Strange post on Strange Baptist Fire
Strange Baptist Fire contends that Moral Government Theology (MGT) is linked to A) denying original sin, B) denying total depravity, C) denying penal substitution in the atonement and D) affirming open theism. (link) and (link)
First off, I don’t hold to MGT, even though I appreciate the point it makes. So in the big picture, I suppose I agree with Strange Baptist Fire. Additionally, I appreciate the fact that Strange Baptist Fire digs into source materials to discover Arminius and Wesley’s views on original sin, depravity, the atonement and God’s foreknowledge. However, except for point “C”, I don’t see the relationship between MGT and denying original sin, depravity and also affirming open theism.
Hugo Grotius was perhaps the first to articulate MGT and he was a remonstrant. He held to the five points of the remonstrants, which affirm original sin, total depravity and God’s foreknowledge. So if the founder of MGT didn’t commit the errors that Strange Baptist Fire says are part of MGT, where’s the link?
Strange Baptist Fire explains:
The fact that MGT affirms Open Theism comes from the very mouth of MGT’s own brainchild himself; Gordon C. Olson. Olson said that the “future choices of moral beings, when acting freely in their moral agency, have not been brought into existence as yet and thus are not fixities or objects of possible knowledge.” [Gordon C. Olson, The Truth Shall Make You Free, T-III-13.] So, according to Olson, “many Bible passages, when taken in their natural meaning, appear to indicate that God does not have absolute foreknowledge over all his own future actions, nor over all those of His moral creatures.” [Ibid., T-III-18.]
Well, just because Olson holds to both MGT and open theism doesn’t mean the two concepts are related. I am an Arminian and a Baptist. Does that mean all Baptists are Arminian or that all Arminians are Baptists? Of course not, but Baptists can be Arminian and Arminians can be Baptists. They are not mutually exclusive. In the same way open theism and MGT are not mutually exclusive, but that doesn’t mean open theism is a consectary of MGT. We simply cannot define a historic term like "Moral Government" without looking at its historic roots.
First off, I don’t hold to MGT, even though I appreciate the point it makes. So in the big picture, I suppose I agree with Strange Baptist Fire. Additionally, I appreciate the fact that Strange Baptist Fire digs into source materials to discover Arminius and Wesley’s views on original sin, depravity, the atonement and God’s foreknowledge. However, except for point “C”, I don’t see the relationship between MGT and denying original sin, depravity and also affirming open theism.
Hugo Grotius was perhaps the first to articulate MGT and he was a remonstrant. He held to the five points of the remonstrants, which affirm original sin, total depravity and God’s foreknowledge. So if the founder of MGT didn’t commit the errors that Strange Baptist Fire says are part of MGT, where’s the link?
Strange Baptist Fire explains:
The fact that MGT affirms Open Theism comes from the very mouth of MGT’s own brainchild himself; Gordon C. Olson. Olson said that the “future choices of moral beings, when acting freely in their moral agency, have not been brought into existence as yet and thus are not fixities or objects of possible knowledge.” [Gordon C. Olson, The Truth Shall Make You Free, T-III-13.] So, according to Olson, “many Bible passages, when taken in their natural meaning, appear to indicate that God does not have absolute foreknowledge over all his own future actions, nor over all those of His moral creatures.” [Ibid., T-III-18.]
Well, just because Olson holds to both MGT and open theism doesn’t mean the two concepts are related. I am an Arminian and a Baptist. Does that mean all Baptists are Arminian or that all Arminians are Baptists? Of course not, but Baptists can be Arminian and Arminians can be Baptists. They are not mutually exclusive. In the same way open theism and MGT are not mutually exclusive, but that doesn’t mean open theism is a consectary of MGT. We simply cannot define a historic term like "Moral Government" without looking at its historic roots.
Comments
Would love for you to check it out....thanks!
My post at Strange Baptist Fire is not strange at all simply because I'm not attacking Grotius' Governmental theory of the atonement. Instead, I'm attacking Moral Government Theology; something that is completely different from Grotius' views and is a modern theological invention concocted in the 20th century and stems primarily from the mind of Gordon C. Olson. The MGTers themselves are to blame for using and then redefining the classic terms used by Grotius to describe his position and critics of MGT are quick to note that Grotius' theory of the atonement and modern MGT have virtually nothing in common with each other.
MGT is a new-fangled theology that denies many of the essential teachings of the Christian faith and as a result, they are grossly out of lock-step with *both* historic Calvinism and Arminianism. In my view, because they hold to rank Pelagianism and an idolatrous view of God, MGT constitutes what can truly be considered a damnable heresy by both classical Arminians and confessional Calvinists.
God bless!
Dustin S. Segers
I will take a look.
God be with you,
Dan
OK, there could be an equivocation problem. As the name of my blog suggests, I am interested in historic Arminian theology. I just wanted it to be clear that moral government theology (as history defines the term) doesn't include the errors you are going after.
God be with you,
Dan