Moral Government Theology and Ravenhill, Reidhead

I believe the biblical view is "both" victim and willful criminal.

Amen.

Ravenhill's soteriology so far as I have understood him was Wesleyan-Arminian in view, which would have stood clearly at odds with MGT. Ravenhill can be hard to pinpoint sometimes though, especially since he wasn't ever prone to do do any real in depth teaching on any given subject matter save, perhaps, revival.

I am interested in this concept of the descendants of Adam being "victims" of original sin. Where does this come from and what does it mean? It seems to be really important in our view of the condition of mankind and to me reveals a great deal about our personal opinions of man position in Adam. Any further thoughts or understanding. I can pose a question in this regard. Is the bad fruit of a bad tree a victim? If we are victims, then has God been unjust or unfair in making us subject to the curse against Adam and giving us inarguably at least a strong predisposition to sin? ( I am not arguing He has been unfair in this, but rather following the natural conclusion of our conclusion that we are victims of original sin )

I haven't spent too much time with Reidhead, aside from loving "Ten Shekels & a Shirt", but, as far as I know, he was involved in the Christian & Missionary Alliance, right? If so, their doctrinal standards clearly teach "original sin" and a "sinful nature", so it would be odd for a man to be in that fellowship and not hold to their standards, especially if there was any sort of inquiry into his understanding of doctrine.

Regarding Ravenhill, from what I can gather, he was all over the map for better or worse. I am not saying he wasn't smart, but he seemed content with contradictions and incoherence in his doctrine. I remember listening to him once and he said something like, "Young men would do well to lock themselves away for the winter and spend their time with Gurnall and Charnock." And these men were Calvinists.

When I was younger, I would read a lot of Finney, but not really piece things together, so I could be stirred by reading some of stuff on the atonement, but not fully grasp what he was saying. It wasn't until I read some other dialectical material that I saw the errors of Charles Finney.

I would put Keith Green in a similar camp as Ravenhill. Orthodox at the end of the day, but arriving there via different routes. Kind of like Lloyd-Jones telling Tozer, "We arrived at the same place. You through the mystics and me through the Puritans." Ravenhill seemed to love the Lord and was "like a moth to a flame whenever he heard his name", even if he did a poor job at "systematic theology'.

Excellent post dear brother, I am in full agreement.

I believe Finney has his purpose in the body of Christ, just the same as Gurnall and Spurgeon. Wesley and Whitefield were not teamed together in the same era of history by blind chance; I do believe that the Holy Spirit would teach us that what is impossible and irreconcilable to man is possible and reconciled through the eyes of God. Categorize as we may, I believe (and I speak for myself) the Lord would bring us as individuals to a level of maturity where these concepts would be reconciled in our hearts, even if we are unable to verbalize the mystery.

Brother Paul

at the end of the day it does not really matter if you hold to finney or calvin, what matters is not how much correct doctrine we have, but how much of Christ is produced in us. That is what we where predestined unto, so that is what matters, many have right doctrine and go to hell. Some have "faulty" views on some doctrines but have the living Christ in them and will be conformed into his image more and more. Not saying doctrine is unimportant, but it fades away in the shining light of the Life of Christ in us, we can stuff our heads with theology , systematic or not, but our hearts can be as hard as the sinner next door.

I been very encuraged by the fact, anyone who says someone elses doctrine is not right or wrong better se to it his life way higher quality then the one he is claiming to be wrong, in love, in holiness, in fervency in prayer, in intamacy with the Lord, then you can start saying this and that is wrong.

Yea i know apostle Paul did it alot pointing out error in doctrine and practices, but i dare to belive he was more holy then all of them, and he also said the only thing that really counts is a new creation, Christ in us, this is vital, doctrine is good, when accompanied by life. So let us focus rightly, maybe Calvin had a faulty doctrine? maybe right, but in the light of his life what does it tell us? Ravenhill may have had faulty doctrine, but in the light of his life what does it say?

Many said Jesus had a wrong doctrine to, and he did according to those who had a right one in his day, the most knowledgeable and accurate theologians of the day dident even see the life itself when it was infront of them, often times i think we miss the life in finney due to we have our doctrine so thigh and so fool proof we miss Jesus in finney because we focus on the speck in the brothers eye, or his error in a doctrine. And the other way around, so many armnians can not pick up spurgeon and be blessed because he was had a faulty understanding about some things in doctrine.

So my burden is so many miss Christ because they focus on the doctrine, he came to his own and his own received him not.... how many times do we not receive christ in people because they disagree on a small matter of doctrine....?

at the end of the day it does not really matter if you hold to finney or calvin, what matters is not how much correct doctrine we have, but how much of Christ is produced in us.

The church can't afford this kind of doctrine, seriously. It does matter if you hold to what Finney believed or what Calvin believed. What Finney believed was sub-Christian, period. His teachings have been rejected countless times as very dangerous heresy. Yes, it matters if you believe that the imputation of Christ righteousness to sinful men is a false doctrine, believing that kind of thing will damn you even if you witness to 50 people a day and pray 23 hours a day.

Frankly, the kind of jelly-fish, "it really matter what you believe, what matters is how you live" theology is worldly. That's what the pagan world believes. And, it's what the church has been drifting towards for over a century and look at where we are. Many believers are blessed if there is a sound church in the same state as them, much less the same city.

We need to drive for precise orthodoxy and precise orthopraxy. It doesn't matter how much of a "godly" life you live (pray 8 hours a day, pray 23 hours a day), if you reject the Gospel as taught by the Apostles.

This is somewhat of a firm post, but, I think it is needed. When people started attaching their works into the gospel (or confusing law and gospel), as Finney did, Paul told them to go ahead and castrate themselves if they liked their performance so much.

With care in Christ,
Taylor

Hi openairboy...

This is very interesting. When I met Brother Ravenhill in his home shortly before he died, he told me that he was going to tell me the most important thing that he thought that I needed to know as a young Christian. He told me to "test everything." He said that the reason that the Church is in the condition that it is in is because the Church continues to operate, teach and propogate as it has many centuries. He urged me to test everything (including what might be widely "accepted") and hold [u]only[/u] onto what is clearly "good."

Since my meeting with Brother Ravenhill, I've thought long and hard about the various things that he told me during that time. Since I was a young shy teenager, I spent most of that time simply listening. However, I have often thought about the things that he did NOT tell me. He didn't cover issues like this (moral government). He didn't mention other divisive doctrines. It was as if those things just didn't matter to him...that they just weren't very important.

I'm more of the "neither" position myself. Since there is just so much interpretation behind each of these type of doctrinal views, I find that it is better to NOT form an ultimate, concrete view on the matter. Instead, I believe in a "bottom line" [i]approach[/i] to this issue by merely standing firm to what is undeniable. Dpn't die in sin. Don't walk ahead of Christ. Don't depart the faith. Don't get distracted by the lusts of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life. Whether you are "predestined" or "never truly saved in the first place" doesn't really matter if "whosoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

I find it disappointing that so many people are certain that they know the ultimate extent to what God thinks about such matters...so much so that they create binding doctrines (either way) about such issues. Can we pretend to know the mind of God on every issue like this? I fear that many will stand before God like Job (found in Job chapters 38 through 42). Maybe we shouldn't take positions on things (at least, enough to propogate them as a binding doctrinal truths) if we are forced to "interpret" the Scriptures in order to try and find the answer.

Perhaps it wasn't that Ravenhill was "all over the map" of "full of contradictions and incoherence," but just didn't think enough of either point to choose a binding position on the matter. Just a thought.

*EDIT: Both Finney and Calvin were flawed men. They may have loved the Lord every bit as much as I do, but they were still confined to "seeing through a glass, darkly" and to "know in part" -- just like the rest of us (I Corinthians 13:12).

i did say doctrine is important, when accompanied with life. I am sad for you if you can not read finney and be blessed by his writings, and i agree some of it is to my understanding "wrong", but so is much of calvins and Spurgeons and to me have been refuted by scripture and countless times, And the gospel is greater then calvinism or reformed theology. Yes it is important, but orthodox theology goes further then augustine and the reformation, what the apostles preached was not calvinism or arminianism, both doctrinal camps can find verses to support and refute the other view.

I just say what i say because i see people that claim they have right doctrine but still very unloving and very unchristlike in much conversation, i see many saying Ravenhill had a error in his understanding of scripture yet they can not weep for souls. I see many saying Spurgoen had a faulty understanding of the gospels yet they have not offered their life up for the Lord as he did when reading how he spent his time and life.

To me it is the very essence of Pharisaical spirit and of satan himself. Satan has a much greater understanding of the atonement and salvation and scripture then all of us, yet he is going to hell.

So you can understand the scripture perfectly, have all things right and yet go to hell, what good is that doctrine without life? without christ? in that sense, correct doctrine is rubbish, but when life is there, its not so important. I am not saying the doctrine of God, who he is, who Jesus is, doctrine on salvation on faith and other "cornerstones" of the christian faith is rubbish, they are vital, but other aspects are not so important.

And yes Paul told them to cut of their lims from their body, but he said in the same letter also For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. (Gal 6:15 KJV)

That is what matters, he said that to those that had a salvation by works theology, it is false i agree brother, but many calvinist claim all arminians believe this, and that is a very subtle and untrue claim, just as it is untrue to say all calvinist are hyper calvinists....

anyway, i hope some misunderstand me rightly.

I just fear many of us including myself have our head so deep in our theological box we cant see christ in finney or spurgeon or who ever, If you cant see in some of finneys writings somethings that will make Christ more dear to you, provoke you to good works, more love for the Lord, i petty you, and i petty all who can draw gold from Spurgeon.... all such people are in a very sad state and need refreshment from above.

God help us all

I find it disappointing that so many people are certain that they know the ultimate extent to what God thinks about such matters...so much so that they create binding doctrines (either way) about such issues. Can we pretend to know the mind of God on every issue like this? I fear that many will stand before God like Job (found in Job chapters 38 through 42). Maybe we shouldn't take positions on things (at least, enough to propogate them as a binding doctrinal truths) if we are forced to "interpret" the Scriptures in order to try and find the answer.

I agree brother, many a times we should do as Job did.

Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. (Job 40:4 KJG)

another thing, we so often study to gain knowledge and have a correct understanding of scripture and truth, this is a very good reason to study, but it is not the reason God gave us the book, the reason is that we should grow up to salvation how we should live, how Christ life can flow through us. Shine as lights in a dark world ect.

When we come to the book with that intention we will discover new things, not only in knowledge but in life, i spent hours studying diverse matters and doctrines, its good and i gained a lot, but without christ in my conversation at home with my wife, how i treat my children, how i walk in my workplace, how i live and move and speak and think, what God is that knowledge? it is as much good as the tree of knowledge was to Adam, thats how good a correct knowledge is without life. So we can have that correct doctrine and yet be banished from Gods presence, and i have come to this for my self, the more i think i come closer to the Lord, the more my doctrines crumble to pieces, God constantly showing me errors in what i help for a perfect doctrine and put me in situations where i can see it. To claim we understand all things concerning Gods ways would make us like Him.

Hi Mahoney...

And by what are we to "test everything"?

.....just responding to what you wrote here...

So you believe in beholding yourself and the work you can do, instead of beholding Christ and the Work He has done. At the core of all doctrine is the interpretation of the Person and Work of Christ.

That is why it is so important. If we get that wrong, we have nothing. We have no Gospel, no hope, and we are still dead in our sins.

I don't know where Leonard Ravenhill stood on every issue...nor do I care to know. I do believe that he loved and knew God. Whether or not he believed in any form of "moral government" (or what his interpretation was for the fourth toe of the beast of Revelation) is irrelevant in my counting him as a "brother." This, I think, is extremely important for the Body of Christ to learn.

I realize this thread was not intended to be a Moral Government argument, but just to make sure we are understanding the OP's concern:

[b]Moral Government theology[/b] denies the imputation of Christ's righteousness, which Christ as the Second Adam attained through obedience to the Law, and legally bestows upon all who rest in His finished work. Rather, [b]Moral Government theology insists that our own personal, perfect obedience to the Law is necessary to our being finally and eternally saved.[/b]

While I have no certainty about Ravenhill or Reidhead holding to these ideas, it seems very sensible that whoever does believe such extreme errors should not be recognized as a Christian, let alone as a teacher. Was it not for this issue that Paul wrote to the Galatians, and said, "I would that they [who teach such things] should be cut off!"?

What a grief, when people strive for clear-cut distinctions about music, movies, head coverings, and beverages, but are willing to endorse the confessions and ministries of ones who replace the [b]gospel of imputed righteousness[/b] with the fatal cyanide of works-righteousness. Anathema marantha to such a false notion.

Lord bless you all in the love of Christ's gospel, and fill you with grateful obedience and fresh consecration for both the greater and lesser concerns of Christ-likeness. To be conformed to Christ is to do as He did, and believe as He does.

PS: Here are some of Finney's statements, taken from his Systematic:

"The doctrine of imputed righteousness, or that Christ’s obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption." After all, Christ’s righteousness "could do no more than justify himself. It can never be imputed to us ... it was naturally impossible, then, for him to obey in our behalf " This "representing of the atonement as the ground of the sinner’s justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many" (pp.320-2).

"But for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd... As we shall see, there are many conditions, while there is but one ground, of the justification of sinners ... As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law. This is of course denied by those who hold that gospel justification, or the justification of penitent sinners, is of the nature of a forensic or judicial justification. They hold to the legal maxim that what a man does by another he does by himself, and therefore the law regards Christ’s obedience as ours, on the ground that he obeyed for us."

And finally, to quote Dr. Michael Horton, who has studied Finney on an academic level, "Thus, in Finney’s theology, God is not sovereign, man is not a sinner by nature, the atonement is not a true payment for sin, justification by imputation is insulting to reason and morality, the new birth is simply the effect of successful techniques, and revival is a natural result of clever campaigns. In his fresh introduction to the bicentennial edition of Finney’s Systematic Theology, Harry Conn commends Finney’s pragmatism: "Many servants of our Lord should be diligently searching for a gospel that ‘works’, and I am happy to state they can find it in this volume."