Given the fact that the reviewer, R. Loren Sandford used MacArthur’s comment about “Fuller Theological Seminary abandoned the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in the early 1970s,” as a stepping stone to say, “MacArthur is wrong on many fronts and should be held accountable for what is either blatant intellectual dishonesty or just inexcusably sloppy research,” I decided to look into when Fuller “abandoned the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.”

The June 1998 issue of Theology, News and Notes, the official magazine of Fuller Theological Seminary contains the installation address of Donald A. Hanger as the “George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament,” which he delivered on Oct. 4, 1993. He says,

“There are those for whom it is not enough to affirm the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. One must also assert their inerrancy. It is hard to imagine anything more debilitating to the work of the Biblical scholar than the a-priori insistence on inerrancy. The faculty of this seminary, we may be thankful, saw how unreasonable, unnecessary and misleading this doctrine is, and in 1972 changed the seminary’s statement of faith” (p. 7).

http://www.epm.org/resources/2009/Dec/10/biblical-inerrancy-and-fuller-seminary/

To back this up, I have provided comments from Dr. Harold Lindsell, one of the four founding faculty members of Fuller Theological Seminary, where he speaks of how this decline started ten years before the 1972 change in the seminary’s statement of faith.

http://www.biblical-data.org/Fuller_seminary.pdf

Seems to me Mr. Sandford, before you challenge MacArthur’s honesty or research abilities, you should make sure you have the facts straight about your own school! Talk about “inexcusably sloppy research.”

I do not have a copy of *Strange Fire* by John MacArthur so can only respond to Sandford’s response, and while I have no reason to doubt the veracity of any of the statements in the review above, let us consider a calmer approach.

If for a moment MacArthur thinks his suppositions are true, then what he is saying by default is that Charismatics are demon-possessed. And if that is true, Pastor MacArthur, then you have quite a conundrum on your hands because of the millions upon millions of Charismatics worldwide. By your own admission, you can offer them no hope because you disavow exorcism. Now that is a problem, is it not?

By extending that “logic” further, Pastor MacArthur must be confessing, in a round-about way, that the Dark One has more power and influence than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This would also pose quite a theological puzzle.

Given the fact that the reviewer, R. Loren Sandford used MacArthur's comment about "Fuller Theological Seminary abandoned the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in the early 1970s," as a stepping stone to say, "MacArthur is wrong on many fronts and should be held accountable for what is either blatant intellectual dishonesty or just inexcusably sloppy research," I decided to look into when Fuller "abandoned the doctrine of biblical inerrancy."

The June 1998 issue of Theology, News and Notes, the official magazine of Fuller Theological Seminary contains the installation address of Donald A. Hanger as the "George Eldon Ladd Professor of New Testament," which he delivered on Oct. 4, 1993. He says,

"There are those for whom it is not enough to affirm the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures. One must also assert their inerrancy. It is hard to imagine anything more debilitating to the work of the Biblical scholar than the a-priori insistence on inerrancy. The faculty of this seminary, we may be thankful, saw how unreasonable, unnecessary and misleading this doctrine is, and in 1972 changed the seminary's statement of faith" (p. 7).

http://www.epm.org/resources/2009/Dec/10/biblical-inerrancy-and-fuller-seminary/

To back this up, I have provided comments from Dr. Harold Lindsell, one of the four founding faculty members of Fuller Theological Seminary, where he speaks of how this decline started ten years before the 1972 change in the seminary's statement of faith.

http://www.biblical-data.org/Fuller_seminary.pdf

Seems to me Mr. Sandford, before you challenge MacArthur's honesty or research abilities, you should make sure you have the facts straight about your own school! Talk about "inexcusably sloppy research."

I do not have a copy of *Strange Fire* by John MacArthur so can only respond to Sandford’s response, and while I have no reason to doubt the veracity of any of the statements in the review above, let us consider a calmer approach.

If for a moment MacArthur thinks his suppositions are true, then what he is saying by default is that Charismatics are demon-possessed. And if that is true, Pastor MacArthur, then you have quite a conundrum on your hands because of the millions upon millions of Charismatics worldwide. By your own admission, you can offer them no hope because you disavow exorcism. Now that is a problem, is it not?

By extending that “logic” further, Pastor MacArthur must be confessing, in a round-about way, that the Dark One has more power and influence than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This would also pose quite a theological puzzle.

And by using the worst of the worst examples as a means of pointing out the flaws in any human institution, then it is no wonder the world-at-large has such a dim view of Evangelicals, who have myriad examples of failed faith, broken morality, and the stain of sin on their hands. Pointing fingers can be a telltale sign of grasping for straw-man arguments.

I hope that I am wrong, Pastor MacArthur, and before I write more, I shall wait and make an attempt to read *Strange Fire*. In the meantime, let our calm and mature faith prevail. Let us not call down fire from heaven but rather, let grace-filled prayers for truth be raised for Pastor MacArthur’s edification, and may this ultimately be transformed into good and glory for our Father in Heaven!

KMW