning and throughout the soteriological process, but it is not sufficient. God's grace is prevenient, but not irresistible. It must be freely received by us--a response, however, that is only possible because of God's grace.
D) Calvinism: God's grace is both necessary and sufficient. The entire soteriological process is monergistic. His grace is efficient and irresistible. God moves the sinner to repentance and gives him an offer that he, literally, cannot refuse.
Saying that we have a propensity to sin is, in fact, consistent with A,B,C, and D. The difference lies in how strong that propensity is. For the Calvinist it is completely overpowering--we cannot not sin. For the Pelagian it is rather weak and with a modest effort anyone can resist it.
One last point. You indicated that during your conversation you had some misgivings about a certain response because it seemed to imply that it is possible to live a perfect life. You and your friend need to be careful to distinguish between different kinds of possibility here.
Is it logically possible to live a perfect life?
Is it metaphysically and/or physically possible to live a perfect life?
Is it morally possible to live a perfect life?
Is it humanly or practically possible (post-Fall) to live a perfect life?
My thinking is that the answer to the first three is 'yes' and the last one 'no'.
God bless,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 1/8/2004 7:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey everyone,
Thanks for the responses. Some quick responses (I'm at work, so I don't have too much time)
Tigress said quote:
Waaaiiiiiiiit a minute - wait a minute - wait a minute. Don't OV'ers believe in original sin? I mean the Bible is clear on that. We are born with it.
That is how I always approached the subject myself. But in response to thinking through the Calvinistic idea that God eternally condemns those who could do nothing but sin (because of their sin nature inherited from Adam), I realized that this would be an immoral position for God to take.
Now I wasn't raised in the Calvinist tradition, but there was still alot of stress put on the fact that original sin had justly condemned us to hell and only by God's grace was anyone saved. But this still went against my moral intuition that I can only be accountable for the sins that I commit.
But everyone I asked said, "Well, that's what the Bible teaches." But these people never really had any specific passages that backed this up.
So where does the bible clearly teach the doctrine of original sin.
John, thank you for your thoughts, and especially the link to the previous thread. It looks like it was a very good discussion, and I'm planning on really digging into the thread when I get a chance. I don't know very much about MGT, so if you get a chance I would love to hear a basic explanation of the tenets of MGT.
Alan, it was good to hear that you've been thinking about this subject. It has been on my mind for some time as well. It has been a difficult journey for me in the development of my theological understanding. I have often been accused of being much too rationalistic in my approach to theology. But I believe that God gave me a mind for a reason, and that was to understand and ultimately to know the reality that God has created. I am in agreement with the first four points that you said you were pretty confident about.
Now in regards to your analogy. You said quote:
An analogy that seems somewhat apt to me is to think of our propensity to sin as like trying to drive a car with wheels that are seriously out of alignment. It is possible, in principle, to drive straight, but takes a continuous effort. Since no one can in practice maintain the level of vigilance needed to resist the constant tug of the wheels, it is inevitable that everyone will sooner or later veer off the straight and narrow. That's sin.
A question that comes to mind in this analogy is why would God allow us to be born with our "wheels out of alignment"? We have no choice over the propensity to sin that we have inherited.... I have some thoughts on the reason that God allowed Adam's sin to affect his posterity in this way, but I don't have time to flesh them out right now.
Hope that the discussion continues,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 1/8/2004 8:14 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by rossfadeinout
Now in regards to your analogy. ... A question that comes to mind ... is why would God allow us to be born with our "wheels out of alignment"? We have no choice over the propensity to sin that we have inherited.
Good question, Ross. I draw my answer from Aquinas. In his view, God created Adam and Eve with an inherent dependence on Him and His grace, such that we had to stay in right relation to Him in order to function properly, with our wheels in alignment, as it were. This dependence consisted in what he called a "donum superadditum", a superadded gift, that enabled Adam and Eve to master their biological appetites for things like food, water, sex, etc., and to subordinate their "lower nature" so that it could not overpower the "higher nature" of their mind and will as oriented to God. In other words, God made us in such a way that we would continually need His help. It was His "donum superadditum" that kept the wheels in balance. When Adam and Eve sinned, human nature wasn't fundamentally altered or corrupted; rather, God simply took the donum superadditum away and let them try to live on their own power. Because they weren't designed to function that way, however, moral failure was inevitable.
With subsequent generations God didn't automatically restore the donum superadditum. He was under no obligation to do so, since it was His gift. Moreover, by not restoring it He was fully respecting their sinful decision by allowing them to reap the full consequences of it. He created them with a procreative capacity, and when they distanced themselves from God and His grace, they took that capacity with them. Thus the sins of our father Adam have been passed down to all his decendants. But God in His mercy has offered forgiveness and extended to us a new donum superadditum--the Holy Spirit, available to anyone who, through His enabling, prevenient grace, will step back into the life of dependence on Him that we were meant to have in the first place.
I don't know that the Thomistic theory solves all the problems, but I think is pretty good as far as it goes.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 1/17/2004 7:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Ross,
You are not the only one who must deal with the tough questions.
Ask your friend, "What happens to a 1 day old baby when he dies? To maintain integrity to Calvin/Augustine, he must concede that the infant who dies is condemned to eternal torment.
Catholics and Calvinists alike skirt the issue and appeal to infant Baptism submitting that this is salvific and is the "method" which confirms (to the grieving family) that the child was among the elect. Whereas, those infants not baptized just must not have been among the elect (because they were not baptized).
Now, your friend has 2 options:
(1) Embrace Augustine and Calvin, hence, embrace a morally reprehensible doctrine. We are repulsed by the thought of damnation of infants because it violates our sense of intuitive sense of morality. Even the unregenerate possess this intuition (and are judged by it according to Romans 1). Man's intuitive sense of justice (by which he is judged) comes from God the author of justice. These two are one in the same. God, because He is just, will not violate that which he judges man for. The implications of THE FIRST POINT of Calvinism/Augustianism immediately take us so far from the tenor of Scripture and the revealed character of the just God that it must be rejected.
(2) Reject Augustine and Calvin, not only risking the collapse of the whole 5-point "systematic" theology, but also conceding that there is more to the doctrine of sin than meets the eye and that "politically correct" dogmas such as "original sin" do not begin to address the scope of the doctrine and ultimately drive even its most ardent supporters to a man made soteriology encompassing infant baptism ("sprinkling" no the less) never even hinted in Scripture much less stated. Not even Al Mohler, et. al. could get Calvinistic or Augustinian rhetoric placed in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message because of the obvious implications. Baptist parishioners would never tolerate such unbiblical proposals. The price that has been paid is just too high to allow such contortions of the Scripture to go unchallenged. Remember our Anabaptist heritage—persecution to the death for their refusal to acknowledge infant baptism as salvific.
I suspect that not only “the fallen world,” but “sin” itself is far too complex for us to completely understand—certainly beyond a rote concept of genetic transmission. Scripture only states, “THAT we sin.” We are never told WHY Adam (nor Satan) sinned. Why they sinned must be the same reason why we sin. I believe one of the most profound mysteries of Scripture is “why man sins.” Why do we give priority to our own pride in the presence of a holy God? Why do we choose THE ONE wrong thing when God has given us so many other good things to choose (cf. The Garden)? Why do we love darkness when the light is obvious (John 1)? Why do we go astray when the WAY has been clearly revealed (Romans 1-3)?
I do not purport to possess a complete understanding of the doctrine of sin, but such a doctrine must go beyond the “pat answers” and manmade constructs of Calvin and Augustine. A doctrine of sin must incorporate real “choice,” else the contrast with holiness becomes meaningless. A doctrine of sin must also incorporate inertia and momentum that not only corrupted the moral universe but the fabric of nature as well. Genetic transmission of sin, implied by Augustine, does not account for how Adam’s sin causes all of creation to “groan” (earthquakes, hurricanes, meteor showers, solar explosions, etc.). “Original sin” is not the only construct to begin to understand the universality of sin.
To God alone be the glory,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 1/17/2004 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | BJS,
I believe that it is more than a coincidence that this line of reasoning apeals to you. For you as an attorney have devoted extra time in your training to the concept of justice intuitive to man. So you have all the more reason to be repulsed along with the rest of us at any concept which justifies torturing an infant for an instant, much less all eternity.
To add insult to injury Calvin, et al. assigns the horrible action of damnation of none elect infants to the God who has not only declared himself to be light (without any measure of darkness--i.e., the "hidden" God proposed by Calvin does not exist) but demonstrated what this light looks like and how this light behaves in the life of Jesus. Never once does Jesus remotely indicate any behavior, teaching, or attitude consistent with Calvin's proposal.
Man is incapable of perceiving justice on his own accord. Justice must be revealed from God. The same concept of justice that you have studied as the basis for natural law and that is intuitive to man is the same justice that repulses us when applied to Calvin. Both derive from God. And neither tortures babies.
Thanks for the compliment.
To God alone be the glory,
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/18/2004 3:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: Is it possible to learn to walk without stumbling?
Tom: No. But stumbling in this case is not "moral" and we don't send toddlers to hell for it.
Iconoclast: Is it possible to learn to love without being unloving sometimes?
Tom: Why in the world not? Is it possible to appreciate and succeed at marriage without going through a divorce? Of course it is.
Must I sin to love God? How does what you're saying, Iconoclast, not boil down to this.
Iconoclast: The story of Adam and Eve is really the story of each of us right here and right now. God has given us the ability to learn to love as He loves. Adam and Eve did not love like God loves when they were created.
Tom: Indeed they did not. But this did not count as "sin" either. My question is: Did their learning to love REQUIRE their rejecting God and falling from grace?
Iconoclast: Jesus on the other hand did love like God loves because Jesus is God. Jesus didn't need to learn to love like God loves and thus was never unloving at any time - He never sinned.
Tom: Yes, but then again, it's not sin for beings who are not God to be other than God. Again, what role does SIN have in our learning to be lovingly human as God created us to be? I'm also wondering what it means for Scripture to say Jesus "learned obedience through what he suffered."
Iconoclast: Is it a really wonderful thing to give a being the ability to learn to walk? What if they stumble?
Tom: This is not analagous to our choosing to sin.
The rest will have to wait till next week. I'm off to the airport for St. Paul!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/18/2004 4:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Ross–
It’s easy to say what I don’t believe in when it comes to sin and anthropology. And that seems to have been covered here. It’s much harder to state positively what the truth is. I’m ashamed to say that I have no settled convictions about what the truth is on this matter. I’m not happy with any of the options I’ve ever run across. I simply don’t know how Adam’s sin affected his offspring or how, if anything is actually transmitted biologically, such a thing is transmitted or what it is. I have to say that Arminius totally confuses me by affirming original sin AND libertarian free will and the more I read of the little we have of Pelagius’ writing the more I like the guy.
What in the world is so heretical about believing human beings CAPABLE of living as God created them to live, yes ALL THE TIME, from the get-go? I'll tell you what the problem is. It's people who feel that if someone did do it right all the time they wouldn't need grace or faith, that such a person would have "earned" heaven as a "wage." Nonesense. Why in the world think that? Why not assume that humanity was wired for dependency upon God and his grace AND that human beings ARE capable being human in the way God designed them to be? Why think that "being dependant upon God" presumes our sin? Why think of such dependance as the response of only sinful humanity and not the response of a humanity that got it right? We're making the mistake of assuming that because we sinful beings need God and can't make it with out God that we must be sinful in order to need God, in order to be unable to make it without him. Why think that?
Here is a good thread we had on this subject. Some good stuff here.
http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=208
There is a second good thread entitled "Jesus and Freewill" that I have printed out but which the &*#(%!*$ search machine refuses to acknowledge.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/18/2004 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom
Iconoclast: Is it possible to learn to walk without stumbling?
Tom: No. But stumbling in this case is not "moral" and we don't send toddlers to hell for it.
Iconoclast
Either the “legal view” is correct or the “love view” is correct. The “love view” is that God created us as free will beings such that we might learn to love as He loves. The “legal view” is that God created us as “moral” beings who He tortures for an eternity if we litter.
I don’t for a second believe that God tortures us for an eternity for stumbling in our process of learning to love. I do believe that if we NEVER learn to love as He loves then the very definition of NEVER learning to love is “hell” or – rather – separation from God. It is a metaphysical principle – a being who is capable of learning to love might choose to NOT learn to love which, by definition, means choosing to be separated from God who IS love.
Tom
Iconoclast: Is it possible to learn to love without being unloving sometimes?
Tom: Why in the world not? Is it possible to appreciate and succeed at marriage without going through a divorce? Of course it is.
Iconoclast
I agree that it is every bit as possible to learn to love without stumbling as it is to learn to walk without stumbling. Why isn’t it possible to learn to walk without stumbling? It seems to me that whatever you say regarding this is equally applicable to learning to love.
I agree that it is possible to appreciate and succeed at marriage without going through a divorce. My question is, is it possible to never be unloving toward your spouse in the process of learning to be loving toward your spouse?
Tom
Must I sin to love God? How does what you're saying, Iconoclast, not boil down to this.
Iconoclast
If the definition of sin is NOT loving God AND we all start out NOT loving God because it is all about learning to love God then, yes, by definition we all sin before we learn to love God.
By the way, the definition of “sin” is “harmartia” which means “missing the mark”. So, if sin is simply missing the mark of loving God and none of can possibly love God unless we fully choose to do so and none of us start out choosing to do so then, of course, we must sin before we can choose to love God.
In my mind, this is the basic implication of the view that we have free will in order to learn to love God.
Tom
Indeed they did not. But this did not count as "sin" either. My question is: Did their learning to love REQUIRE their rejecting God and falling from grace?
Iconoclast
Does learning to walk REQUIRE that we fail at walking before we can walk?
I would answer NO, not in principle – learning to walk does not REQUIRE us to fail at walking when we try to walk. Now, in practice it sure seems like it happens all the time. Why is this not the same with learning to love?
Tom
Yes, but then again, it's not sin for beings who are not God to be other than God. Again, what role does SIN have in our learning to be lovingly human as God created us to be?
Iconoclast
Anything less than choosing 100% of the time to love God and one another is sin – it is “missing the mark”. My question is, is it possible for a free will being who has not chosen to love God and others 100% of the time – is it possible for them to choose to love God and one another 100% of the time without even once NOT making this choice and thus sinning?
Certainly in principle I can agree that this is THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE. However, in practice it seems to me to be no different than learning to walk. Given that God created us humans the way we are no one, NOT EVEN ONE, learns to walk without stumbling. Likewise, no one, NOT EVEN ONE, learns to love without sinning – without stumbling. We are going to stumble.
Tom
I'm also wondering what it means for Scripture to say Jesus "learned obedience through what he suffered."
Iconoclast
Jesus did not need to learn to love because He had already eternally chosen to love. Thus, He did not stumble. At the same time, if we say that Jesus “learned obedience” then we must say that in His human form He had the capability to NOT obey. And if we say to NOT obey God is to NOT love God then we would have to say that Jesus in His human incarnation had the ability to choose NOT to love. This is distinct from Jesus having to learn to love to begin with.
Alternatively, if we don’t like this formulation, we could say that in human form Jesus was suddenly epistemically distant from God and thus had to learn to obey God’s will when He didn’t have perfect information regarding God’s will and therefore did not have clarity about how God’s will was indeed a loving will and a great thing to obey. Thus, Jesus learned to obey God’s will even when it felt like a really bad deal.
Another alternative is that this means that Jesus experientially learned what us humans go through related to obedience and suffering.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/18/2004 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Ross,
The following is from a website of an organization that promotes Moral Government Theology, "Revival Theology Promotions," based in St. Paul, MN. (No direct relation to my own website, though we are in substantial agreement theologically). I have taken the liberty of italicizing what I feel are the most important emphases of MGT. Apart from the short list below, MGT resembles standard Arminianism with respect to the Trinity, Christology, and view of Scripture.
Revival theology is first of all relational:
God created man for intimate relationship.
God and man relate interactively as personalities in real time.
All sin consists in sinning.
Christ died for all people in the same sense.
His atonement paid for the sins of none, yet provided for the salvation of all.
Each must meet the conditions of repentance, faith and continuance in the life of faith.
Salvation is a present experience in the Holy Spirit--Christ in us.
The Romans 7 experience and the Romans 8 experience are mutually exclusive.
Link to their website:
http://www.revivaltheologypromotion.org/
Basic to Moral Government Theology (which grew out of the New School Calvinism of the Second Great Awakening) is the view of God as Moral Governer of the Moral Universe, as distinct from the Physical Universe, which of course God is also Governor of, but MGT asserts that God deals with the moral universe on different principles (Moral Law) than the physical universe. The Moral Law is viewed as the Ten Commandments in the Old Covenant, being summed up in the Two Greatest Commandments as stated by Jesus in the New.
This moral law is seen as a rule FOR action, while physical law (such as gravity, inertia, etc.) is considered as rule OF action, that is largely cause and effect, and except in cases of miracles (a suspension of known physical laws), physical laws are virtually automatic. The moral government of God is viewed as the governance of moral being by use of moral suasion to bring about conformity to the moral law. That is, MGT asserts that God works by means of persuasion, not coercion, with regards to mankind.
For a good short intro to MGT by a pastor-friend of mine who has been an MGT advocate for over 20 years, please see the following link:
http://www.biblical-theology.com/moralgov2/harvgov.htm
Feel free to ask any further questions you may have.
May the Lord bless you and keep you,
John
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/18/2004 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Ross, I know exactly how you feel. I simply don't know what the truth is on this issue. I just go from denying this to denying that, and am pretty confident in what I deny. As for affirming what IS the case? I'm totally lost.
Iconoclast, I'll give you this much: it IS impossible to appreciate a good wine unless you've gagged on low-class table wine. So maybe you have a point. Love? I think it's entirely possible to learn to love another person without treating them unlovingly. Of course this is possible. What would make it impossible? Answer that and you've answered Ross' question at the beginning of this thread.
I wouldn't drive the sort of wedge you seem to be fixing between being created for love and being created as moral creatures. I in fact think it's impossible for us to have one without the other. I know a LOT of folks will take me to tasks on this but (and I did hear Doc agree with me on this during my last visit, so maybe he'll wanna chime in) in my view love IS morality. That needs some explaining that I can't do here ('cause I'm in the Amsterdam airport paying for each minute I'm online!), so maybe later! My point is morality is not a bad thing, a consequent of the "legal" view.
Later,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
mindofchrist
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 1/26/2004 3:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's a good link to a free online book:
The Myth of Original Sin
http://www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbsindex.htm | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:39 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|