Fuller Theological Seminary

Is that was Nicaea says? I would certainly phrase it a different way. But regardless, what does my definition of the Trinitarian doctrine have to do with inerrancy at Fuller?

No, I’m not minimizing it; I’m just not really discussing it because it is a secondary issue to the one this thread is supposed to be about.

Again, I disagree. I think Chritology has been clearly defined.

No, this thread was about Fuller Seminary. I didn’t start the thread.

I know.

Well, we may not all define the Bible as God’s Word but I am pretty sure we would all say that the Scriptures are inspired. That all evangelicals believe that Christ is God was my point.

Because the point was that all evangelicals believe that Christ is deity. You still haven’t refuted that point.

I understand. Yeah, Systematic Theology combines both aspects of philosophy and theology and, of course, with the Scriptural evidence as its basis. I do not have my ST books available. I’ll get back to you on that one.

Naturally, but the Scriptures never enter into a discussion existence precedes essence versus essence precedes existence. That’s an argument foreign to Scripture.

But all evangelicals believe that Christ is deity. That appears to be clear and defined.

The deity of Christ is clearly defined but not universally accepted. I would venture that all evangelicals believe that Christ is deity. I’m not changing positions. I’m certainly not trying to change topics. I said that evangelicals agree that Christ is deity. I said that his deity is clearly defined by evangelicals. Yes, you can have various opinions on a definition or what have you and still have a definition. No, you will never have universal consensus on a definition but that doesn’t mean that a definition isn’t clear. The point I made and continue to make and which you agree with me on is that all evangelicals agree that Christ is deity.

Yes, all evangelicals believe that Christ is deity. That was fleshed out some time ago. The issue of inerrancy has just come up in the past 100 years (I’d say a lot less than that but I’ll be generous).

No problem.

But it doesn’t require a unanimous vote. It usually only requires a majority. And I’m pretty sure that the majority of evangelicals say that Christ is deity.

And in my opinion that is true.

Well, I can hardly disagree with you when I wasn’t making that argument.

I think you misunderstood my point and argument. But no problem.

And all I said was the evangelical consensus is that Christ is God.

 

My comments do not directly concern Fuller or inerrancy. If you will go back to my first post on this thread, you will see what my stated subject is. I do not need to address Fuller ; I only wish to address your untrue statement re the universal agreement on the definition of Christ's deity! In this thread you responded to another poster , when he asked what doctrines were perfectly agreed upon, that Christ's deity is "CLEARLY defined" by Evangelicals. It is not.

To affirm a relationship between Christ and God is not to "clearly" define that. To disprove your contention on March 28, I need only show that Evangelicals do not agree about the definition of Christ's deity. I've already done that. But since you continue to insist back to me that unlike the definition of inerrancy, all Evangelicals perfectly agree on the "definition" of Christ's deity, and since I really am quite a windbag, I'll happily proceed.

===

Is that was Nicaea says? I would certainly phrase it a different way. But regardless, what does my definition of the Trinitarian doctrine have to do with inerrancy at Fuller?


===


Let me help you out in your understanding of the subject by reviewing for you a little Patristic Christology. To Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and Theophilus The Word is produced by God by generation. Being essentiated by God the Word is obedient to the Father's will. Tertullian opines that the Father is greater than the Son because the Father before creation begets the Son. The Son has only a portion ( portio ) of the divine essence. Novatian also makes the Son precreationally obedient and subordinate because the Son receives His deity from the Father. The personal creeds of Greg. of Thaum. , Lucian, and Eusebius of Caesarea much replicate these former views.But then comes Arius who agrees that the Son is begotten before creation and even will consent to calling the Son "god," but rejects the notion that the Father and Son have the same essence. [Yes, be patient with an old man as he tries to make his point.]

Of course, Nicaea is a counter to Arianism, but NOT regarding eternal begetting--only regarding what is begotten! If you simply will take the time to look at Nicaea, you will see that it uses the verb gennethenta to defined the relationship of the Son to the Father. Athanasius in explaining that Creed applauds Dionysius' analogy to human birthing and says that by the begetting the Son receives His nature. BTW, elsewhere in commenting on Jo. 14:28, Athanasius says that reason the Father is greater than the Son is that the Father births the Son!

This view, of course, is affirmed by the Systematic Theologian Rodman Williams who says that unless the Father eternally begets the Son there is NO TRINITY. Bavinck also says that if you deny eternal generation, then you deny the deity of the Son!

Now this is not an aside to your claim that the Church has DEFINED its doctrine of the deity of Christ already and that all we Evangelicals agree about with that definition. It is not an aside because such as BB Warfield, Wayne Grudem, RA Torrey, Millard Erickson, and Oliver Buswell say that the Son is NOT eternally generated. So, how is that an agreement about the definition of Christ's deity?There is no agreement on the definition IF one says Christ is NOT GOD unless He is eternally generated and another says He is not eternally generated!

What does this, and your confusion about Nicaea, have to do with inerrancy at Fuller? Nothing. What it has to do with is your claim that we all agree about the DEFINITION of Christ's deity!


===

No, I’m not minimizing it; I’m just not really discussing it because it is a secondary issue to the one this thread is supposed to be about.


===


I agree ; it is a secondary issue to this thread. But I will not let such remarks such as "We all agree about the definition of Christ's deity" to go unchecked.


===

Again, I disagree. I think Chritology has been clearly defined.

===


You think "Christology has been clearly defined" ??? REALLY?

So, if Erickson says that God the Son lost omniscience and omnipresence when incarnating, BUT Reymond says that Erickson is a kenoticist and that the Son CANNOT lose the use of any attribute at all because God is immutable, you think Christology is nevertheless "clearly defined" ?

And, if Grudem says the Father MUST be sovereign over the Son from eternity or else the Trinity cannot exist , BUT Erickson says that in God there are only equals in authority , you think that Christology is nevertheless "clearly defined" ?

And if Dahms says that an ontological difference exists between the Father and the Son, BUT Berkhof says that the two must have the same, identical essence, you think Christology is nevertheless "clearly defined" ?

And if Lewis and Demarest say that the Son has a divine faculty of will in distinction from the Father (inhering 'will' in Person ), BUT Hodge says that in God is only one faculty of will (inhering will in nature) , you think Christology is nevertheless "clearly defined" ?

And if Buswell says that incarnating the Son took on only human behavior patterns with no will or intellect of its own and that that is "true Man," BUT Hodge says that in incarnating the Son added not only a human mind and will but that these constutute a distinct entity that acts, you think Christology is nevertheless "clearly defined" ?


===

No, this thread was about Fuller Seminary. I didn’t start the thread.


===


I didn't say that you started the thread, but YOU referenced the church in general and evangelicals in particulkar when you claimed that we all universally agree on the clear DEFINITION of Christ's deity!


===

I know.


===


Yes, and so we all universally agree re inerrancy about as much as we all "agree" about Christology. And THAT is my whole discussion. We agree about NEITHER!


===

Well, we may not all define the Bible as God’s Word but I am pretty sure we would all say that the Scriptures are inspired. That all evangelicals believe that Christ is God was my point.


====


IF your point were that all Evangelicals say that Christ is God, THEN, I accept that. But that is NOT what you said. What you said, and what you CONTINUE to claim is that we all agree on the DEFINITION of Christ's deity! But we do not!


IMO, in discussing Theology precision is important.


===

Because the point was that all evangelicals believe that Christ is deity. You still haven’t refuted that point.


===


If your point ONLY were that Evangelicals say Christ is God, then, you should not have said that Evangelical universally agree on the DEFINITION of His deity.


===

I understand. Yeah, Systematic Theology combines both aspects of philosophy and theology and, of course, with the Scriptural evidence as its basis. I do not have my ST books available. I’ll get back to you on that one.

Naturally, but the Scriptures never enter into a discussion existence precedes essence versus essence precedes existence. That’s an argument foreign to Scripture.


===


Again, IMO, you are not being precise. To say that attributes inhere in essence is not to say that attributes precede essence. What is being said is that attributes cannot be removed from essence.

Therefore, were Christ to have the same, identical essence as does the Father, then, the Son must also have the same, identical attributes.

So, IF immutability is in God's essence, then, the Son cannot , when incarnating , cease to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. IF sovereignty is in the essence, then one Trinal Person cannot by His nature (ala Dahms) immanently submit to another Trinal Person. If aseity is in the essence, then the Son cannot have the Father as the cause (by an eternal begetting) of His Being!

Yet, all of these issues within Evangelicalism are today hotly contested. And that is another reason why you are incorrect in your claim in your last post that "Christology is clearly defined."


===

But all evangelicals believe that Christ is deity. That appears to be clear and defined.


===

Again, you are neither consistent nor precise, for what you formerly said was not that evangelicals saying Christ is God is defined but that His deity is defined. I repeat, to say that Christ is God is NOT a definition. To say that He is made God by eternal generation is a definition of His deity. To say that He has exactly the same divine attributes of the Father is a definition of His deity. BUT, since both of those issues (and others too) are today in much dispute among evangelicals, it follows that evangelicals do NOT agree about the DEFINITION of Christ's deity!


===

The deity of Christ is clearly defined but not universally accepted. I would venture that all evangelicals believe that Christ is deity. I’m not changing positions. I’m certainly not trying to change topics. I said that evangelicals agree that Christ is deity. I said that his deity is clearly defined by evangelicals. Yes, you can have various opinions on a definition or what have you and still have a definition. No, you will never have universal consensus on a definition but that doesn’t mean that a definition isn’t clear. The point I made and continue to make and which you agree with me on is that all evangelicals agree that Christ is deity.


===


You will not have a consensus on a definition, but that does not mean a definition is not clear? That's goobledygook!

To say that something is a car is not a definition of an automobile. To say that Christ is God is not to define His deity.

You have claimed that Christology is defined, but you do not even understand Nicaea's definition. So how could you rightly say above that "Christology is clearly defined" ??


===

Yes, all evangelicals believe that Christ is deity. That was fleshed out some time ago. The issue of inerrancy has just come up in the past 100 years (I’d say a lot less than that but I’ll be generous).


===


How is it "fleshed out" when there is no agreement as to whether the Son is the attributional equal of the Father and is God from Himself? Just what "fleshing out" is your referent?


===

And in my opinion that is true.

Well, I can hardly disagree with you when I wasn’t making that argument.


====

In the above:

you first say , " Christ's deity IS clearly defined..."

then you say that you agree with me that "Christ's deity is NOT defined in the same way."

How can the same thing be both "clearly defined" by evangelicals yet not be "defined the same way" ?


===

And all I said was the evangelical consensus is that Christ is God. [/QUOTE]

===


That may be all you meant, but that is not all that you said! What you said was, "Christology is clearly defined." Theology requires precision!

[ March 31, 2005, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

FACT:

Fuller has NEVER, EVER, been a Fundamentalist school! Charles Fuller himself held that position as liberals were chosen to be on the faculty from the beginning. He was totally infuriated that he had not overseen the school's founding. I wouldn't send my dog there!

Source: "In Pursuit of Purity" by David Beale. ALSO - I have spoken with those who were personal friends of Dr. Fuller and they too confirmed that Dr. Fuller was completely disappointed with the school bearing his name that he funded to get started.

 

Isn't the "liberal tag" a little strong for Fuller Seminary?" It may not be a Fundamentalist school, but it is hardly liberal. It is clearly an evangelical seminary that is "moderate" theologically.

 

And you have addressed what you perceive to be untrue. Good for you. I just disagree and want to discuss Fuller.

I suppose “clearly” can be a subjective term. Different people can have different opinions on what “clearly” means. But regardless, all evangelicals agree that Christ is deity and that’s been my unrefuted point.

Exactly. Nothing. You might want to start a thread of your own that doesn’t discuss fuller. Perhaps at a place outside the Seminaries/Colleges section.

You still haven’t even attempted to prove that any evangelicals think Christ is not deity … let alone any that teach at Fuller.

If I find a scholar whose definition of Christ’s deity is clearly defined (perhaps a scholar at Fuller) then I would probably say that definition of Christ’s deity has been clearly defined.

I referenced a whole lot of things connected with Fuller but I didn’t start topics on them.

Well, I do not know. What is your definition of Christology and inerrancy?

Great. Then we agree. But I never said that all evangelicals agree on a definition.

In discussing Fuller Fuller is important.

Where did I do that?

It is. And all evangelicals agree that Christ is deity. Especially at Fuller.

So no one has ever clearly defined Christology? I think not. Again, I never said that all evangelicals agree about a definition. I said that there is a clear definition and that all evangelicals agree that Christ is deity. Especially at Fuller.

Perhaps I’m not being clear.
I can have a clear definition of something but not everyone has to universally agree with that definition.

Who says I do not understand Nicaea’s definition?
Because it is. Especially at Fuller.

There is agreement on that subject. Perhaps not universal but still agreement.

Well, because evangelicals have clearly defined Christ’s deity and other evangelicals have clearly defined Christ’s deity in another way. Both versions are clearly defined and both groups are evangelicals and both groups believe that Christ is deity and both probably teach at Fuller.

That’s all I meant and all I said. I believe it to be true. But topics require focus.

 

Isn't the "liberal tag" a little strong for Fuller Seminary?" It may not be a Fundamentalist school, but it is hardly liberal. It is clearly an evangelical seminary that is "moderate" theologically. </font>[/QUOTE]Oops. Sorry foxrev, sloppy computer work on my part as I didn't cite your quote adequately.

 

Fuller has never been a Fundamentalistic (notice the "ic") school. But it has been a fundamentalist school in the sense that it believe there are fundamental beliefs to the Christian faith.

It would depend on your dog's GRE scores and his thesis as to whether he would be admitted.

 

Well, because evangelicals have clearly defined Christ’s deity and other evangelicals have clearly defined Christ’s deity in another way.

===

Yes, multiple definitions, but it's all been settled for 1800 years. Got it!

 

Yes, I got it ... "It" has been settled for about 2000 years ...

 

Well, I never said “that all evangelicals have a definition of the deity of Christ which is universally acknowledged”. One of the problems we (meaning you and I) are having is that you appear to be either not understanding what I am writing or assuming that I mean something different than what I am actually writing.
The deity of Christ is clearly understood by all evangelicals. The deity of Christ is clearly defined by evangelicals. Different evangelicals have different definitions of what the deity means but have clear definitions nonetheless. Not all evangelicals completely agree on that definition but all evangelicals nevertheless understand and agree that Christ is deity. This latter statement “all evangelicals nevertheless understand and agree that Christ is deity” was my first statement on this subject and the one that has been defended by me without refutation or argument by anyone as yet. Regardless of attempts to divert interest away from the point (a point that was made to hold up my argument in defense of Fuller) that point still stands and still argues in favor of Fuller. I have been consistent throughout.

That Christ is deity, yes, that was settled in Christendom long ago. Evangelicals have agreed with that assessment. Especially at Fuller.

 

UZ,

You mentioned that you were upset about recent literature in Christology. What is going on in the literature?

I was taught and believe that the Son is equal with the Father; same essence, same attributes, etc. and that the Son laid aside the "use" of his attributes as God to become "a man" (incarnate). And then it is my opinion that the "Son" forever gave up the use of some of his attributes as God by taking on the limitations of time and space (Jesus sits at the Father's right hand, etc.).

Could you explain what is taking place in the literature. Equating the Son to be eternally subordinated to the Father seems to be problematic, at least to me. If it shouldn't be, please explain.

Thanks.

 

===


Paul

I really do much appreciate your inquiry. By "eternally subordinate" I mean for the most part relationally so. But IMO relational inequality must affect ontology!

If you will read , EG, Grudem's ST or Dahms in JETS of Sept '94 you will see it stated that God the Son is DEFINED as preincarnationally, eternally ,and immanently subject to the commands of the Father. Now, as you say you were taught (as a DEFINITION) that the Trinal Persons have the "same attributes" and since Grudem and every conservative Theologian I know of would say that attributes inhere in essence, one should wonder how the Father could have the attribute of sovereignty over the Son unless the Son also is essentially less!

The rationale for affirming the doctrine of the Son's eternal role subordination is different for Grudem than for Dahms. The former says that because Christ is "Son" that means He is subject. Of course, Grudem fails to mention that such as Warfield thinks "son" as a Hebraism means "equal to" NOT derived from or subject to another. The latter (Dahms) says that because the Son is eternally begotten, that is the ontological difference between the Father and the Son and provides the cause of the Son's subordination.

What has has been oft neglected is that the Father's monarchia (ie, as the Cause of the Trinity) as taught by Tertullian ,and many since him including Nicaea, as a means to combat the perception of tritheism in Christianity, is STILL taught today. The principal evidence for this doctrine of eternal generation wherein the Father essentiates the Son ( the parallel doctrine is the supposed eternal spiration of the Spirit) as Dahm's admits in the Journal of NT Studies , April '83 ,is the adjective monogenes. This the KJV renders "only begotten," but that is a bad translation as a look at Septuagintal usage will show!

Further, what can be said of the attribute of aseity, which means being the source of one's existence, IF the Father is the Source of the Son?

It has been claimed that Christ's deity has been "DEFINED" for 1800 years! What, since Tertullian who says the Son only has a PORTION of the divine nature? Is THAT a DEFINITION of Christ's deity? IMO to say that a Ford is a car is NOT a DEFINITION of either a Ford or a car! An AFFIRMATION is not a DEFINITION!


But it is not just aseity and sovereignty which is being denied to the Son as God in the literature. It is also omniscience.

The issue of Open Theism I can step around as an Open Theist would not necessarily say that the Trinal Persons have different minds and knowledge. Yet IMO Shedd in DT 1:343,44 and Aquinas in Summa, 14;8 are correct that God's knowledge is npt successive.

If these two premises are correct, the equalknowledge of the Trinal Persons and that omniscience cannot be successive, then how are Shedd (1:318), and Theissen (Lec, 139) , and Lange (Jo., 187) , and WQestcott (Jo., 188) correct that John 5:19, 20 mean that the Father progressively , yet also immanently and eternally, teaches God the Son? IMO that is stupid!


So far, then, the Son as God is preincarnationally deprived in the literature of the divine attributes of aseity, sovereignty, and omniscience! But the we come to incarnational Christology and its effects on the Son as God.

So, here we have such as Erickson, Lewis, and Demarest saying , like you (?) that when the divine Son incarnated, He lost the use of some divine attributes. But I rather agree with Frame, Reymond, and Grudem who say that just as God the Father is immutable, so is God the Son. Clearly if omnipresence, eg, means being everywhere and the incarnated Son is limited to the body, then , the Son as GOD is no longer omnipresent and does NOT have the same attributes as does the Father. Clearly if the Son as GOD does not know the time of His return and does NOT have access to the omniscience of God, as say E., L., and D., then., the Son lacks that attribute! Clearly if the Son of God has expended His energy and wearies at Jacob's well then, He has not the omnipotence to first create and then to hold together the universe as Col 1 says!

IMO, these are impossibilities as the Trinal Persons MUST be attributionally equals. That which is less than God is not God, and any change IN God cannot occur for He is perfect.

Consequently, IMO, anything in the Christ of the Gospels seen to be less than an affect of deity, as His weariness at Jacob's well or His not knowing the time of His return, or "sitting" somewhere, must be predicated of His true humanity, not of His true deity! In God there can ONLY be equals! IMO there are NOT three Gods of differents qualities or sizes.

Christology hardly is settled. It IS just as unsettled, and more so, than is inerrancy. That is why I will object the statement made above that " His deity is clearly defined and universally understood." It is universally affirmed, but NOT clearly defined! An affirmation is NOT a definition!

If He is willing, I would like to spend my remaining years arguing against the prelevant and IMO unscriptural view of inequality in the Godhead! IF I am wrong perhaps He will forgive me as I hope others here do.

Thanks,

Bill G.

[ April 03, 2005, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]

 

Good. Do so. Argue till your heart is content. Study the Scriptures for what it has to say on the subject.

But try to do so in appropriate areas. Hey, we all have our favourite topics that we love to debate but we shouldn't push debates in inappropriate forums. There are plenty of places to discuss Christology issues and plenty of people who would do so , i.e., the theology forums. But in a thread devoted to Fuller and a forum devoted to colleges and seminaries it would behoove us all to have all our comments devoted to that subject.

Ergo ...

 

Does anyone have any information on the doctoral program at Fuller?

 

It is the nature of threads to wind their way through interesting topics. UZ has raised a very interesting topic that I have never heard before.

UZ,

Thanks.

What you have shared is disturbing. I believe that God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equals and have the same attibutes.

Is there a difference in your opinion as to Jesus laying aside the "use" of his attributes while still maintaing them vs. Jesus "losing" some of his attributes as God when he became a man. I hold to the former. I think that Jesus gave up the use of certain attributes like omnipresence while still be capable of it as God if he were to choose to be omnipresence. Does that ring true?

The son proceeding from the Father and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son. Hmm. If I understand you correctly, this would be false.

The Son is eternally unique, but he does not proceed from the Father. Correct?

This is fascinating. Thanks again!

If I think like this, what heresy would I be accused of?

 

UZ,

Don't leave me now. Could you start a thread on this interesting topic. Better yet, I'll start it so you can answer me!

 

You've missed my point the entire time and no matter how many times I tell you want my point is you refuse to admit that was my point. I know you like to discuss Christology issues but find someone who wants to discuss it. Perhaps someone at Fuller. Or how about discussing Christology at Fuller. Find a scholar you disagree with at Fuller and talk about him and his work.

But you're not even discussing the Christology issue. You're not discussing Christology; you're not discussing whether or not everyone universally agrees with the same definition of Christology; yes, you're discussing whether or not I meant that everyone universally agrees with the same definition of Christology. And what is worse is that I told you what I meant and you refuse to believe that is what I meant.

And I haven't taken cover. I've answered your questions and accusations no matter how off the subject they were. And still do and still will. However, my point was and is and ever will be (a point with which you do not appear to disagree) is that all evangelicals understand that Christ is deity. This is unlike inerrancy because not every evangelical believes that the Bible is inerrant.

Anyway ...

Anybody know anything about the spiritual life at Fuller?