LETTER TO THE EDITOR

by Tom Lukashow

February 21, 1992

Dear Sir,

I would like to make comments about E. Calvin Beisner's paper The Heresy of Moral Government Theology ("Heresy") and his letter to the editor which appeared in the Jan/Feb 1992 issue of "Notes and Quotes."

I consider Mr. Beisner to be generally a sound and gifted scholar. He has done much to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the errors of cultists and has done solid work in the areas of economics and the environment. However, it seems Mr. Beisner suffers from exegetical and historical tunnel vision when particular reformed doctrines are at issue. Mr. Beisner is not the only scholar to suffer from the tunnel vision affliction. For example, the first edition of the book The Evangelicals, edited by Wells and Woodbridge, contained an extremely biased essay on Evangelicalism by Calvinist John Gerstner. Fortunately, Arminian scholars did not let this skewed presentation of history go unchallenged: and the editors included in the revised edition on essay discussing evangelicalism from an Arminian perspective.

First, I would like to challenge Mr. Beisner and the Coalition of Revival ("COR") to decide whether or not they consider Charles Finney to be a heretic. Finney denied original sin and imputed righteousness. He affirmed that God is good by choice and adopted the governmental view of the atonement. He did hold to absolute foreknowledge, but I am not aware that he thought its denial was heretical. I think it only fair that if Beisner and COR consider Finney a heretic they should publicly acknowledge this fact so that the church will be alerted to their theological bias and put the debate in its proper historical context. Despite Finney's belief that the doctrine of a hereditary sinful nature was blasphemy and slander on Jehovah, most Christians believe Finney was a godly servant of Christ even if Wesley may have characterized his views as "heathenism". I think the church generally believes there is room for both Wesley and Finney. It is easy for COR to attack a relatively unknown contemporary theological movement. It will take courage to call Finney and other prominent like-minded Christians heretics.

Space limitations prohibit a thorough discussion of Beisner's assertion that Moral Government theology lacks hard exegetical and historical support. However, some of Beisner's arguments are easily defeated. For example, in "Heresy" Beisner writes "that those who claim that Moral Government Theology is consistent with Wesleyanism and Arminianism do so in either ignorance or contempt of the facts about the historic doctrines of those systems." Let's examine how accurate his reading of history is with the facts concerning the "Governmental" view of the Atonement. The great Reformed Scholar B. B. Warfield wrote in The Person and Work of Christ that, ...the Grotian theory has come to be the orthodox Arminian view and is taught as such by leading exponents of modern Arminian thought whether in Britain or America; and he who will read the powerful argumentation to that effect by the late Dr. John Miley, say, for example, will be compelled to agree that it is, indeed the highest form of atonement doctrine conformable to the Arminian system. But not only is it thus practically universal among Wesleyan Arminians, it has become...the mark also of orthodox Nonconformity in Great Britain and of orthodox Congregationalism in America.

In an article appearing in the March 1888 issue of the Methodist Quarterly Review by G. M. Steele entitled Arminian Theories of the Atonement, the author recognized the existence of four Arminian atonement theories and named the "purely governmental" and "modified governmental" as two of them. Stanley Gundry, whose name appears on the COR letterhead, acknowledged in his book The Proclamation Theology of D. L. Moody that the governmental theory may have been the standard written evangelical expression on the subject in the 19th century.

Although Arminius and Wesley did not teach the governmental theory, the facts show that many of their progeny did. I doubt Beisner believes everything Calvin taught, but I think it is appropriate to characterize his views as Calvinistic. I don't know any Arminians or Wesleyans who elevate Arminius or Wesley to the position of Pope, As Protestants we view scripture as our final authority and are not duty bound to follow the teachings of any man.

Hard exegetical work on original sin and imputation can be found in Moses Stuart's Commentary on Romans (Revised 2nd ed,). Less scholarly but still informative is Albert Barnes' Notes on Romans. (Both the first and revised editions should be consulted.) Also useful is Forster and Marsden"s historical study on original sin found in God's Strategy in Human History.

History also reveals that the denial of absolute foreknowledge has always been held by some within Arminian circles and has been recognized as a viable option even though it never achieved majority acceptance. Methodist theologian John Miley in his Systematic Theology wrote concerning "Divine nescience" that "...some of the Remonstrants held the same view, although it does not appear with Arminius himself'. The revered Methodist expositor Adam Clarke held to limited foreknowledge. A. H. Strong also noted in his Systematic Theology that some Arminians deny absolute foreknowledge.

M. S. Terry, author of the widely used book Biblical Hermeneutics, wrote in an article for the Methodist Quarterly Review in 1899 that, "There is and has been a tendency among Arminian Methodist theologians to look with favor upon the idea that the foreknowledge of God may be limited. Two distinguished names at least will ever be associated with this thought, Dr. Adam Clarke, the great expositor, and Dr. L. D. McCabe, the able and saintly teacher who has lately gone from among us."

L. D. McCabe was the 19th century's ablest proponent of limited foreknowledge. His views were vigorously debated within the pages of the Methodist Quarterly Review, Although his views were opposed by some prominent Methodists, neither McCabe nor his sympathizers were accused of heresy. McCabe and supporters were viewed by their opponents as Christian brothers with whom they disagreed on a point of doctrine.

Additional support that one can adhere to limited foreknowledge and not be cast out from the church comes from an unlikely source. In discussing the theological views of the early church fathers, Loraine Boettner, in a chapter entitled "Calvinism in History" from his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, wrote:

Some of their writings contain passages in which the sovereignty of God is recognized, yet along side of those are others which teach the absolute freedom of the human will. Since they could not reconcile the two, they would have denied the doctrine of Predestination and perhaps also God's absolute foreknowledge. They taught a kind of synergism in which there was a cooperation between grace and free will.

One implication that can be drawn from this quote is that if the early church fathers did deny absolute foreknowledge, they were only involved in error and not egregious heresy. They would still be the early church fathers and genuine Christians and not written off as heretics. More examples could be cited to show that belief in limited foreknowledge has not been universally opposed by the church as serious heresy, but I think the above evidence is sufficient to show that it is a doctrine about which Christians have disagreed in the past.

In recent years several Arminians have acknowledged this option. Robert Shank in his classic Arminian work on election Elect in the Son states that the biblical views of election do not require God to foreknow all individuals. However, it is not clear what Shank's own position is. More recently Clark Pinnock edited a book entitled The Grace of God, the Will of Man: A Case for Arminianism which included an essay opting for limited foreknowledge.

I hope I have at least established a prima facie case that Beisner's presentation of history is very selective. I look forward to further discussions of these important matters and trust that the result will be a clearer perception of God's truth and a greater desire to know him.

Respectfully,

Tom Lukashow