A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library
A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library A History of Christian Doctrine #3 - Online Christian Library
A History of Christian Doctrine were not new, but the movement itself was. The editors of The Fundamentals were A. C. Dixon and R. A. Torrey. The authors included Benjamin B. Warfield, H. G. Moule, James Orr, Charles Erdman, and others. They came from the United States and the United Kingdom and from many denominations. For a number of years, the Fundamentalists and the Modernists struggled for control of the major Protestant denominations and seminaries. Eventually Liberal and Neo-Orthodox views won the day. As a result, many Fundamentalists left their denominations and institutions and formed their own. For example, John Gresham Machen, a Presbyterian professor, left Princeton Theological Seminary and founded Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. He was also instrumental in founding what became known as the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936). Other Fundamentalist organizations that came into existence were the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (1930), the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (1932), the Bible Presbyterian Church (1938), and the Conservative Baptist Association of America (1947). These denominations have remained small. In addition to them, there are many independent Fundamentalist churches, including the independent Bible churches and Baptist churches. The largest defender of Fundamentalist doctrine became the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the few major groups to maintain its conservative theological identity. The first attempt at forming an association of Fundamentalists was the World’s Christian Fundamentals Association (1919). In 1941, Carl McIntire, a fiery radio 200
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism preacher, organized the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC). In 1948, the International Council of Christian Churches (ICCC) came into being as a counterweight to the World Council of Churches. Today, the ACCC supports another international organization instead of the ICCC—the World Council of Biblical Churches. The ACCC is the largest association of historic Fundamentalism today, but it is relatively small. In 1987, its member organizations claimed a total constituency of only 1.5 million, compared to 40 million for the National Council of the Churches of Christ and 5 million for the National Association of Evangelicals. 228 In 1925, the Fundamentalists received national notoriety as a result of the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial. Tennessee had recently passed a law forbidding the teaching of evolution in the public schools. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher in Dayton, was put on trial for violating this law. Scopes was convicted by a jury, but the real significance of the trial was in the debate between two of the most prominent lawyers in America and the resulting press coverage. William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic presidential candidate, aided the prosecution and upheld the biblical account of creation. Clarence Darrow, a famous criminal defense attorney, represented Scopes. In an unusual maneuver, Darrow was allowed to call Bryan as a witness for the defense and subjected him to harsh attacks and ridicule. By asking questions on science and biblical interpretation that required expert knowledge, he was able to make Bryan look somewhat foolish, and he called the proponents of creationism “bigots and ignoramuses.” The national press painted a distorted picture of 201
- Page 150 and 151: A History of Christian Doctrine bat
- Page 152 and 153: A History of Christian Doctrine All
- Page 154 and 155: A History of Christian Doctrine A f
- Page 156 and 157: A History of Christian Doctrine tod
- Page 158 and 159: A History of Christian Doctrine The
- Page 160 and 161: A History of Christian Doctrine add
- Page 162 and 163: A History of Christian Doctrine vie
- Page 165 and 166: 6 Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy In c
- Page 167 and 168: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy relati
- Page 169 and 170: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy orphan
- Page 171 and 172: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Word o
- Page 173 and 174: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy must h
- Page 175 and 176: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Barth
- Page 177 and 178: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy and or
- Page 179 and 180: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy and po
- Page 181 and 182: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy presen
- Page 183 and 184: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Only h
- Page 185 and 186: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Evalua
- Page 187 and 188: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Since
- Page 189 and 190: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy nous C
- Page 191 and 192: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy God an
- Page 193 and 194: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy 5. Its
- Page 195 and 196: validity is not very intense at thi
- Page 197 and 198: Liberalism and Neo-Orthodoxy Patter
- Page 199: 7 Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
- Page 203 and 204: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism r
- Page 205 and 206: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism A
- Page 207 and 208: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism A
- Page 209 and 210: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism s
- Page 211 and 212: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism t
- Page 213 and 214: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism g
- Page 215 and 216: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism m
- Page 217 and 218: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism C
- Page 219 and 220: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism T
- Page 221 and 222: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism T
- Page 223 and 224: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism m
- Page 225: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism c
- Page 228 and 229: A History of Christian Doctrine Des
- Page 230 and 231: A History of Christian Doctrine exe
- Page 232 and 233: A History of Christian Doctrine pro
- Page 234 and 235: A History of Christian Doctrine sta
- Page 236 and 237: A History of Christian Doctrine tha
- Page 238 and 239: A History of Christian Doctrine res
- Page 240 and 241: A History of Christian Doctrine mat
- Page 242 and 243: A History of Christian Doctrine but
- Page 244 and 245: A History of Christian Doctrine Sav
- Page 246 and 247: A History of Christian Doctrine Nes
- Page 248 and 249: A History of Christian Doctrine ove
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism<br />
preacher, organized the American Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Christian</strong><br />
Churches (ACCC). In 1948, the International Council <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>Christian</strong> Churches (ICCC) came into being as a counterweight<br />
to the World Council <strong>of</strong> Churches. Today, the ACCC<br />
supports another international organization instead <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ICCC—the World Council <strong>of</strong> Biblical Churches.<br />
The ACCC is the largest association <strong>of</strong> historic<br />
Fundamentalism today, but it is relatively small. In 1987,<br />
its member organizations claimed a total constituency <strong>of</strong><br />
only 1.5 million, compared to 40 million for the National<br />
Council <strong>of</strong> the Churches <strong>of</strong> Christ and 5 million for the<br />
National Association <strong>of</strong> Evangelicals. 228<br />
In 1925, the Fundamentalists received national notoriety<br />
as a result <strong>of</strong> the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial.<br />
Tennessee had recently passed a law forbidding the teaching<br />
<strong>of</strong> evolution in the public schools. John Scopes, a high<br />
school biology teacher in Dayton, was put on trial for violating<br />
this law. Scopes was convicted by a jury, but the<br />
real significance <strong>of</strong> the trial was in the debate between<br />
two <strong>of</strong> the most prominent lawyers in America and the<br />
resulting press coverage.<br />
William Jennings Bryan, a three-time Democratic<br />
presidential candidate, aided the prosecution and upheld<br />
the biblical account <strong>of</strong> creation. Clarence Darrow, a<br />
famous criminal defense attorney, represented Scopes. In<br />
an unusual maneuver, Darrow was allowed to call Bryan<br />
as a witness for the defense and subjected him to harsh<br />
attacks and ridicule. By asking questions on science and<br />
biblical interpretation that required expert knowledge, he<br />
was able to make Bryan look somewhat foolish, and he<br />
called the proponents <strong>of</strong> creationism “bigots and ignoramuses.”<br />
The national press painted a distorted picture <strong>of</strong><br />
201