SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Looking for free sermon messages?
Sermon Podcast | Audio | Video

Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Moral Government Theology and Ravenhill, Reidhead

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Moral Government Theology and Ravenhill, Reidhead


Can anyone tell me if Leonard Ravenhill held to Moral Government Theology?

Also, what about Paris Reidhead?

Any evidence one way or another? Because my research shows that these men fellowshipped in some of the same circles, ones that promoted MGT.

Also, where did they stand on the doctrine of Original Sin?

And the doctrine of substitutionary atonement?

Any information would be helpful.

(May this not turn into a debate about MGT, I don't have the time. Just state any evidence on these men one way or another please.)

 2009/6/15 18:28
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 36844
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re: Moral Government Theology and Ravenhill, Reidhead

Brother,

Ravenhill and Reidhead were not of a theological camp but of God. There is no argument they had a healthy view of God's soveriegnty but they surely did not believe that all are predestined by God to salvation or damnation.

They are men who will have rewards greater then many in heaven. Thank God for such brothers who walk in truth as a great example to us all.


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2009/6/15 18:35Profile









 Re:

Dear Greg, I understand what you're trying to say but every preacher or teacher has views on Bible doctrines. If they have no views on Bible doctrines then they shouldn't be Bible teachers, since the Bible is full of doctrine. To say that they're "not of a theological camp but of God" is to suggest that you can be of God but hold to no theology, a statement that sits uneasy with me, if I may say so respectfully, dear brother.

I just want to know whether they had leanings towards or held to Moral Government Theology. If the answer is no, then that is all I was looking for, along with evidence or proof. But I'm really just looking for a yes or no answer. I believe it's a wise thing to understand the theological leanings of the preachers we listen to.

 2009/6/15 18:49
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 36844
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Ravenhill would not be near moral government theology though he loved and promoted finney's writings, which the majority are not MGT but sound biblical exhorations.

Paris Reidhead also I would say would be mostly biblical in his understandings but did view Original sin as not inherited but each person put himself under sin. Ie willful crinimals instead of the victim view.

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


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2009/6/15 19:14Profile
TaylorOtwell
Member



Joined: 2006/6/19
Posts: 927
Arkansas

 Re:

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



Amen.


_________________
Taylor Otwell

 2009/6/15 19:22Profile
KingJimmy
Member



Joined: 2003/5/8
Posts: 4419
Charlotte, NC

 Re:

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.


_________________
Jimmy H

 2009/6/15 20:27Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Ravenhill's soteriology so far as I have understood him was Wesleyan-Arminian in view, which would have stood clearly at odds with MGT.



I have always thought that Ravenhill was Arminian in the Wesleyan branch too but it just makes me wonder why his #1 recommended book is a book on the Atonement by a Moral Government Theologian. Strange thing if he doesn't embrace that view. And added to it, his fellowship in MGT circles has me wondering.

I know there is a certain heretic promoting some clearly terrible doctrines around that claims that both Leonard Ravenhill and Paris Reidhead believed as he does in Moral Government theology, so that is what triggered my research here. I would rather doubt it, truly, but the evidence doesn't lead me to. So one man claims they held to it, another man claims that at least Ravenhill didn't. And the evidence suggests that at least they had some definite MGT-leanings in their theology. What's the conclusion? I don't know, and can't say without solid evidence. I dare not speak with presumption. -I just know that I'm going to study hard all day tomorrow, and then preach the Gospel all weekend to the heathen who don't know God in this foreign land, if the Lord be willing. Pray for souls! Time is short! That's what really matters to me right now, the glory of the Lamb of God. He's worthy to be worshipped by all peoples and tongues.

Anyway, thanks for the answers. I really appreciate it. Love in Christ Jesus.

 2009/6/18 0:07
whyme
Member



Joined: 2007/4/3
Posts: 293


 Re:

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 )

 2009/6/18 8:41Profile
openairboy
Member



Joined: 2003/9/22
Posts: 85


 Re:

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'.

 2009/6/18 12:37Profile
sermonindex
Moderator



Joined: 2002/12/11
Posts: 36844
"Pilgrim and Sojourner." - 1 Peter 2:11

Online!
 Re:

Quote:
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.

"but he seemed content with contradictions and incoherence in his doctrine" :-)


_________________
SI Moderator - Greg Gordon

 2009/6/18 13:10Profile





©2002-2019 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy