A Brief History of the IFB

[bgwilkinson]

Here is a link for Kevin's book.
http://www.rbpstore.org/Products/5128/one-in-hope--doctrine.aspx

Louis Gaspers book was distributed by my parents in their ministry.
I believe it is out of print.

Thanks.  I will look into some of these newer looks at the history.  Most of my initial reading on the topic was source reading.  For several years I have access to an incredibly large collection of books published in the late 1800's and early 1900's.  Reading these source documents, I was able to quickly see that the Fundamentalism of today is not the Fundamentalism of the founders of the Fundamentalist movement.  The only connection real connection is the modern group is trying to defend the Bible as the KJV only, but this argument is very different than the argument against the Higher Criticism.  Today's group is arguing one version only and the original argued the Bible against humanism.

Number one of the Niagra 1878 creed is certainly not very friendly to the modern KJVO position.

"1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts."


Modern day IFB Fundamentalism is a distortion and revision of the early 1900s version. The 1878 creed fairly represents the major tenits of Fundamentalism.

As an example KJVO was virtually unknown prior to Otis Fuller's book.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Since you brought up millenarianism.....

I recently had a discussion with a pastor who believed this theory was first introduced to Christianity by Clarence Larkin and was unheard of before Larkin.  Do you have source material to prove otherwise?

Here is another document on the History of the Niagra Conference and it's role in it's development into a national movement.

Written by Walter Unger in fulfillment of his PHD requirements.
summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/4002/b12743276.pdf

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Since you brought up millenarianism.....

I recently had a discussion with a pastor who believed this theory was first introduced to Christianity by Clarence Larkin and was unheard of before Larkin.  Do you have source material to prove otherwise?

Here is another document on the History of the Niagra Conference and it's role in it's development into a national movement.

Written by Walter Unger in fulfillment of his PHD requirements.
summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/4002/b12743276.pdf

Thanks.  I have that one already.

 

[RAIDER]

1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.

They didn't have the originals.  I wonder what they used?

 

[RAIDER]

"We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation

Ah, they had a dispensational approach to the Scriptures.

 

[Walt]

1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.

They didn't have the originals.  I wonder what they used?

Gettin' tired of this straw man.  They used copies, carefully made that preserved the original words as they had been given.

 

[bgwilkinson]

1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.

They didn't have the originals.  I wonder what they used?

Gettin' tired of this straw man.  They used copies, carefully made that preserved the original words as they had been given.

The copies used by our English translators were preserved by the good Christians of the Orthodox Church. They have used the same basic Greek Old and New Testament since the 1st century.

Don't need the original manuscripts since we have highly reliable copies.

Anyone who has studied textual issues knows this to be true.

Those who haven't don't know.

 

[RAIDER]

1. The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts.

They didn't have the originals.  I wonder what they used?

Gettin' tired of this straw man.  They used copies, carefully made that preserved the original words as they had been given.

So at the Niagra Bible Conference they used copies of the originals?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

"We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation

Ah, they had a dispensational approach to the Scriptures.

Keep it in context, RAIDER, my dear.  Keep it in context.

If you were trained at HAC, you would have absolutely no problem with the Fundamentalist position on Eschatology.  Read it, dwell on it, then comment.

 

[RAIDER]

"We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation

Ah, they had a dispensational approach to the Scriptures.

Keep it in context, RAIDER, my dear.  Keep it in context.

If you were trained at HAC, you would have absolutely no problem with the Fundamentalist position on Eschatology.  Read it, dwell on it, then comment.

Oh, I read it, dwelt on it, and I will now comment that our brethren were dispensationalist and believed in rightly dividing the Word of God. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The bottom line on the history of modern fundamentalism is that it was defined from the modernist- fundamentalist conflict in the 50's-60's...and had everything to do with orthodox doctrine and nothing to do with man made 'standards'.

 

[bgwilkinson]

The bottom line on the history of modern fundamentalism is that it was defined from the modernist- fundamentalist conflict in the 50's-60's...and had everything to do with orthodox doctrine and nothing to do with man made 'standards'.

Yes it was all about Orthodox Christian doctrine and nothing to do with man made standards.

 

[Fresh Air]

The bottom line on the history of modern fundamentalism is that it was defined from the modernist- fundamentalist conflict in the 50's-60's...and had everything to do with orthodox doctrine and nothing to do with man made 'standards'.

Your decades ought to be earlier but they do not substantially change the truth of your post.

...OTOH, both fundamentalists and modernists in the teens and twenties had "standards." It wasn't an issue anyone thought about back then.

 

[RAIDER]

The bottom line on the history of modern fundamentalism is that it was defined from the modernist- fundamentalist conflict in the 50's-60's...and had everything to do with orthodox doctrine and nothing to do with man made 'standards'.

Your decades ought to be earlier but they do not substantially change the truth of your post.

...OTOH, both fundamentalists and modernists in the teens and twenties had "standards." It wasn't an issue anyone thought about back then.

I wonder where they got those standards from?

 

[Binaca Chugger]

"We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation

Ah, they had a dispensational approach to the Scriptures.

Keep it in context, RAIDER, my dear.  Keep it in context.

If you were trained at HAC, you would have absolutely no problem with the Fundamentalist position on Eschatology.  Read it, dwell on it, then comment.

Oh, I read it, dwelt on it, and I will now comment that our brethren were dispensationalist and believed in rightly dividing the Word of God. 

It seems you are being vague on purpose.  Do you believe that we will live in a sinless earth before the return of Christ?

 

[RAIDER]

"We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation

Ah, they had a dispensational approach to the Scriptures.

Keep it in context, RAIDER, my dear.  Keep it in context.

If you were trained at HAC, you would have absolutely no problem with the Fundamentalist position on Eschatology.  Read it, dwell on it, then comment.

Oh, I read it, dwelt on it, and I will now comment that our brethren were dispensationalist and believed in rightly dividing the Word of God. 

It seems you are being vague on purpose.  Do you believe that we will live in a sinless earth before the return of Christ?

Only if HAC gets the right president.

 

[RAIDER]

"We believe that the world will not be converted during the present dispensation

Ah, they had a dispensational approach to the Scriptures.

Keep it in context, RAIDER, my dear.  Keep it in context.

If you were trained at HAC, you would have absolutely no problem with the Fundamentalist position on Eschatology.  Read it, dwell on it, then comment.

Oh, I read it, dwelt on it, and I will now comment that our brethren were dispensationalist and believed in rightly dividing the Word of God. 

It seems you are being vague on purpose.  Do you believe that we will live in a sinless earth before the return of Christ?

No

 

[Bruh]

The bottom line on the history of modern fundamentalism is that it was defined from the modernist- fundamentalist conflict in the 50's-60's...and had everything to do with orthodox doctrine and nothing to do with man made 'standards'.

Your decades ought to be earlier but they do not substantially change the truth of your post.

...OTOH, both fundamentalists and modernists in the teens and twenties had "standards." It wasn't an issue anyone thought about back then.

I wonder where they got those standards from?

It was the style of the day for women to wear dresses.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The bottom line on the history of modern fundamentalism is that it was defined from the modernist- fundamentalist conflict in the 50's-60's...and had everything to do with orthodox doctrine and nothing to do with man made 'standards'.

Your decades ought to be earlier but they do not substantially change the truth of your post.

...OTOH, both fundamentalists and modernists in the teens and twenties had "standards." It wasn't an issue anyone thought about back then.

You are correct, it began in the 1920's. It was in the late 50's into the 60's that it culminated into the great divide...but that divide was on doctrine....pure and simple. All cultures and generations have 'standards'. If you look at pictures of the World Series games of the 50's the men wore suits and the ladies wore dresses and hats.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

The bottom line on the history of modern fundamentalism is that it was defined from the modernist- fundamentalist conflict in the 50's-60's...and had everything to do with orthodox doctrine and nothing to do with man made 'standards'.

As I understand the conflict of the 50's and 60's, there were a few main topics that caused the separation from the Southern Baptist Convention:

1.  Premillenialism
2.  The choice of some to not support the cooperative program
3.  Doctrinal liberalism in seminaries
4.  Loosened standards of conviction at Bible schools and seminaries

John R Rice wrote several pamphlets on this topic.  Jack Hyles voiced these four points frequently.  It may be interesting to note that the only reason the SBC voted people out during this time was because of failure to support the cooperative program.