Fuller Theological Seminary

===


OOOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHH, I just promised that I'd shut up re Christology and Trinal relationships. One FINAL post:

1) Yes, there is a difference, yet How COULD the Son AS GOD lay aside EVEN the use of attributes and still have those attributes? IF the Son AS GOD at any moment lacks knowledge, then, at that moment He lacks omniscience doesn't He. An attribute is not a potential but an actuality. The Trinal Persons not only IMO must have the same attributes, they ALSO must have those attributes in the same manner! IMAGINE: one Trinal Person even for a moment knowing less than the other. Does God have multiple minds??

BUT ANY change in God must be for the better or worse , but this cannot be because God is perfect and cannot change. This is why IMO that which lacked knowledge in Christ was not the Son as God but was the true and complete human nature replete with a human mind. God's mind cannot be limited. In Christ are two minds and two wills, IMO.

So, that is why we have those as Shedd and Hodge and Grudem who say that there are in Christ TWO centers of consciousness, and that in the Gospels what we see at times is His human consciousness and other times His divine consciousness.IMO God the Son was not shrunk to fit the limitations of humanity in ANY manner. As Calvin says, that view is ludicrous ( IMO , that is).

As Biblical evidence of this, consider Phil 2 where the incarnation is defined NOT by a loss but by an addition ( of humanity) as the modal participal 'labon' (took) shows!! Yet even enfleshed God the Son continues to be in the divine form as the present tense huparchon ,"being," in the divine morphe indicates!

Therefore, IMO, God the Son is NOT confined just to the human mind/body! How could that be if He fills the universe and holds it together even AFTER the incarnation as Col 1 and Eph 4 say?

2) IMO there is very little evidence for either eternal generation or eternal spiration.

3) You would not be accused of any heresy. Chalcedon affirms what is considered to be essential : The true deity and the true humanity of Christ in one Person.

The 'rub' is : How is that to be DEFINED? I do that definition in my dissertation just finished. They say it takes five years to "get over" doing a doctorate.

NOW, I AM DONE in this thread w-Christology..

Thanks again for your interest,

Bill Grover

 

Yes, when I make a statement, do not assume more than what is written. That will always get you going down the wrong path. Next time: 1) Ask; do not assume. 2) When I tell you what I mean, believe that is what I mean.

And the subject was about Fuller, too.

Well, shazam! Why do you wait till your last post on this thread to actually discuss Fuller?

 

Bless you, Paul 33.

 

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. </font>[/QUOTE]Anleifr, you have grossly erred in your definition of a Fundamentalist! A Fundamentalist separates from unbelief and adheres to the absolute authority of the Bible and its authority alone. New Evangelicals seek diagloge with liberals who question/deny the Bible. Indeed, New Evangelicalism is in disobedience with the Bible in II Corinthians 6:14.

Fuller Seminary never claimed a seperatist position or the title of "Fundamentalist." Their present harboring of Charismatic faculty and liberals is further proof that their rejection of Scriptural Separation from unbelief and apostacy led to their now present stand within the ranks of liberalism.

The following is posted on the Calvary Contender Website in 1994:

MORE EVIDENCE OF FULLER SEMINARY APOSTASY—In recent-year books, Drs. Harold Lindsell and George Marsden have documented the sad apostasy of Fuller Seminary, its failure to affirm inerrancy, its movement toward neo-orthodoxy, etc. Recent-year speakers have included Roman Catholics, charismatics, David Yonggi Cho, etc. Robert Schuller Crystal Cathedral Co-pastor Bruce Larson is scheduled to teach a Jan. 9-20 course at Fuller. Fuller is deeply enmeshed in social concerns, and is about as ecumenical as they come. Even its new office receptionist is Seventh-Day Adventist minister Bertie Degraphenreed. Of the Fall 1992 student body, 35 percent were female. There were only 86 doctoral students in the School of Theology, but 271 in the School of Psychology. A Fuller brochure says roughly one student out of two is from a mainline church. Presbyterians are most common, followed by nondenominational, Assemblies of God, Methodists, and American Baptists. Over one-third are charismatics or Pentecostals. Richard J. Mouw recently succeeded David Allan Hubbard as president of Fuller. He says: "I borrow unashamedly from the teachings of the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodoxy in my attempts to grow in holiness." (4/4 USN & WR).

http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/6-15-94.html


Further proof of Fuller's Liberal/New Evangelical past posted in 1998 (and there is a gargantuan mountain of evidence condemning Fuller out there):

FULLER'S SLIDE FROM INERRANCY - When dean-elect Daniel Fuller son of Fuller Seminary founder Chas. E. Fuller returned from Switzerland (1962) from studying under neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth he suggested that the Bible was free from error when referring to revelational or doctrinal matters pertaining to salvation, but that it was not inerrant in matters of science and history. Faculty members William LaSor and George Ladd sided with Fuller on this. The selection of David Hubbard as Fuller's new president (1963) began an even stronger trend to the left. Fuller Seminary's slide into apostasy is further chronicled in a new book by (new-evangelical) Millard Erickson, entitled The Evangelical Left.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/1998/1-15-98.html

 

Foxrev:

While I am not a tongues talker, could you document **with Scripture** for me why being a charismatic would = unbelief and/or apostacy?

Thanks,

Bill G.

 

That is obviously only part of the entire post. Charismatics are obviously part of apostacy. Read the Bible.

The main message is that Fuller is LIBERAL. Has been for a long time.

 

They are disobedient bretheren (IF they are indeed saved . . 1/2 of Roman Catholics claim to be Charismatic as well)... I did not state that they were specifically the Liberals!

More on the Liberal position of Fuller:

PETER WAGNER, SPIRITUAL WARFARE—Longtime Fuller Seminary professor and church growth guru C. Peter Wagner is more well-known in recent years for his "third wave" Power Evangelism, and demonic stronghold deliverance ministries. His current Colorado-based ministry, Global Harvest, sponsored an Oct. 1 praise and worship event in Ephesus, Turkey for the final stage of spiritual warfare (8/99 Charisma). Participants were to declare the lordship of Christ over the ground where pagans once protested Paul's preaching. The "Operation Queen's Palace" event was to underscore the breaking of the power of the "strongest ruling demonic spirit" still blocking the spread of the gospel—the Queen of Heaven ("the force most responsible for the population of hell"). Wagner, who convened the event, is also coordinator of the AD 2000 & Beyond's United Prayer Track and is one of the world's leading authorities on spiritual warfare. The 6/99 Vanguard said that in spiritual warfare preferably two or more "lock ourselves" into a hotel room and "discover the name of the 'principality' in charge over the city then bind that principality and then the city will be released to be evangelized…." We believe in the Eph. 6 spiritual warfare, but not Wagner's charismatic version.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/1999/11-15-1999.html

A FULLER SEMINARY VISIT—Dr. Arthur Houk reports on a 7/27 visit to Fuller Theological Seminary, where he attended a class taught by popular Prof. John Goldingay of the School of Theology. Goldingay told the class that "there is no archaeological evidence that the city of Jericho was there and that the walls came tumbling down." He said, "Perhaps this is a parable." Heb. 11:30 indicates otherwise! Evidently, unbelief and denial of Scriptures is still prevalent at Fuller. Also, the Fund. Digest (7-8/99) reports: "Margaret Suster, a 'pastor, teacher, church-woman, scholar and writer' who teaches preaching at Fuller Theological Seminary, was one of the guest preachers for a SDA [Seventh-day Adventist] sponsored 'interactive seminar' via live satellite, 4/20/99."

http://home.hiwaay.net/~contendr/1999/9-15-1999.html

 

I in no way want to defend Fuller.

Not all who get smeared with the label "new evangelicalism" are seeking dialogue with liberals. If one disagrees with the "separation" as practiced by "fundamentalists" today, which many of the yonger generation of fundamentalists is doing, he gets labeled "new evangelical" when all that he actually is practicing is "historic fundamentalism."

 

Neither am I trying to defend Fuller by asking foxrev about charismata. Fuller does not need my defense. As far as I know now , I'd not mind doing a doc there anymore than I minded doing a masters in a Nazarene school. I do not have to believe exactly as my profs believe!

But I do not think that a charismatic is by that distinctive automatically made an apostate unbeliever, and I think our opining should be convincingly based on sound interpretations of Scripture when we are attacking others in the Church for not being Scriptural.

 

Absolutely. I agree completely. Charismatics are not unbelievers or apostates or disobedient Christians.

 

Which you were free to do and most certainly should. However, I did not make any incorrect statements. I made statements that you misunderstood. And when you learned of what the meaning of my statements were, instead of saying, “Oh, I see what you meant,” you’ve tried to argue that I did not mean what I initially said. Which is why I can make the next statement:

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.

You said it, not me.

No, I know what I mean and most people who have responded to me get what I have been saying. And I think I have been right the entire time. What’s more, you appear to agree with me on my assertions. You so agree with me on my point that you appear to refuse to admit the point I made was the point I made.

Always arguing for Fuller.

This was your statement:

“You spent some time in your defense of Fuller with Humblesmith in this thread about Mormon beliefs. I think you said that the Mormon belief that Christ is the only begotten Son is "orthodox." Same terms, far different meaning!! I assume you mean by "only begotten" what Nicaea means by that. But Nicaea says begotten of the same essence , yet Mormonism denies that.”

Again, you appear to have misunderstood what I was saying. I never said that the Mormon belief that Christ is the only begotten Son is "orthodox." I said there are aspects of Mormon belief on Christ is the only begotten Son that are orthodox. The argument original made that I was responding to offered that Fuller president Mouw had erred in wanting to evangelize Mormons by emphasizing what is orthodox in Mormonism and deemphasizing what is heterodox in Mormonism. I responded that I understood what Mouw had stated and that it was a good idea. The question was then asked, “What orthodox views are there to emphasize and what heterodox views should be deemphasized?” I made the response that the belief that Christ is the only begotten Son is an orthodox view, correct? The response, and your response, was that Mormons may hold to that truth but they interpret it in a heterodox way – and that is true! However, instead of never telling a Mormon that Christ is the only begotten Son, Mouw was arguing that you emphasize that Christ was indeed the only begotten Son but you deemphasize the heterodox Mormon view and teach the orthodox view (the historically orthodox Christian evangelical Trinitarian view, however one wishes to define it).

Oddly enough, I have been misunderstood in the same way that Mouw was.

In terms of Christology issues, that the deity of Christ is universally understood and is a clearly defined doctrine was an analogy made in response to the issue inerrancy at Fuller. Instead of debating the issue (inerrancy at Fuller), you’ve wanted to create a debate over the analogy.

Now if I had said, the deity of Christ is universally understood and is a clearly defined doctrine at Fuller … then the floor is open for discussion.

Or would your response be “I do not agree with the analogy that ‘the floor is open’. Many different people have many different views about the nature of the floor and its openness so I do not think one can say that ‘the floor is open.’”?

 

I was looking at Fundamentalist in the original turn of the century sense by those early conservative Christian modernists who originally published the series of essays entitled “The Fundamentals”. It was their belief that there were five fundamentals: the infallibility of the Bible, Christ’s virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, the resurrection, and the Second Coming.

In this original sense, the faculty of Fuller are Fundamentalists in that they hold to the five fundamentals of the Christian faith. However, in the sense of Fundamentalist that you gave (“A Fundamentalist separates from unbelief and adheres to the absolute authority of the Bible and its authority alone.”), I would say that this applies to the Fuller faculty.

Be careful how you use 2 Corinthians 6:14. First, liberal Christians/believers are still believers. Second, “dialoguing” is not the same as being “bound” with unbelievers. Both Paul and Jesus dialogued with unbelievers. If we didn’t dialogue with unbelievers then we would not ever be evangelizing. Third, as believers, liberal or conservative, we are bound together as the body of Christ.

At face value, you are basically saying that the faculty of Fuller are not believers. You might want to clarify yourself and watch what you write in the future.

Whoever wrote this 1994 post does not have a good grasp on what “apostasy” means.

Not holding to inerrancy does not mean you are not a believer; it may mean you are wrong, but it does not qualify you as an unbeliever. Neo-orthodoxy certainly doesn’t mean one is an unbeliever.

So? What is wrong with having people speak?

So was Jesus and Paul.

An exaggeration. But they have faculty and students from all denominations.

You mean they have a Secretary that is Seventh-Day Adventist? Well, this post might want to know that they have a janitor who is a Landmarkist. Geez.

Well, yeah, that is a bit low.

271 students or doctoral students in the School of Theology?

Again, so?

Again, apostasy is a definite term. You have to use it carefully.

But you are discussing Fuller and I now have great respect for that.

 

UZthd

This thread is about a Christian seminary: Not about the Mormon HERESY ...

 

===


Sorry if I broke some rule here, but Anleifer and Humblesmith and YOU too made comments in this very same thread about Mormonism. Where was your correction then?

Those comments were OK, IMO, as Fuller was being criticized for its posture ABOUT the subject of Mormonism.

If the subject of the doctrines of Mormonism is discussed in a thread about Fuller, and A. provides a lengthy list of these doctrines, because Fuller is being criticized, should not that subject in the same thread be defined?

If someone is saying that it is OK for Fuller to dialogue with Mormonism on the basis of commonly held beliefs, then, IMO those beliefs need to be defined. Otherwise, how can the actions of Fuller be either exonerated or condemned? Those definitions do relate to the thread's topic.

When revfox claimed that Fuller is not fundamental, the definition of 'fundamental' was made by Anleifer. And I think that it should have been. That definition relates to the thread's topic. But why didn't you correct A. then and say, "Hey this thread is only about Fuller not about fundamentalism"?

When revfox says ( I understand ) that Fuller is charismatic and all charismatics are unbelieving apostates, then I asked him for Biblical evidence of that latter claim. I don't think I need to start a new thread to do that. The claim much relates to the thread's topic.

I think that clarity and precision are important when we are discussing these vital issues of schools and what they do and teach. I think we need to define the terms that we use. I think it is sad that there is entirely too much vagueness in "Christian" opining.

Here's an example: if "aspects of a doctrine" are not doctrines ( and they may not be) , then what exactly are they?

I also think it is sad when clarity and precision is asked for , then criticism is made of that request.

 

There may be some to what you say.

I cited many orthodox Mormon doctrines. But I’ll deal with the concern about this doctrine because it can be analogous to them all.

That "Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son in the flesh" is an orthodox conservative evangelical doctrine. The Mormons have taken this orthodox doctrine and have re-/mis- interpreted it to suit there own heterodox doctrines. The doctrine is true but their interpretation is not true.

Here is an example:
If a person believes that there is a God, that “there is a God” is an orthodox doctrine that that person holds to. However, if that person believes that God is Vishnu, then there are several heterodox views that the person holds to along with the orthodox view that “there is a God.” In order to reach that person for Christ, one can emphasize that, yes, there is a God but deemphasize the Vishnu aspect of that belief in God. Then teach who that God really is and who Christ is. That is was Mouw was saying.

Here is another example:
A Roman Catholic may believe that God saves through grace. That is an orthodox belief. However, if that Roman Catholic believes that this grace comes through receiving the sacraments than that is heterodox. Therefore, in order to correct that heterodoxy one can emphasize that, yes, God saves through grace but deemphasize the sacramental aspect of that of belief in God’s grace and teach salvation by God’s grace through faith. Again, that is what Mouw was saying.

Therefore, one can emphasize the Mormon belief that is orthodox (i.e., "Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son in the flesh") and deemphasize the heterodox interpretations of that belief. Then one can teach the Mormons the orthodox interpretation of that doctrine. This is what Mouw was saying.

 

Geez, don't do that. This topic is actually related to Fuller.