Josheb
Reformed Non-denominational
- Joined
- May 19, 2023
- Messages
- 4,669
- Reaction score
- 2,007
- Points
- 113
- Location
- VA, south of DC
- Faith
- Yes
- Marital status
- Married with adult children
- Politics
- Conservative
The era and theological contexts in which Fuller practiced is important. I also think it is important to note the biases of Huntington Press. Aside from the curious couching of "Primitive Baptists" and "Egyptian darkness of hyper-Calvinism" (very creative, but I threw up a little in my mouth reading thatI'm interested in starting a discussion on Fullerism. Almost since the moment I got Saved, I have wanted there to be a Soteriology between Calvinism and Arminianism; as I've always called myself the most liberal 5-Point Calvinist you will ever meet. On and off over the years I've looked into Fullerism, but I think I'm now ready to call my liberal Calvinism; Fullerism. Because some people say Fullerism is 4.5 or 4.75 Point Calvinism, it's between Arminianism and Calvinism; Fuller was the middle man. But because of Reformed Baptists like Tom Nettles and their affirmations of Fullerism, I can say I'm a 5-Point Fullerite...
Some people call themselves a Calminian. Perhaps Andrew Fuller is the OG Calminian
Why should I, or shouldn't I, start calling myself a Fullerite?
), the opening of the article qualifies Fuller with, “He is claimed to have been the ‘sledge-hammer’ that beat Methodistical fervour into the cold Baptists and roused both Baptists and Protestants to ‘send the gospel into heathen lands.’”Let's say that is correct. John Wesley lived during the 1700s, the 18th century. Fuller was born in the middle of that and lived well into the 1800s, which theologically and ecclesiologically (not ecclesiastically) was characterized by the restoration movement. HUGE changes, HUGE divides, and HUGE debates ensured during this period of time. Wesley started out as Anglican and was, therefore, schooled in the Anglican view of Reformed theology, but Wesley was also profoundly influenced by the Moravians and their emphasis on piety. Wesley struggled his entire life with his personal piety and is key in the theology of Pietism. In extreme form heresies like perfectionism come from that movement. That said, perfectionism is mentioned only for context. It's an outlier not wholly relevant to my comments here. What is relevant is the fact Wesley is key to something that is probably the single biggest change in modern Christian history: the move away from creedalism to experientialism. There are other factors involve, such as the limited access to personal Bibles, the lack of institutional oversight, the increased prevalence of tent meetings and revivals (real and fake), and other conditions of that era. This influence eclipsed that of Edwards, who died shortly after Fuller was born.
The move toward experientialism and the lack of oversight (especially in America) due to the westward expansion meant every preacher was authoritative when the fact is there was no way for any individual to know whether or not what they heard preached was biblically correct or not. Over the course of these two centuries, we moved from Rousseau and Locke to Hume to Hegel and in the mid-1800s there were secular influences like Darwin and Marx and by the end the century closed out with Nietzche and Freud. The church was still working with a book multiple millennia old. Christianity was still the prevailing worldview in the west but secular humanism was departing from the Christian humanism that had long been held within Christendom.
So what?
Well, during the time in which Fuller came to faith and began his profession the restoration movement was taking place and aside from the apocalypsism (sp?) running through that movement one of the chief viewpoints was the Church is corrupt. The Church is corrupt and in need of restoration. Hence the name of the movement. Aside from the fact every sect believed it was the true version of the Chruch, what this more generically meant was a wholesale questioning of orthodoxy. That included Protestant orthodoxy.
Forgive the length of this post because as fas as Fullerism goes this can be boiled down to a single statement.
Experientialism is very hard on the mind for Calvinist thinking.
The questions boil down to do I trust the Bible to measure my experience, or do I trust my experience and then measure what I read in the Bible that experience. That is why I asked the question I asked in Post #20. To what degree might Fuller have identified his personal mental and physiological experience as his own versus attributing it to the working of the Holy Spirit? He lived in the head waters of what has become the "normal" way of looking at conversion for a lot of modern Christendom. He straddled the move from creedalism to experientialism so, logically speaking, his views fit perfectly with his era, but his era is a theological aberration, one that ended up generating a HUGE explosion of denominational/sectarian and theological/doctrinal diversity. Entirely new sects, doctrines, and practices were the progeny and most Christians living today have little or no knowledge of the history. The sectarianism and doctrinal divides are taken as the norm and something that has always existed when that is not the case.
Here's an off-topic question to highlight the point: How many of you knew Messianic Judaism is a 1960s invention by a Baptist preacher trying to provide for the needs of Jewish converts in his local?
.
