The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum The Doctrine of the Atonement

For those of you who have read the February Article of the Month I wondered if you could help me to see what influences, past and present that the "moral-influence theory" has and is having? You might add to that the governmental theory. Machen explains what each of these are but I would like to know how they have influenced religion in the past and more importantly, how they may be influencing religion today.

Pelagianism with a common grace application and an Asbury revival cherry on top.

Plenty are drinking the cool aid….
https://subsplash.com/briarwoodpresbyterianchurchalabama/media/mi/+mzd3n88


I come back to this often when I get too distracted and full of myself (whether too high or too low) ….

https://m.soundcloud.com/geekychristian/sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god

Although the moral-influence theory is probably alive and well in even reformed circles with the promotion of “The Great Tradition” and maybe to a lesser extent (and varying degrees & intent) the Christian Nationalism movements, the secular and public domains are being bombarded and overrun by Social Identity Theory with groups like LGBTQ+ and the CRTers and their adherents.

Maybe 2KT (which on paper is not a bad way to view our place in the world but not something I would promote) and a rediscovery/reapplication of natural law theory divorced from its more Reformed theocratic roots would qualify as a form of moral influence theory affecting the Christian religion in our day. Too many in Christian circles, including Reformed, are preoccupied with politics and culture war. We need to redirect our focus on the greater spiritual issue of sin that is holding the world and even our own motives captive.

We are over focused on the sins and disbelief of others and its effect on society. How much doctrine and practice do we have to compromise to try and correct that?

https://theaquilareport.com/god-and-man/

For those of us who prefer the convenience of the written word,Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is a must read.

You mention pelagianism as an example (along with its many flavors or variants), or semi-pelagianism as well, the common denominator with the governmental or moral-influence theories of the atonement could be its man-centeredness. It could be said that there are two views of Jesus in the world and throughout history: One being Christ's vicarious, substitutionary atonement and the other recognizing that Jesus was a good person (which is undeniable) and therefore His life showed us a better way to live. A moral example for all men and his death, an example to deter men from doing bad things. All religions acknowledge the moral superiority and example for men. Only one view recognizes that He was the only person who could provide the propitiation for man's sin.

Machen does boil the 3 views of the atonement to only 2: Man-centered (moral-influence and governmental) and Christ-centered. See Here: The Bible and the Cross

Anthony

A couple of months ago, I had an interesting e-mail discussion with a theologian I have grown to respect. I am speaking of Dr. Samuel Waldron. Your bringing up 2KT, jarred a memory from that conversation. He was telling me that the 2KT community is not actually monolithic. For example, he said he himself adheres to 2KT and yet disagrees with how many 2KT Churches especially in Reformed circles are bending the knee to government overreach.
On his recommendation I bought a book he wrote; of which because I already have a few books on the go, have not read yet.

The book is called 'Political Revolution in the Reformed Tradition': A Historic and Biblical Critique'.

Tom

Very interesting, thanks!

2KT & Reformed view of Natural Law were tweaked to tolerate pluralism. No matter what you are told by their defenders, that’s the unavoidable bottom line. They need to be transparent of this fact no matter the justification.

There’s a great deal that can be said about that which gets into intent and ideology of leaders. Is it to remain faithful to original intent of founding and long standing laws or to ultimately do something radical? Even good churches are too often looking at current affairs/events from the old paradigm while the current interpretations are barely recognizable because the intent no longer accounts for our well-being. I think there are legal battles that could be won in the courts all things being equal, but to tweak and compromise doctrine for the purpose of religious outreach is futile and in most instances heretical.

Just to clarify, outside the loaded term, I don’t have a problem with the spirit of “Christian Nationalism” which is essentially the same as a foundational, well ordered, nation of laws that maintain the common good. The problem is a small oligarchy of elite are playing god and redefining good. So anything that reflects God’s natural order in creation and design (which is everything) they will try to disparage and redefine to exalt fallen humanity/creation in their perverted attempt to perfect it to their liking. They are exploiting our sin and fallenness to their advantage. These people are sick. They are servants of the devil and the churches’ attempt to meet them on their terms is beyond foolish. I liken it to the cultural merger of Christianity and Paganism under Constantine. The Reformers attempted to clean up that mess.

Today, some in the Reformed camp and other Christian circles are leading us back there.

Anthony, to be honest I do not know where I really stand about 2KT vs 1KT.
Reading Waldron who definitely holds to 2KT; describes what he believes and in many ways, he seems like many who hold to 1KT, especially on passages of Scripture like Romans 13.
He told me he holds to the same 2KT, that people like John Calvin held to. This is explained further in his book I recommended.

He told me that, many modern people who hold to 2KT have a more modern view of the issue. Looking at some of the more modern movements such as the Gospel Coalition, who hold to a more modern view, he definitely takes issue with.

The reason, why I contacted Waldron was basically because of the views of the GCC (Gospel Coalition Canada) are taking. For example, one of them said concerning John MacArthur, by not obeying the California government about Church lockdowns, may have ruined over 50 years of ministry.

Unfortunately, all too many Calvinist Churches have taken the same view that the GCC have taken on lockdowns. Not only that, but this has even caused family issues whose Churches complied with the government mandates and even condemned pastors who were jailed in Alberta Canada.

One family member said that James Coates, who is a Baptist pastor in Edmonton, is pastor of a border-line cult.

When I heard that, if I had stated what was on my mind when they said that. I may have ruined my relationship completely with them.

Tom

As an add on, to what I have already said.

This might help...

Yep, that’s my understanding as well.

I received this email from Dr. Clark today (I actually referenced that TGC article that is downright dangerous to him). He’s pretty public in his views, but I ask you not to copy & paste this anywhere else. He would not consider their position radical ….

“Yes, virtually everyone from AD 380 until the 18th century was theocratic in their assumptions. Certainly the Reformed in the 16th & 17th centuries were.

They were all wrong. It was a huge mistake.

How the Americans and others came to see the error is a fascinating and difficult question. There were some in the 17th century who began to argue for a kind of limited religious toleration, e.g., John Owen.

My opinion is that the Eighty Years War (in the NL) and the Thirty Years War (in the rest of Europe) was a turning point.

Did the Enlightenment help? Maybe. Some/many of them were fairly well read in the older theologians. They borrowed/revised the Reformed idea of the covenant of works for their doctrine of the state of nature.

Is Enlightenment rationalism essential to a pluralistic state? I hope not. I don't think so. Were there orthodox Christians who began to see the folly of a state church? I guess so but I don't know.

rsc”

https://ca.thegospelcoalition.org/article/obeying-rulers-with-the-reformed-tradition/

My condolences brother. That is a pretty ignorant take in the context of Covid & those stupid masks and all those Chinese communist recommendations.

I was able to discern that from the very beginning. TGC’s credibility is shot when they defend untrustworthy tyrants that will never let a crisis go to waste. But everything is political. That’s why I don’t like the terms liberal & conservative in the context of today’s denominational/theological disputes/divides. Machen is a marvel in that he wasn’t influenced by evangelical culture or the cultural elite.

It’s helpful when the voices at least reference and acknowledge the current state of affairs when engaging in these debates (Keller endorsed Francis Collins, yikes! for goodness sake). But despite the cultural insanity, the actual theological side of these debates are most important.

Funny how the author of the article you provided from the Canadian Gospel Coalition used very few scriptural references, e.g, Acts 5 which clearly demonstrated that Christians were NOT to give universal obedience to ANY authority. There are however many other references where God's people flatly refused to obey a ruler's/government's edicts, e.g., Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who disobeyed Nebuchadnezzar II's commandments re: prayer and the worship of the one true God. After the resurrection, the early church's history is replete with examples of Christians gathering in private/secret because it was forbidden to do so. CONTEXT offers not only propositional truth but truth by way of example. The Reformers, including those mentioned by the author, Ian Clary, also held tenaciously to the well-known and openly taught that no Christian is bound to any authority who demands that one do that which God forbids nor not do what God commands of them.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, albeit perhaps not one was a genuine Christian and some who were Deists, in their writings "The Federalist Papers" included much in regard to the government, it's authority and the freedom of the people from tyranny. The Constitution's "Bill of Rights" was included not to give particular freedoms to the citizens but rather to clearly state the limitations of the government(s). One of the most prominent of the amendments was the Second Amendment which states that citizens have the natural/God-given right to own and bear arms for the particular purpose to overthrowing a tyrannical ruler/government and for self defense. Obviously, these men knew all too well to various degrees what Scripture teaches concerning the natural man; the universal corruption of nature which exhibits itself in the blaspheming of God, the worship of idols and the oppression of men.

In the military one of the axioms that was told us was despite the Uniform Code of Military Justice which is the law that governs all branches of the US military, it does not require any member to obey an unlawful order given by a superior. Even the pagan run military knew that it was wrong to give unreserved obedience to anyone to whom they were subject.

So, both in biblical Christianity and in the world, it is recognized that no one should give unfeigned obedience to any authority. That demonstrates that God's moral law resides in the hearts of everyone, even though many (most?) harden their consciences and thus fail to exercise this principle of God as it was intended.

Pilgrim
The sad part of all this, is that I used to like the Gospel Coalition.

Unfortunately, they are influencing some pastors I know that otherwise have good theology. Sigh...

For example, one pastor I know, who normally really likes Sam Waldron. Saw Waldron's sermon on Roman 13, and totally rejected it.

Tom