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 Pentecostal movement and the Fundamentalist movement are quite distinct. Historically, the former began in 1901, while the latter began in 1910, among two entirely different groups of people. The Pentecostals arose primarily from the edges of the Holiness movement, and they developed their own organizations in the first two decades of the century. The Fundamentalists arose primarily among Presbyterians, Baptists, and other large Protestant bodies. They fought for control of their denominations for years and did not form their own organizations until the 1930s. More importantly, as a matter of theology, the early Fundamentalists flatly rejected the Pentecostal movement. They typically said that speaking in tongues is of the devil, or at best a psychologically induced phenomenon. The reaction of the two editors of The Fundamentals is a good example. A. C. Dixon discussed the baptism of the Holy Ghost with William Durham but rejected the doctrine as an indictment against Christianity. He said the Pentecostal movement was “wicked and adulterous.” 233 In his 1895 book The Baptism with the Holy Ghost, R. A. Torrey had promoted the Keswick concept of the baptism of the Holy Ghost as an endowment of power. He had even speculated that tongues could be the initial sign but ultimately rejected this idea: 234 208 In my early study of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, I noticed that in many instances those who were so baptized “spoke with tongues,” and the question came often into my mind: if one is baptized with the Holy Spirit will he not speak with tongues? But I
Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism saw no one so speaking, and I often wondered, is there anyone today who actually is baptized with the Holy Spirit. This 12 th chapter of 1st Corinthians cleared me up on that, especially when I found Paul asking of those who had been baptized with the Holy Spirit: “Do all speak with tongues?” When the Pentecostal movement came, Torrey rejected it out of hand. He asserted, “God withdrew the gift of tongues from the church back in the beginning of the Church Age, and there is no good reason to say that He ever restored it.” He also said that the Pentecostal movement “was emphatically not of God and founded by a sodomite.” 235 Fundamentalists typically held that miracles ceased with the completion of the New Testament. Warfield argued against tongues on that basis. They also used dispensationalism to maintain that God no longer deals with His people through visible miracles, signs, and wonders. In 1928, the World’s Christian Fundamentalist Association officially rejected speaking in tongues and miraculous healing ministries. When it was formed in 1941, the American Council of Christian Churches specifically excluded Pentecostals and those who had fellowship with Pentecostals. In the 1980s, Jerry Falwell suggested that speaking in tongues results from eating too much pizza the night before and getting indigestion. Thus it is a misnomer to speak of Pentecostals as Fundamentalists. Of course, Pentecostals have historically affirmed the five essential points of Fundamentalism that we have presented—the verbal inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the deity and virgin birth of Jesus, 209
- 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 and 200: 7 Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism
- Page 201 and 202: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism p
- Page 203 and 204: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism r
- Page 205 and 206: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism A
- Page 207: Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism A
- 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
- Page 250 and 251: A History of Christian Doctrine Gos
- Page 252 and 253: A History of Christian Doctrine in
- Page 254 and 255: A History of Christian Doctrine pas
- Page 256 and 257: A History of Christian Doctrine par
A <strong>History</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Christian</strong> <strong>Doctrine</strong><br />
Pentecostal movement and the Fundamentalist movement<br />
are quite distinct. Historically, the former began in 1901,<br />
while the latter began in 1910, among two entirely different<br />
groups <strong>of</strong> people. The Pentecostals arose primarily<br />
from the edges <strong>of</strong> the Holiness movement, and they developed<br />
their own organizations in the first two decades <strong>of</strong><br />
the century. The Fundamentalists arose primarily among<br />
Presbyterians, Baptists, and other large Protestant bodies.<br />
They fought for control <strong>of</strong> their denominations for<br />
years and did not form their own organizations until the<br />
1930s.<br />
More importantly, as a matter <strong>of</strong> theology, the early<br />
Fundamentalists flatly rejected the Pentecostal movement.<br />
They typically said that speaking in tongues is <strong>of</strong><br />
the devil, or at best a psychologically induced phenomenon.<br />
The reaction <strong>of</strong> the two editors <strong>of</strong> The Fundamentals<br />
is a good example. A. C. Dixon discussed the baptism <strong>of</strong><br />
the Holy Ghost with William Durham but rejected the<br />
doctrine as an indictment against <strong>Christian</strong>ity. He said the<br />
Pentecostal movement was “wicked and adulterous.” 233<br />
In his 1895 book The Baptism with the Holy Ghost,<br />
R. A. Torrey had promoted the Keswick concept <strong>of</strong> the<br />
baptism <strong>of</strong> the Holy Ghost as an endowment <strong>of</strong> power. He<br />
had even speculated that tongues could be the initial sign<br />
but ultimately rejected this idea: 234<br />
208<br />
In my early study <strong>of</strong> the Baptism with the Holy<br />
Spirit, I noticed that in many instances those who<br />
were so baptized “spoke with tongues,” and the question<br />
came <strong>of</strong>ten into my mind: if one is baptized with<br />
the Holy Spirit will he not speak with tongues? But I