Philosophical Underpinnings of Moral Government Theology

The United States of America is a moral government and has an obligation to those it serves. A true moral government believes and trusts the Bible and works to support the teaching of its morals in public life.

It believes that those who have suffered and are struggling under unjust conditions deserve justice. It also believes that the government's primary function is to maintain freedom, provide protection and assistance, and promote a just economy.

In fact, the United States of America is the greatest single nation ever created in all the human written recorded history of the species.

Unfortunately, the US government today is foundering on the brink of irrelevance and will cease to exist as we know it with the exception of a handful of morally bankrupt leaders who care more about their power than they do about the future of humanity.

Some may ask, “If moral government theology is required for good choices, then isn't religious faith already a sufficient form of government support?” Sadly, no.

Not only is there a conflict between government support for good choices and free exercise of religion, but between religion and civil government power.

Religious beliefs and expressions have long been suppressed by civil governments throughout the world. Only now are citizens speaking out against the erosion of religious freedoms.

Most citizens of the US do not realize or understand that the US constitution specifically authorizes the executive branch to abridge the freedom of religion in order to promote the good leadership and moral character of our country.

The First Amendment expressly states, “No tax or penalty shall be imposed by the United States or any State on account of the acceptance of the documents of any religion” (U.S. constitution amendment 17yu).

That clause was later interpreted to mean that any worship or religious practices must have no connection with the government. Today, almost all people of every religion are required by law to support and participate in the political process.

The Being of God; Moral Government and Theses in Theology

When discussing the philosophical underpinnings of moral government theology, one cannot discount the role of Original Sin.

The notion that sin can never be overcome by free will is an idea originating with the Essenes. Calvin Beisner, in his popular work Man and His Confidence, attempts to reconcile grace with free will.

He maintains that to be a virtuous person, one must be able to overcome Original Sin. If one is not able to overcome Original Sin, one can never gain the justified comfort of having a free will.

For most traditionalists and fundamentalists, the atonement cannot be understood outside of religious terms. For them, salvation from sin is simply an act of giving up an unearned privilege.

However, some atonement theories hold that man must be sacrificed for the atonement. Although this seems to make sense from a personal perspective, one must ask if the atonement is not simply an act of charity.

For moral government theology, it makes sense that good choices should result in moral goodness. However, there are some atonement theories that suggest that the atonement can only be achieved through good choices that do not involve freedom or free will.

According to these theories, the good choices a person makes are merely reflective of his will or propensities. In other words, a person's actions follow from his own thoughts and beliefs.This is contrary to the traditional liberal view that a person is responsible for his own actions.

A traditionalist would claim that a belief in the atonement does not require a belief in any doctrine of predestination, including the idea that god has an absolute plan for the salvation of all mankind.

According to some ethicists, a believer can be expected to deserve whatever he receives regardless of whether he acts out of the will of God or of his own impulsive motives.

According to many moral government believers, a believer who forgives others but does not share the forgiveness of their brothers will suffer both from the guilt and from God's displeasure.

This means that a believer who believes that a forgivable sin warrants divine punishment is required to behave in a way that satisfies God. Otherwise he will be acting out of his own will and not guided by the purposes and desires of God.

In short, a believer may believe that he is morally worthy of salvation but not free from blame nor morally responsible for the actions of others.

This does not mean that he is in the state of grace or has been cleansed from sin. It does mean that he is still held responsible for his own actions because of the influence of sin that he has brought upon himself through the consequences of his actions.

Sin leaves its after-effect on every individual. A person saved by grace through the atonement of Christ is then saved not only in virtue of his merit as a person, but also because he has obtained the undeserved favor of God through his obedience to Christ.