- What it Means to Believe in Jesus
- Only Disciples Are Saved (Some credobaptist beliefs are evident here that I obviously don’t agree with. On the other hand, if this was the position of all credobaptists it would make ecumenicism much easier).
- Discipleship & Assurance of Eternal Life
- The Tragic Shift in Luther’s Thinking (Great stuff, though I think some of the rhetoric is overblown)
If you read these four articles with an Evangelical background I think you will have a good grasp of some basic issues.
On Fuller’s last essay, “The Tragic Shift in Luther’s Thinking,” my take on it is that Luther’s “shift” was no more than the development of the idea of “the theology of the cross.” In Reformed terminology, I think this is designated “total depravity.”
As I understand it (and you can correct me), “total depravity” includes not simply our inherent fallenness, but that even our “righteous acts are as dirty rags.” Given that the redeemed Christians continues as both a sinner and a saint, we cannot look to what we consider to be our righteous acts. They simply won’t stand up.
The only solution as far as I can see is to look always to Christ’s righteousness and to despise our own. I’m unsure what is so tragic about that.
SImply this (and Mark, I speak as one who was probably read and digested (and at one time believed) everything Dan Fuller ever wrote, studying with one of his most ardent disciples): Fuller does not believe in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. For Dan, the righteousness that saves is your own.
And, that is tragic.
Mark,
Ludicrous? Mark, I wrote my senior thesis on Fuller for one of Fuller’s main advocates, a fellow student of Fuller with Piper. I think I understand Fuller pretty well. Is it possible his understanding has grown since then? Perhaps, but I would have to see proof.
This particular professor, of whom I am still fond, and to whom I will be eternally grateful for his friendship and guidance in undergrad, used to deride double imputation as a legal fiction, and say that if Christ saved us by a divine transaction, that God was guilty of fraud, etc. This was his presentation of Fuller.
But, it was not his presentation alone. For my thesis work, of which Fuller was the topic, I had to read basically everything the man ever wrote.
So, call it ludicrous if you will my friend. I am not here to convince you, but, as I have said before, I used to buy it all hook, line, and sinker.
Jim, I’ll have to re-read the essay. Back when I was new to it I asked if anyone else had thought there was a shift in Luther’s thinking (I take it as given that “tragic” is overselling) and my understanding is that Lutheran’s actually think Luther shifted and became better at understanding the Gospel.
I was going to complete this comment by quoting some Luther condemning the Reformed for turning to law instead of Gospel (from Lillback’s book), but I can’t find them right now. So I’ll try to write something that interacts in a more informed way later.
Ken, I think that is a ludicrous description of Fuller’s theological position.
But, if you see anything in these essays denying imputation I would like it brought to my attention so I can include some warnings and alternatives.
Ken, you just made an incredibly serious accusation and now act like I have to present proof to you that Fuller has grown.
No, you have to prove him guilty. Aaaaahhhh.
I have linked four essays I remember liking. I also thought his Gospel & Law: Contrast or Continuum was good (though overblown–a continuum can be a contrast if one narrowly considers the point of change that represents a continuum). My main problem was that I thought his rejection of covenant theology was based on a charicature. I think, for example, Lillback’s take on Calvinism is more historically accurate than Fuller’s.
But then a bunch of heresy hunters from the old regime at CTS and Kline and Godfrey had to counter attack as if Fuller had attacked–somber tones now–the Gospel itself.
Again, if the essays I have linked make statements against the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, please show them to me.
Mark,
Let’s scale back the rhetoric a bit. Incredibly serious? Perhaps. I would not have made it without firsthand knowledge of Fuller. Incidentally, Fuller read my undergrad work, and thought it was a pretty sterling example of what he was talking about.
Why do you think Fuller thinks Calvin is guilty of the Galatian heresy? It isn’t merely covenant theology, which, after all, would be somewhat anachronistic. It is, rather, Calvin’s view of how faith and works operate. So, in Fuller’s view, if you side with him, you repudiate Calvin. Which is it, Mark?
Let me put it this way, Fuller used to ask his students, Are we saved by faith or obedience? Answer: Yes. HE also eviscerates any difference between justification and sanctification. I first came across the phrase “legal fiction” in his work.
It will take me some time but I will try and locate the work I did on him lo 15 years ago.
Sure, Ken, we can scale it back. Sadly, if you saw the stuff I have been deleting you would think we were actually being pretty calm.
I don’t have to choose between Calvin and Fuller, no matter what Fuller thinks. Fuller’s theology was something I had been reading out of the Westminster Standards for years. I have Piper as my proof of this. Piper may have detected something in Fuller he didn’t like, but he had no problem being a soteriological calvinist and a Fuller admirer for many years without any inconsistency.
For what its worth.
(I have some interesting anecdotes to share on this , I think. When I have time. Have a good Christmas!)
IT might be an interesting exercise to ask Dan Fuller what he thinks about imputation. The only thing I have current access to is The Unity of the Bible, and it is more what he does not say that bothers me.
I don’t want to psychologize Piper’s relationship with his teacher, but I do know that Fuller’s students remain very close, meet quite often, and even published a newsletter tha i used to get.
A most merry blessed Christmas to you and yours, Mr. Horne. 🙂
Mark,
Right, I’m not at all suggesting that there’s no development in Luther’s thought regarding this point. Quite the opposite. Nonetheless, aside from whether it’s “tragic” or not, the terminology of “shift” suggests to me a turn from one direction going in another direction.
My reading (such as it is) is that Luther refined his earlier conceptions. But I’d say he was explicating the logic of what was already implicit in his earlier theology. Not that I have a huge amount invested in whether the “later” Luther coheres with the “younger” Luther. But the evidence in Fuller’s essay strikes me as pretty weak.
I somehow came across your blogging which is interesting.
Not being a scholar has advantages.
If someone does not recognize imputation, does it mean it isn’t there? I think not(as a tree falls in
the forest). It is sad that without imputation, I imagine one’s life would be quite fearful, as the Puritan experience must have been.
Thanks for some intellectual stimulation.