On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, David Opderbeck wrote:
> But this begs the question, it seems to me, of what "evangelical" means. Is
> Fuller Seminary "evangelical?" Fuller's statement on Biblical authority
> diverges from the Chicago Statement, and certainly from Lindsell, in many
> key respects.
Just a note on Fuller's position, being that I am a graduate of Fuller....
The big bruhaha in the 70's over Lindsell's _Battle for the Bible_ was
largely directed at Fuller's removal of the term "inerrancy" in the Fuller
statement of faith in favor of language like Scripture as the "infalliable
rule of faith and practice". Most of my instructors at Fuller taught
that "inerrancy" really was not a very helpful term, implying either a
sense of wooden literalism in terms of biblical interpretation (Fuller at
that time, within the broad Reformed tradition, was at odds over Dallas
Seminary's embrace of dispensationalism and the associated "literal
hermeneutic") or a sense of scientific precision that seemed inconsistent
with the general tenor of the text.
As one of my instructors put it, regarding the level of "precision", the
Bible is "close enough" in areas that are not essential to our knowledge
of the Lord or salvation. Scripture's purpose is not to teach science or
history with a modern sense of precision. And yet, it was perfectly clear
to me that Scripture is wholly truthful and supremely authoritative in
what it does claim to teach.
When you read something like Wayne Grudem, who is in alignment with those
at Trinity in Deerfiled, Illinois, he makes the same basic argument (see
his _Systematic Theology_). Grudem is also a wholehearted advocate for
the Chicago Statement. Nevertheless, he spends the bulk of his discussion
about inerrancy criticizing the arguments of those at Fuller who who have
favored a nuanced understanding of Scriptural truthfulness and authority.
Grudem wrote some 20 years after the Fuller controversy. I dare say that
there are still many evangelicals who hold these nuanced views of
inerrancy but who wish to distance themselves from Fuller. Perhaps this
is because there have been some connected with Fuller, such as Paul Jewett
and Jack Rogers, who drifted away from particular elements of Fuller's
statement of faith. So, is the distancing from Fuller a matter of "guilt
by association" or is it really a matter of principle?
On a personal note, I still run into various people with different views
on Fuller -- some who think I am a "liberal" because I went to Fuller and
others who think I am a "fundamentalist". Go figure. I take it that
since I get shot at from both sides, I must be near the right place :-)
Does Fuller diverge from the Chicago Statement? Apparently so, according
to folks like Grudem. But the question for me coming from Fuller is
whether or not the Chicago Statement is trying to argue for a high view of
biblical authority, which was fully embraced by everyone I knew at Fuller,
or is it trying to promote a particular literal hermeneutic, which is not
favored at Fuller? Unfortunately, the answer isn't so clear.
On the other side, as has been discussed on this list before, the historic
conflict between the YECs and OECs on the Chicago Statement committee has
led some to believe that the Chicago declaration was not "literal" enough
or scientifically "precise" enough regarding Scripture!
Clarke Morledge
College of William and Mary
Information Technology - Network Engineering
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Feb 29 23:47:50 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 29 2008 - 23:47:50 EST