Fuller Theological Seminary

ANLEIFR Says
"You believe ,I'm sure, that we should base our opinions on the Bible!

If I understand you correctly, your opinion is if anyone believes that God today gives the same spiritual gifts which He gave in the first century, then, that one is an unbeliever and an apostate."

FOXREV Replys:
WOW! Look, you are REALLY twisting my words! I said "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"

READ what I wrote. I said "THEY ARE DISOBEDIENT BRETHREN." IF they are indeed saved. That means I am saying this, I fully believe many Charismatics are saved. BUT, MANY are not. Man, you guys trip out and get sidetracked easily!

What about the apostasy of Fuller? What about their years of compromise and denial of the Bible? Fuller is the bad guy here, not me!

 

Geez, don't do that. This topic is actually related to Fuller. </font>[/QUOTE]Please! You are taking God's name in vain by using the euphemism - defined so by the dictionary - of His name.

 

Anleifr

Thanks for the clarification re Momonism. I will not respond, but I do appreciate your time and effort.

 

===


Sigh!! OK, charismatics are not (IYO) "unbelivers." They are (merely) IYO "apostate and disobedient --if saved at all." I suppose that also many Baptists who are not charismatic are not saved either. Right?

OK, now, would you PLEASE, PLEASE provide your Biblical evidence that one who affirms that the spiritual gifts mentioned in the NT still may be given today? How does that belief make one apostate. IF you are in part not happy with Fuller because of Fuller's connection to charismatics, then, I think you should have Biblical cause for your concern.

BTW, I don't want to trip out about this , but Anfleifr didn't say this, UZ did-- talk about getting things twisted

 

And I appreciate your passion regarding the issues discussed.

 

I beg your pardon. I did not mean to offend you. But ...

1) That's not precisely taking the Lord's name in vain. "Taking the name of the Lord in vain" is not "saying the Lord's name in vain" but "becoming associated with God and not taking it seriously, usually by sinning," i.e. calling yourself a Christian and not living like one. The best interpretation of that commandment that I have heard is: "Don't make God look bad."

2) Even if saying “Jesus” is “taking God's name in vain”, I did not use that His name; I used an expressive word derived from his name, as you said. The reason “Geez” was coined was to make an exclamation without having to say Jesus. “Geez” is a variant of “Jeez” which is a mild oath of surprise derived from the name “Jesus.”

Gee, Gosh, golly, Jeepers Creepers, hocus pocus, hokey-pokey, crikey, jumpin jehosaphat, jumpin jemini, jiminy crickets.

Yes, the name “Jiminy Crickets” is a euphemism for “Jesus Christ.” Anytime someone says “Jiminy Crickets” they can be construed to be “taking God's name in vain But one could also say “Jimmy Carter” as an expression of surprise and be “taking God's name in vain.”

However, I will refrain from using that or any other exclamation with any derivation from a name of God out of consideration for those who might be offended.

 

I would go much further than this. It's not that the Mormons have taken an orthodox doctrine and misinterpreted it. It's that they have a different meaning and concept for the words themselves, meaning that Jesus was begotten by physical relations between God and Mary. This is not heterodox; it's heresy. They also deny the Trinity, and believe that we are all spirit children of God and his wife (like Jesus was of God and Mary), so whatever they say about Jesus, it's not the biblical Jesus.

Making a statement that sounds orthodox but means something else is not just re-interpretation or misinterpretation -- it's a clever way to deceive people.

 

Correct.

There isn't much in Mormonism that one could consider orthodox.

Faulty Scriptures.
Faulty view of God.
Faulty view of Jesus.
Faulty view of the Holy Spirit.
Faulty view of eternal life and heaven.
Faulty view of hell and eternal condemnation.
Faulty view of grace.
Faulty view of justification.
Faulty view of human nature and human beings.
Faulty view of the church.
Faulty view of continuing revelation.

Shoot. Is there anything orthodox?

 

That is why they need Christ. I agree that there is a heterodox or heretical nature to Mormonism. Mouw believes that to be the case and says as much. Therefore, the question then becomes, how do we witness to Mormons?

 

That's fair.

So where do we start, with Scripture, their view of God, Jesus?

Do we start with Jesus is not Lucifer's brother, and he's not ours either. He is the preincarnate Son of God come in the flesh, fully man and fully God in one being.

It will take alot of work.

 

If Fuller has any remaining influence from Karl Barth, they should take some medicine and call the doctor in the morning. Better yet, head to the emergency room tonight, it could be contagious.

Regarding Muow, if what he actually meant was (1) that we could take the Mormon mis-definitions and teach the LDS leaders to correct them, then all well and good. But if what he actually meant was (2) that within Mormonism or within Mormon theology there is enough truth to achieve salvation, and all we need to do is emphasize and de-emphasize in the correct places, then he is mistaken. In the first case, and in Aneilfr's explanation, we're bringing truth from outside mormonism into it to correct it. That's OK. In the second, we're saying that there is enough accuracy inside of LDS theology to achieve salvation. In truth, there is not.

If Luow meant (1), then he should issue a statement clarifying it. When I sent a message to him at the school asking for clarification, his spokesman did not correct me in this point. To Luow's credit, he did deny Joseph and Joseph's prophesies.

By standing in the tabernacle pulpit in Salt Lake and apologizing for past attempts to correct LDS heresy, then saying that salvation can be achieved by emphasizing & de-emphasizing certain aspects of LDS theology, he leaves the impression that he holds some of the LDS definitions as orthodox. If he meant different, he should re-state his position, for many have understood him otherwise.

 

When Are Baptists Ways Like Mormon Ways?

Probably in more than we'd like.

In my dialogue with an educated Mormon friend (EdD), who is quite knoiwledgeable about his faith, I find epistemology the great barrier. What is authoritative over belief and practice?

That friend's position is that nothing is wholly inerrant and is the final authority including, even, Joseph Smith's 'Inspired Version of the Bible' , a VERY interesting 'Bible' which I have, wherein Smith adds whole chapters and paragraphs to what the best textual criticism indicates is the autographa of Scripture.

But , supposedly, we Baptists say Scripture is our authority. BUT is that really our practice?

Yet, IF it is, then, if one makes a statement that a charismatic by that very distinctive is made a disobedient brother or an apostate, THEN, the one saying that should provide convincing Biblical exegetical results to confirm what he says! Isn't that the Baptist way?

How ironic! In this very thread about Fuller's stand on Scripture, and Fuller , btw, says that Scripture IS the Authority, one on Baptist Board opts to instead make HIS word, not the Bible, re charismatics THE authority!

I mean, come on: If we substitute our undocumented opining for Scriptural exegesis, then, what difference does it really make whether the Bible is inerrant or not? Huh?

Then, the issue rather is: Are WE inerrant!

IMO the Baptists are just plumb full of little joseph smiths!

Now, if foxrev has convincing Biblical exegesis for his claim, then, let's see it!

 

I have witnessed to many Mormon missionaries. I usually start by a discussion of God and that he cannot change, since they think that God was once a man and they can become gods. This is usually enough for as long a discussion as they are willing to put up with.

If they change the subject and bring up that Christ is their Savior, I talk about who Jesus is -- not a spirit child of God and his wife. And I talk about the sufficiencey of the cross and how grace is not grace if works are added. Then they bring up the book of James (always) and so I talk about how James does not deny salvation by grace and that our works justify our faith before man and God. It is not about justification for salvation. Then they change the subject and we go on...or not.

 

That’s interesting. I know a whole lot of SBC leaders who decry the neo-orthodox influence among evangelicals but these same leaders have us read Karl Barth in their classes. I'm not really sure how they reconcile that.

I agree with you. That Mouw spoke about the differences between Mormonism and orthodoxy are of “eternal significance” and that he wishes to “constitute a message within Mormonism of salvation by grace alone through the blood of Jesus Christ” stated clearly to me that he means (1). That he wants to work towards the eternal salvation among Mormons indicates that he doesn’t believe that (2) currently exists.

He did issue a statement attempting to clarify his statements. Much of my defense of his initial statements has come from that clarification.

 

Testimonies of ex-Mormons:
http://www.mrm.org/articles/testimonies/

Ex-Mormon site:
http://www.exmormon.org/

A handy chart comparing Mormon beliefs about God, Jesus, and man:
http://www.frontiernet.net/~bcmmin/b2.htm

 

I think you have a good approach.

My favourite witnessing passage in the Bible is John 4. Jesus always seems to transcend (and correct) issues of contention between two groups. With the woman at the well, He went to the heart of her spiritual need.

Your website indicates that you have much experience in dealing with cults and the occult. In general, what do you think are central needs of the Mormons?

 

Thanks for your encouraging words.

My specialty is the New Age and the occult (which is my background). Though I know a lot about cults -- partly because I am asked about them all the time and have read up on them, and partly because I go to conferences where there are many believers who have ministries to and about cults -- I do not consider myself really qualified to answer this question.

From what I've heard from those who have ministries dealing with Mormons, and from what I've heard from ex-Mormons, one of the things they say is that Mormons can never feel real assurance about their exaltation (being in the highest heaven, as they see it). They are insecure about this because of the emphasis on works.

The last pair of Mormon missionaries at my door asked me what would happen if someone trusted in Christ and then went out and killed someone and then died -- would that person go to heaven? (I have been asked this before my LDS missionaries when we get to the topic of works vs. grace). I responded first by pointing out that this is an extreme case and not a common or normal one, and that it is unlikely that someone who had trusted Christ would commit a murder (a legally defined murder, not self-defense or something like that). Then I said that if that were the case, if the person had really trusted Christ, he would still go to heaven because he had been forgiven and that is what happens when one trusts Christ (I believe OSAS).

I also pointed out that someone can claim to be a Christian or trust Christ, go out and rob stores or kill, and not be actually redeemed. So I ended up by saying when we see people who claim to be Christians do things like this, it raises the question of whether they have been redeemed (I often use that word instead of "saved" with unbelievers) but if they have truly trusted Christ, they do go to heaven, because Christ's atonment is sufficient and we cannot add to that by what we do. But seeing redeemed people do things like this is not normal, and we can't always be sure of someone's salvation, and so the question is not really relevant to the issue.