Fuller Theological Seminary

That statement would make more since. Still, the history of the church working out its doctrine shows that the deity and nature of Christ was the first defined doctrine. Over the past two thousand years we have seen many other doctrines discussed and disputed. Sometimes these doctrinal disputes have led to church division (i.e., Faith and the Protestant Reformation). In the past two hundred years we have seen several doctrinal issues discussed: eschatology, bibliology, worship

I think one problem is that church doctrines about Scripture have been vague until the recent past century. Because it has been rather vague, there has been a plethora of opinions on Scripture. And since there is no longer a central authority in Western Christianity, different opinions can be codified depending upon the traditions of the particular body of believers.

What do you mean when you say “holding to a proper Doctrine of Bibliology and its exposition are the third rail of Evangelical thought”?

 

Yes, I understand the metaphor. But what do you mean by applying that metaphor to the issue of "holding to a proper Doctrine of Bibliology and its exposition"?

 

I don't know that what should meant by the inerrancy of Scripture is any any more contested in the Church than what should meant by Christ's deity!

The Church may agree that The Son has deity, but the Church does not agree as to what is meant by that:

1) Many within the Church as Arminius consider the Son's deity provided Him by the Father. Only the Father is autotheos. Berkof also thinks that the Father essentiates the Son in an unending, eternal process. Calvin rejects that notion. But this doctrine of eternal generation is denied by such as Buswell. Consequently how the Son receives His deity and whether or not the Son has aseity {which means life from Oneself) is contested within the Church.

2) Many within the Church as Dahms and Grudem think that God the Son is eternally role subordinate to the Father. The Father is the eternal Authority over the Son. Lewis and Demarest posit three faculties of wills in God which would enable one Trinal Person to submit to the Other. Dahms thinks that this role subordination is an ontological difference between the Persons ,and Rahner suppopses that only the Person of the Son could incarnate because He is different somehow from the Father.But this doctrine of eternal role subordination of the Son is denied by such as Erickson [ and Shedd denies three wills in God}. Consequently within the Church it is not agreed as to whether the Son is the equal of the Father in what some would call the divine attribute of sovereignty!

3. Even omniscience is debated within the Church as to whether the Son has that as well as the Father. While Aquinas thinks that God's knowledge is not successive, Westcott supposes that John 5 means that even in thje immanent Trinity the Father teaches the Son point by point and lesson by lesson! Consequently that attribute also is denied to the Son by some.

4) Then of course some as Erickson, Lewis, and Demarest see the divine Son as giving up the use of some attributes when incarnating. Reymond calls this kenoticism, and Grudem says to lose the use of attributes would be to lose the divine essence. This is because according to Frame and Hodge attributes reside in essence. Consequently, the divine attribute of immutability is only questionably the Son's according to some in the Church!

So, IMO, there are certainly are varied and contradictory views as to what is meant by Christ's deity!

[ March 29, 2005, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Well, first, the question concerned evangelicals in particular and not the Church in general.

Second, debates within evangelicalism about the attributes of the incarnate God do not deny the debaters agreement that God was incarnate and that Jesus is deity. The doctrine that Christ is deity is not disputed among evangelicals.

Third, if Scripture is more contested among evangelicals than eschatology, worship, egalitarianism and divine sovereignty then it is only a recently contested issue of the past century.

Also, Fuller Seminary's major contribution to evangelicalism has not been a "muddying of the waters" in connection with the Church's teaching of the nature of Scripture. Various traditions within evangelicalism have led to this lack of consensus.

 

In Mr. Muow's defense, he did make a few clear statements that left a clear divide between Christianity and the heretical teachings of Mormonism. He denied the legitimacy of Joseph's propehesies, for example.

However, earlier one of you accurately quoted Mr. Muow as saying:

"But I do believe that there are elements in Mormon thought that if emphasized, while de-emphasizing other element, could constitute a message within Mormonism of salvation by grace alone through the blood of Jesus Christ," Mouw wrote. "I will work to promote that cause."

For a president of a Christian seminary to say this just leaves me absolutely flabbergasted. Mormonism teaches Class A, First Rate Heresy. They teach polytheism, and that God was once a regular human, just to name two. If the quote from Mr. Muow above could accurately be applied to Mormonsim, then it could be applied to any false teaching anywhere. I am amazed that someone who should know better believes that by de-emphasizing heresy, and emphasizing the half-truths, then we can get legitimate Christian salvation. And yes, I did send a letter to Mr. Muow stating such. In their response, Fuller stood by Mr. Muow's statements.

Further, Mr. Muow attacked the Christian scholar Walter Martin as an example of those who he needed to apologize for. Yet he mentioned not one single thing that Walter Martin erred. He did not simply because he cannot: Martin was extremely accurate and careful about his statements. He also apparently had more knowledge of the history of Mormon doctrine than Mr. Muow.

I do not mean to tear down all that Fuller does or everyone who is connected with the school. I'm sure they have some very good, very scholarly people, and I'm sure they do much that is very good.

But the professors who abandonded the school due to their denial of innerancy were equally scholarly, and I can only assume understood exactly what Fuller stood for. As I understand it, the innerantists have left Fuller.

Based on all this, Fuller is not a place that I can recommend to anyone.

 

Well, first, the question concerned evangelicals in particular and not the Church in general.


===

Very well, which except for Rahner in my list would you not call an evangelical and why?

===

Second, debates within evangelicalism about the attributes of the incarnate God do not deny the debaters agreement that God was incarnate and that Jesus is deity. The doctrine that Christ is deity is not disputed among evangelicals.

===
so they claim in word, but not in fact IMO:

If one debator says the preincarnate Son must equal the Father in attributes , and another says 'no', and one debator says the incarnate God MUST have the use of ALL the divine attributes in order to be God, and another debator says such is not necessary, then these two do not even agree on what constitutes deity So how do they do agree, except in word, that Christ has that nature?

How is it unlike a debate about inerrancywhere one says inerrancy includes all data and another says in concerns only that which is salvific??

===

Third, if Scripture is more contested among evangelicals than eschatology, worship, egalitarianism and divine sovereignty then it is only a recently contested issue of the past century.

===

??? I said nothing about that!

===

Also, Fuller Seminary's major contribution to evangelicalism has not been a "muddying of the waters" in connection with the Church's teaching of the nature of Scripture. Various traditions within evangelicalism have led to this lack of consensus. </font>[/QUOTE]===

??? same.I am talking about Christ's deity. I like Fuller.

 

Mormonism is a heretical sect that has broken away from orthodox Christianity. Because it derives itself from Christian roots there are some aspects of Mormonism that are true to the orthodox faith. But there are certainly some aspects of Mormonism that make it a heretical text, “of eternal significance" so says Mouw. To say that Mouw was wanting to emphasize half-truths is wholly inaccurate. Mouw wants to promote the cause of emphasizing the orthodoxy of Mormonism and deemphasizing the heterodoxy in order to bring them into the grace of God by faith in Jesus Christ and deliver them from damnation. What is wrong with that?

That is not true. There are plenty of people who teach at Fuller who call themselves inerrantists and many many who can be called inerrantists.

 

Which doctrines are we supposed to "deemphasize?"

 

Which Mormon doctrines are orthodox?

 

You prefaced your comments by speaking of those “in the Church” and not just those within the evangelical community of the church. Also, as you stated, not all the names you mentioned were evangelicals. Now what makes a Christian an evangelical or not is a question not to be discussed here. Way too many different opinions about that! I simply wanted to make sure you were narrowing the discussion within evangelical circles which was the basic point that another poster was making.

Well, their word is a fact.

Because neither is denying that Christ is God. This would be a philosophical argument (essence precedes existence versus existence precedes essence), an argument not found in Scripture. We do not have to agree to what extent Christ “emptied himself” in order to agree that Christ did indeed empty himself. The issue you present is not whether Christ was God but in what way was He God in His incarnate and pre-incarnate existence.

Well, within the context of the issue being debated … inerrancy is only a recent issue of the past century (at the earliest). The issue of deity of Christ in the doctrines of the church goes back 18 centuries at the latest.

Also, the issue being discussed is not whether the deity of Christ or any other doctrine is being misrepresented or mistaught at Fuller. The issue appears to be whether Fuller’s major contribution to evangelical Christianity is lack of clarity over inerrancy and whether Fuller’s president misspoke when he attempted to reach out to Mormons.

Good.

 

Mouw did not give any particulars. But since he wants to bring a message “of salvation by grace alone through the blood of Jesus Christ” then I generally suppose that he will deemphasize those doctrines which hamper such a message.

It appears he is approaching bringing the gospel to the Mormons the way we would evangelize to a people of another culture and religion. He is using missionary techniques.

Also, he did not say that you or anyone else should evangelize the way he is doing it. There are many ways of evangelizing. He was only speaking for himself in this regard.

Here are a few.

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,791-1,00.html

God: “We are commanded to love God (Matthew 22:36–38). Jesus Christ taught that we must know the only true God to have eternal life (John 17:3). As His children, we must know who He is and what He is like.” “God is perfect. He is all-wise and all-powerful—the ruler of the universe.” “God is our Heavenly Father, and we are created in his image.”

Christ: “Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He is Heavenly Father’s Only Begotten Son in the flesh. He is our Redeemer. Through Jesus Christ, Heavenly Father has provided a way for all people to become like Him and return to live with Him forever.” “Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was the Creator, He is our Savior, and He will be our Judge.” “He led a perfect life. He taught by word and example how people should live in love of God and others.” “By giving His life on the cross—that is, by performing the Atonement—Jesus Christ saves us from our sins (1 Peter 2:21) as we follow Him. Because of the Atonement, you can be forgiven of your sins when you sincerely repent.” “Through His Resurrection, Jesus Christ saved us from death. Because He overcame death, we will all be given the gift of resurrection (Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15:22). When life on this earth is over, Jesus Christ will be the final Judge (Acts 17:31; John 5:21–22; Acts 10:42).” “From the Bible we learn that Jesus was born in a stable to a virgin mother, Mary, that angels announced His birth to shepherds, and that wise men from the East later visited Him. The heavens rejoiced at the coming of the Son of God to the earth. His birth was and is good news for all people, in every age and in every land!”

Holy Spirit: “He sends the Holy Ghost to comfort and help guide His children. The Holy Ghost—sometimes called the Holy Spirit—is the third member of the Godhead. His mission is to testify of the truth, comfort us, sanctify us, and bring all things to our remembrance (John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:13).” “The special mission of the Holy Ghost is to testify of the Father and the Son, to reveal the truth, to comfort us, and to sanctify us. He is a divine guide and teacher.”

 

Anleifr

Me thinks, squire landed on the center track, got jolted, and posted on a different thread ... perhaps?

Now about orthodox followers of smith: There are NONE ... IMHO

 

Of course no follower of Smith is orthodox. But there are some aspects of Mormonism that are orthodox. The point that I believe Dr. Mouw was making was that a good way of reaching them for Christ is to emphasize what is orthodox in Mormonism and teach what they are lacking. In no way was Mouw calling them orthodox and he said as much.

 

That is better ... but, I still don't like it ...

 

I would urge you to investigate the Mormon definitions of the terms. A couple of examples:

--"know the only true God" To Mormons, this means that there are other equally-powerful, equally-good Gods out there on other planets, and we are commanded to worship the "true God" on this planet.

--"Heavenly Father" a physical heavenly father that created us through physical relations with a heavenly mother.

--"become like Him" to Mormons, this means REALLY be like him, i.e., take the same Divine nature (become Gods).

--Three times in the "Articles of Faith" Talmadge alludes to Jesus' "virgin birth" as one resulting from physical relations with Mary.

--"Holy Ghost" again, to Mormons, this is a third God.

I stand by my statements. The wordplay and re-definitions that non-Christians play is a serious issue.

I can only assume you attended Fuller. I do not question your sincerity, or the genuineness of anyone from there. Neither do I question the heart or the motives of Muow or anyone else from Fuller. As I said, I'm sure there are good-hearted people there, doing fine work. But Muow is flat out wrong about Walter Martin. Check his works for yourself.

The language barrier is significant, and often deceptive. I urge you, dear brother, to not accept the statements of anyone at face value, until you are certain of what they truly mean. Good Christians have dealt with these heresies long enough to know the dodging and weaving that often goes on with their statements. I urge you to investigate the publications of the many Christian apologists on this matter, and you'll find that the Mormons have molded their meanings before, and they're doing it again.

I'm done with this conversation, and will not continue in argument. I leave you with scripture: 2 Cor. 11:4. Beware of those who bring another Jesus, and another gospel, as the title page of the Book of Mormon claims to do.

God Bless.

 

I am not from Fuller. Why do you make such an assumption? And I’m sure you do not question the hearts and motives of Mouw or any other Fuller staff member.

But I haven’t said that Mormons are orthodox or will be “saved”. And Mouw certainly isn’t saying that.

In the few examples that you gave the gist of your argument was that “Mormons do believe A, but they either also believe B or interpret A as C.” And I agree with you. And so does Mouw. That was the point he was trying to make. “You Mormons say you believe A. Great! So do I. But let me tell you why B and C are wrong and what really is the truth (i.e., the orthodox belief).” Emphasize A, but deemphasize B and C, thereby teaching them what A actually means.

Now Jesus did this. Paul and the other apostles did this. This is a common Christian technique in both missions and apologetics.

But I have no opinion about Walter Martin.

True, that’s why we have to teach the Mormons the true faith. We can do it best by highlighting what is true in their faith and redefining what is wrong.

I urge you to do the same with Dr. Mouw’s statements, though maybe if you took him at face value you would understand what he was saying.

And good Christians can be wrong about how other good Christians evangelize. I have investigated and I know where and why they are heretical and so does Mouw.

Actually, I do not think you disagree with Mouw at all. I don’t think many evangelicals disagree with what he is trying to do. I do think that many evangelicals are upset with Fuller and looking for any way possible to discredit them publicly (I am not saying you are doing this at all. I am sure you have a very Christ-like attitude toward Fuller and its staff). Every six months or so I read in the Baptist Press some new allegation against Fuller. Last time it was the allegation that Fuller was teaching that Muslims were going to be “saved”. Well, it wasn’t true it all. But someone thought that was what they were teaching and that was good enough for the Baptist Press. Why was it good enough? Because the BP has a predisposition to assume that anything that comes out of Fuller is heterodox. In this way, they are as bad as the secular liberal media.

Yes, I am sure you are and will not.

 

Yes, to point out that it was the first defined doctrine and that the Scriptures have been toward the very recent.

Opinion. I’d say that its clearly defined but a consensus has not been reached on every aspect.

Make your point all you want to. It’s appears to be pretty irrelevant to the point I was making. If anything, it makes my point more valid.

Great! Do you know if any of these goes to Fuller?

Fine. But do not all of these people you’ve mention believe Christ is deity?

But they both agree that Christ IS deity. And that’s my point.

And I suggest that this argument is unrelated to the discussion. I also suggest that all these evangelicals you’ve mentioned still believe that Christ is deity. And, again, that is the point I was making. Ta-da.

Could you rephrase this question?

Sure. And that’s not an argument found in Scripture, either.

It depends on how you take the concept that Christ “emptied himself”. It depends on how you take the idea that Jesus “grew in wisdom”. It depends on how you take the idea that Christ did not know when the end was coming but only the Father knew.

And my point is that two people can believe Christ is God and not precisely agree in what ways. Two people can still believe Scripture is inerrant and not precisely agree in what ways. And both can be evangelical and inerrantists and orthodoxically Christological. That was the point I had made about inerrancy and Fuller. You’ve made my point, thank you.

No, I’m saying that the deity of Christ is not an issue at Fuller or in this thread.

I also mentioned Existence of God, Salvation by Faith, and missions. These were example given (e.g.) and not topics of discussion. But have it your way.

I disagree. I think all evangelicals understand Christ is deity. I think it is difficult to be an evangelical and not think Christ is deity.

What have I said?

Okay. I am saying that evangelicals have not reached a consensus on “what inerrancy mean” and you are saying that evangelicals have not reached a consensus on “what Christ’s deity means”. I wasn’t disagreeing with you. Were you disagreeing with me.

No need to apologize. Perhaps you are correct in your assessment of modern evangelical Christologists.

Look. Let me help you out a bit. In order to refute the argument I was making you will have to find an evangelical that does not believe that Christ is deity. Of course, if you do find someone, the logical response will be to deny that this person is an evangelical, which, again, was the point I was making all along.

 

Yes, to point out that it was the first defined doctrine and that the Scriptures have been toward the very recent.


===

It was "CLEARLY DEFINED" by Nicaea that the Son is God only because the Father provides the Son with the divine essence. Is that your "clear definition" too?

===

Opinion. I’d say that its clearly defined but a consensus has not been reached on every aspect.

===

I disagree and think that you are minimalizing the importance of equality in the Godhead. How is that which is not thought to be the attributional equal of God "clearly defined" as God? How is God less than God?

===

Make your point all you want to. It’s appears to be pretty irrelevant to the point I was making. If anything, it makes my point more valid.

===

The point of yours that I responded to was that Christology has been "clearly defined" for 1800 years. It has not. In that regard it is like inerrancy.

IF you wish to retract that, then do so.

===

Great! Do you know if any of these goes to Fuller?

===

Oh. I thought you mentioned evangelicals in particular and the church in general when giving your view on the uniformity of Christological belief. If you did not limit yourself to Fuller Folk , why should I ???

===

Fine. But do not all of these people you’ve mention believe Christ is deity?

===

Yes. And do not Fuller folks believe in inerrancy? So, why the concern expressed in this thread?

FINE, I'll help you out and solve the whole problem for you: BOTH BJU types and FULLER types say they believe in inerrancy. ERGO, the Bible is clearly defined as inerrant by them!

===

But they both agree that Christ IS deity. And that’s my point.

===

Yes, and we all believe the Bible is God's Word, and that is my point. no problemo

===

And I suggest that this argument is unrelated to the discussion. I also suggest that all these evangelicals you’ve mentioned still believe that Christ is deity. And, again, that is the point I was making. Ta-da.

===

Oh, I see: If two who say Christ IS GOD nevertheless disagree on whether Christ is or is not equal to God, then who and what Christ is is nevertheless "clearly defined." But, in contrast, if two who say that the Bible IS INERRANT but do not agree that therefore the Bible is equal to truth , why , then, that is not clearly defined and the matter is unsettled. And why is it now? Oh yes, because ,as we all know ,Christology has been perfectly settled for 1800 years ... hokay !

===

Could you rephrase this question?

===

I believe you suggested that philosophy is the realm of the discussion of the relation of the divine attributes to the divine essence and implied that we cannot be assured that if Christ has the divine essence it must follow that He has the divine attributes. I am saying that Systematic Theology is the realm of that discussion and that evangelical systematic theologians concur that attributes inhere in essence.

===

Sure. And that’s not an argument found in Scripture, either.

===


"either" ? Do you mean that Scripture does not predicate certain attributes to deity?

===

It depends on how you take the concept that Christ “emptied himself”. It depends on how you take the idea that Jesus “grew in wisdom”. It depends on how you take the idea that Christ did not know when the end was coming but only the Father knew.

===

Of course it depends in part on that, and that is one reason why I am right when I say that Christ's deity is NOT clearly defined in Evangelicalism and why you are wrong when you say that it is !

===

And my point is that two people can believe Christ is God and not precisely agree in what ways. Two people can still believe Scripture is inerrant and not precisely agree in what ways. And both can be evangelical and inerrantists and orthodoxically Christological. That was the point I had made about inerrancy and Fuller. You’ve made my point, thank you.

===


No. That is not all that you said. You are seemingly changing positions. You formerly contrasted in this thread what you claimed was a settled issue, that the deity of Christ is CLEARLY DEFINED, with inerrancy which is not you say. NOW you instead take the position that BOTH doctrines have wide windows into which may pass a varied assortment of conflicting opining.

===

No, I’m saying that the deity of Christ is not an issue at Fuller or in this thread.

===

Again you are changing. You said the two issues are dissimilar because one is long settled and one is more recent.

===

I also mentioned Existence of God, Salvation by Faith, and missions. These were example given (e.g.) and not topics of discussion. But have it your way.

===

Yes you mentioned the others. I didn't say you did not nor did I need to mention them. Thanks for letting me have "my way."

===

I disagree. I think all evangelicals understand Christ is deity. I think it is difficult to be an evangelical and not think Christ is deity.

===

To say that Christ is God is not to CLEARLY DEFINE that any more than to say Christ is true Man is to define His humanity.

Buswell says that His humanity is a collection of behavior patterns, but Hodge says it is a distinct entity that acts. THOSE are definitions.

A DEFINITION of a thing requires more than saying one IS that thing.

===

What have I said?

===

You have said that His deity is CLEARLY DEFINED by evangelicals.

===

Okay. I am saying that evangelicals have not reached a consensus on “what inerrancy mean” and you are saying that evangelicals have not reached a consensus on “what Christ’s deity means”. I wasn’t disagreeing with you. Were you disagreeing with me.

===

No. I DO agree with you that inerrancy is not defined in the same way by all evangelicals. But have you NOT disagreed with my position that neither is Christ's deity defined in the same way by all evangelicals?

===

No need to apologize. Perhaps you are correct in your assessment of modern evangelical Christologists.

===

ok


===

Look. Let me help you out a bit. In order to refute the argument I was making you will have to find an evangelical that does not believe that Christ is deity. Of course, if you do find someone, the logical response will be to deny that this person is an evangelical, which, again, was the point I was making all along. [/qb][/QUOTE]===


No , I do not because your argument was not that evangelicals say Christ is God ; your argument was that the definition of Christ's deity by evangelicals is clear and universally agreed upon. I have provided evidence that your position is wrong. I never said that any evangelical denies His deity.

Let me help you out a bit: I have only consistently said that evangelicals do not agree on the DEFINITION of that deity as you claimed they did in connection with you argument re inerrancy.