A Brief History of the IFB

[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'.

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.

I think you're probably right, I'm fuzzy on the premillennial conflict.
The modernist - fundamentalist divide was more the mainline churches from the evangelical churches. We Baptists just took it one step further, I suppose. 

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Go back and read the OP.  As the groups went back to local church work, they began to divide among themselves.  I write only of the Baptist history of which I am familiar.  Most of the early divides were due to personality conflicts between leaders.  Doctrinal liberalism was prevalent in the Southern Baptist Seminaries during the 60's and 70's and even in the 80's.  Many stood against their group because they could not agree with what was being taught.  In doing so, they forced the SBC to withdraw voting membership and thereby the fellowship of many.  Jack Hyles was deeply hurt by this and retaliated by pointing out everything he could think of to convince people to join his viewpoint and be against the group who no longer accepted him.  This mentality of growth by attacking others was used by Frank Norris and now championed by Jack Hyles.  Those who were trained in the Hyles pattern, followed suit.  Only, they began attacking the people they knew.  They attacked each other.  This mentality is now one of the dominating themes of the #OldPaths Fundamentalists.

 

[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.

I think you're probably right, I'm fuzzy on the premillennial conflict.
The modernist - fundamentalist divide was more the mainline churches from the evangelical churches. We Baptists just took it one step further, I suppose. 

I think you are speaking of the divide that happened in the 1920s.

 

[RAIDER]

I'm going to have to re-read Dr. Hyles' book on the Church to see what I believe. 

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I'm going to have to re-read Dr. Hyles' book on the Church to see what I believe. 

He outlined some of this himself in his book "Fundamentalism in My Lifetime," which was one of the few books he actually authored (via dictation) rather than the compiling of sermons.  It is a short summary, and not very good, but it is there.

Just in case you have to bow to Hammond before attempting to learn anything.  8)

 

[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'.

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.

I think you're probably right, I'm fuzzy on the premillennial conflict.
The modernist - fundamentalist divide was more the mainline churches from the evangelical churches. We Baptists just took it one step further, I suppose. 

I think you are speaking of the divide that happened in the 1920s.

It heated up in the 20's with Fosdick's sermon Shall the Fundamentalist Win, but I was referring to 1950 when the National Council of Churches was formed. My only point was that the battle for orthodoxy was just that, a battle over Bible Doctrine, not militant separation.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

no militant separation?  Like this in 1941?

 

[FSSL]

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.

It's always fun to watch the KJVOs adopt Bart Ehrman's agnosticism.

 

[Bruh]

no militant separation?  Like this in 1941?

Crazy what they were fighting for........not doctrine.

Standards is who they are when IMO, doctrine should define us.

 

[FSSL]

It used to be that fundamentalists separated from the liberals over doctrinal issues... Unfortunately, much of the separation that occurred since that time was not ultimately doctrine, but personality.

 

[bgwilkinson]

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.

It's always fun to watch the KJVOs adopt Bart Ehrman's agnosticism.

Yep, KJVOs claim deliberate manuscript tampering of early manuscripts just like Bart. 

 

[Fresh Air]

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.

...which is my point. I agree that fundamentalists didn't fuss over such things but it bears mentioning that no one fussed over those things then. That doesn't mean fundamentalists now are necessarily wrong FOR fussing over such things because their predecessors didn't.

And, FTR, I do not think what a women or a man wears is a fundamental of the faith by any stretch. I am saying that attacking the IFB movement for standing up for dress standards on the basis that their forefathers never did is a total strawman.

 

[Fresh Air]

Go back and read the OP.  As the groups went back to local church work, they began to divide among themselves.  I write only of the Baptist history of which I am familiar.  Most of the early divides were due to personality conflicts between leaders.  Doctrinal liberalism was prevalent in the Southern Baptist Seminaries during the 60's and 70's and even in the 80's.  Many stood against their group because they could not agree with what was being taught.  In doing so, they forced the SBC to withdraw voting membership and thereby the fellowship of many.  Jack Hyles was deeply hurt by this and retaliated by pointing out everything he could think of to convince people to join his viewpoint and be against the group who no longer accepted him. This mentality of growth by attacking others was used by Frank Norris and now championed by Jack Hyles.  Those who were trained in the Hyles pattern, followed suit.  Only, they began attacking the people they knew.  They attacked each other.  This mentality is now one of the dominating themes of the #OldPaths Fundamentalists.

This.

...and the tragedy of it is not just that the attacks. It is that such widespread attacks issued with equal vehemence regarding things worth separating over and things not worth separating over are driving younger men to abandon militancy altogether. The old guard drove us into the ditch on the right side and in over-reaction the young guard is driving into the ditch on the other side of the road.

My next book dwells on this at length.

 

[Fresh Air]

I'm going to have to re-read Dr. Hyles' book on the Church to see what I believe. 

It's one of his better books.

 

[Fresh Air]

It heated up in the 20's with Fosdick's sermon Shall the Fundamentalist Win, but I was referring to 1950 when the National Council of Churches was formed. My only point was that the battle for orthodoxy was just that, a battle over Bible Doctrine, not militant separation.

You are absolutely wrong. It may not have been militant separatism over dress standards but it most assuredly was militant separatism. To be fundamentalist was to be militant and separatist from the very beginning and a dozen historians of the fundamentalist movement have said as much.

This is exactly what separates an evangelical from a fundamentalist. They are both orthodox in doctrine but the latter is much more prone to fight for it and to separate from those who don't. The former does little of either.

 

[Bruh]

It heated up in the 20's with Fosdick's sermon Shall the Fundamentalist Win, but I was referring to 1950 when the National Council of Churches was formed. My only point was that the battle for orthodoxy was just that, a battle over Bible Doctrine, not militant separation.

You are absolutely wrong. It may not have been militant separatism over dress standards but it most assuredly was militant separatism. To be fundamentalist was to be militant and separatist from the very beginning and a dozen historians of the fundamentalist movement have said as much.

This is exactly what separates an evangelical from a fundamentalist. They are both orthodox in doctrine but the latter is much more prone to fight for it and to separate from those who don't. The former does little of either.

I definitely agree with you here Tom.

It is sad now, it seems, the old IFB wanted to separate over standards more than anything.

And I'm so sick of it!

 

[Bruh]

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.

...which is my point. I agree that fundamentalists didn't fuss over such things but it bears mentioning that no one fussed over those things then. That doesn't mean fundamentalists now are necessarily wrong FOR fussing over such things because their predecessors didn't.

And, FTR, I do not think what a women or a man wears is a fundamental of the faith by any stretch. I am saying that attacking the IFB movement for standing up for dress standards on the basis that their forefathers never did is a total strawman.

I understand.

But if all you here is them standing up for standards, that gets old.

Even splitting churches over standards, I'm sorry, but IMO. Standards is not what you split a church over.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

It heated up in the 20's with Fosdick's sermon Shall the Fundamentalist Win, but I was referring to 1950 when the National Council of Churches was formed. My only point was that the battle for orthodoxy was just that, a battle over Bible Doctrine, not militant separation.

You are absolutely wrong. It may not have been militant separatism over dress standards but it most assuredly was militant separatism. To be fundamentalist was to be militant and separatist from the very beginning and a dozen historians of the fundamentalist movement have said as much.

This is exactly what separates an evangelical from a fundamentalist. They are both orthodox in doctrine but the latter is much more prone to fight for it and to separate from those who don't. The former does little of either.

Yes, there was separation...that's what the controversy led to...a divide. But, the point I was attempting to make was that separation was based on orthodox theology and orthodox doctrine. Period.

And, as to my experience, you make a broadbrush statement that isn't necessarily true.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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.

...which is my point. I agree that fundamentalists didn't fuss over such things but it bears mentioning that no one fussed over those things then. That doesn't mean fundamentalists now are necessarily wrong FOR fussing over such things because their predecessors didn't.

And, FTR, I do not think what a women or a man wears is a fundamental of the faith by any stretch. I am saying that attacking the IFB movement for standing up for dress standards on the basis that their forefathers never did is a total strawman.

I understand.

But if all you here is them standing up for standards, that gets old.

Even splitting churches over standards, I'm sorry, but IMO. Standards is not what you split a church over.

Agreed.
I have absolutely no problem with individual, personal standards. But standards are subjective and IMO have a misplaced priority among SOME IFB's.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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.

...which is my point. I agree that fundamentalists didn't fuss over such things but it bears mentioning that no one fussed over those things then. That doesn't mean fundamentalists now are necessarily wrong FOR fussing over such things because their predecessors didn't.

And, FTR, I do not think what a women or a man wears is a fundamental of the faith by any stretch. I am saying that attacking the IFB movement for standing up for dress standards on the basis that their forefathers never did is a total strawman.

It is not my intention to attack the IFB movement for standing up for dress standards. They are more than welcome to any standard they might choose to have. My problem comes when those in the IFB movement with those standards attack me because I don't believe or practice those standards.