theopenlife wrote: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 gospel of imputed righteousness with the fatal cyanide of works-righteousness. Anathema marantha to such a false notion.
Hi theopenlife...I don't mean to get into a quarrel about the definition of "moral government" or an argument about whether or not people must live a holy life if they are a believer. However....
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!"?
I think the ultimate test for all doctrines is if we are free from sin.For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. (Rom 8:2 NKJ)and this verse read in its context show it is speaking of sin. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (Joh 8:32 NKJ)so the test is not do i have orthodox theology according to this system or not? the truth is is the doctrine you hold made you free from sin in all its forms? if not you have a false doctrine.If your doctrine makes you more and more free from sin and more holy, more free from the world and its lusts, you have Christ, he is the TRUTH the way and the life, you will be free from sin. Is our doctrine doing this every day? if not you are deceived.If we cling to worldly music styles, worldly clothing, worldly conversations, worldly entertainment and yet have an orthodox reformed faith or finnian theology we are deceived, Christ is salvation, Christ is correct doctrine, having a relationship with him is what matters, i think mother theresa had one, she erred in some doctrines but she knew Jesus Christ much more then i would say Martin Luther. Many of the reformers that i know many hold to have had a "pure" and "true" faith and doctrine still held mass in church after the reformation, they still clinged to state and church union and still held much heresy's in belief and practice.Why is not that as important to remember as the errors mother theresa might have held? because we have our pet doctrines as idols and not Christ first, yes we may arue as we do here it is important, but we need to recognize one can have an error in their doctrine and still know the living Christ, otherwise not martin luther, john calvin, mother theresa knew Christ. All had serious errors in their doctrine. Some even blasphemous and very heretical.
Hi everyone,"...we need to recognize one can have an error in their doctrine and still know the living Christ,"Something that has appeared to me for sometime now is that heresy has to do with contending for something to the disunity of beleivers, more so than having a wrong view.This seems to be the sense of the word as I've looked at it in Galatians 5 where Strong's greek dictionary defines it as:G139αἵρεσιςhairesishah'ee-res-isFrom G138; properly a choice, that is, (specifically) a party or (abstractly) disunion. (heresy is the Greek word itself.): - heresy [which is the Greekord itself], sect.The sense of it to me is in contending for something that causes others to make [i]a choice[/i], to choose sides in a matter, causing factions and divisions.This isn't to say that there are not valid and right things to contend for that people will divide over.Also, about doctrine, I think that the Bible speaks about doctrine in terms of life and living and not only in the sense of true or false statements or beliefs. I think this is something of what Christian is trying to emphasise.For instance, when Paul writes about [b]the doctrine of God[/b] in 1Timothy, it is in the context of servants submiting to masters, and that this is in reference to the life and example of Christ(Mat 20:25-28, Php 2:1-12). Compare also Titus 2:9-12.At the beginning of the Chapter there is the exhortation to speak the things that become sound doctrine, and what follows are not things to believe, but how to behave.Wish you all well and wish us all help and grace from God.
_________________Christopher Joel Dandrow
Ccchhhrrrriiisss said,I believe you misunderstood what I wrote. Of course we all agree that personal sanctification is an aspect of true regeneration. What is at issue is whether one must be personally, [b]perfectly[/b] sanctified in order to be finally saved, which Moral Government theology teaches.
Here is what I have found on my research:Leonard Ravenhill believed in the moral government view of the atonement. He highly recommended "The Atonement" by Albert Barnes, published by Bethany. It was his #1 pick out of 40 books. Leonard used to say, "They sing in Church 'Jesus paid it all'. That's a lie!" That is what Leonard's daughter in law told me. Paris Reidhead also was in the moral government camp. He was good friends with Gordon Olson, who was the top teacher of Moral Government for YWAM. When Gordon Olson died, Paris Reidhead was going to speak at his funeral, but then Paris himself became sick with cancer. Therefore Dean Harvey, another moral government teacher, spoke at Olson's funeral.Paris Reidhead also wrote the forward to "The Four Trojan Horses of Humanism" which was a book written by Harry Conn, another moral government teacher. Harry Conn was mentored by Gordon Olson. Paris Reidhead particularly wanted to make Harry Conn's book known to the public because it taught free will.Both Paris Reidhead and Leonard Ravenhill were friends with Winkie Pratney, another proponent of moral government and open theism. Leonard was also friends with Gordon Olson and mentioned him in one of his sermons that is right here on Sermon Index. Leonard said to Last Days, "I am sure Gordon Olson has told you that Finney used to preach 28 nights in a row without ever making an altar call". Leonard Ravenhill and Paris Reidhead were definitely involved in moral government circles because they used to teach at YWAM and Last Days, which used to also have Gordon Olson, Harry Conn, Winkie Pratney, and George Otis Jr speak. Leonard lived right down the street from these ministries.David Ravenhill has told me that he believes in Moral Government and Open Theism. He used to work with YWAM and went to Bethany. Winkie Pratney was his best man at his wedding. "Ten Shekels & a Shirt" was actually preached at Bethany Fellowship, which at the time was heavily promoting moral government theology. It was Bethany that published "The Atonement" by Albert Barnes and "Systematic Theology" by Charles FinneyKeith Green used to heavily promote Finney in his Last Days Magazine. They would republish Finney's sermons. Keith Green was mentored by Winkie Pratney, who taught moral government and open theism.
Thank you for your research, friend. It is a sad report, and it is also saddening that the seriousness of it will go unheeded by most.For the purity of the gospel,Taylor
Personally I think its sad how people can marginalize brothers who were greatly used of God into a narrowed theology and claim them heretic or wrong.I can't wait until the judgement seat of Christ where God will set all things straight and those who were contending for a purity of something that was God's. And God will say to them but what did you do, did you obey my voice? and the response will be no Lord I was too busy defending you.Leonard Ravenhill was not 100% anything. not moral government, not methodist, not pentecostal. He was a believer in Jesus Christ and he saw truths in many different camps. Man does have a free will and that does not take away from the Cross of Jesus Christ. It is terrible brothers and sisters divid over these things.
_________________SI Moderator - Greg Gordon
I have an honest question. Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Does this verse apply at all today? We give all this room for Moral Govt., Open theism and whatever else someone wants to teach and we say " but they were such good preachers and taught so well in other areas, and they believe men are sinners and Jesus died on the cross etc....."How can a man hold to these teachings and be named a brother? It doesn't matter if they preached open air, gave to the poor, or anything else if they preached a message that trampled the blood of Jesus under foot.
I agree, brother Alan.This idea that accepting these people regardless of how badly they pervert the gospel is somehow spiritual or godly is mistaken, in my opinion. Actually, it is worldly. It is the world who claims it doesn't matter what you believe and views everything from a pragmatic basis. Godliness is not solely based on actions, it is also based on belief. To determine if someone was "used of God", we must examine their teachings to see if they are in accordance with the things of God. If the Gospel was perverted and cloudy, we should not promote their teachings, because it promotes ungodliness and misrepresentation of our Lord.May the Lord give us all light to see clearly in these matters.With care in Christ,Taylor