1923
By the Rev. L. W. Almy, Pastor
Marquette Park Presbyterian Church
Newspapers the country over are giving publicity to the controversy now on in church circles between "Fundamentalists" and "Modernists." What is the average church member to think of it? Should he be disturbed, and lose his faith in God and his church? Let us see. "Fundamentalists" represent the more conservative type of Christian thinking. They are devout, earnest men. They love the Lord Jesus sincerely. They accept the Bible "from Genesis to Revelation," And they tend to a literal interpretation of the Bible's language. For instance, in Genesis, chapter 14, we find the story of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, pursued by Pharaoh's army. It is recorded that the water was "a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left." The Fundamentalist pictures water standing in perpendicular walls on either side of the fleeing Israelites.
"Modernists," on the other hand, are also sincere and earnest Christians. They represent a different type of thought from the "Fundamentalists." Modern science, with its increasing knowledge of the universe and man, has given a wider range of learning which the "Modernists" accept as authority to a greater or less degree. And the "Modernist" holds that God is great enough to have created this larger world which scientists have shown us. But the "Modernist" tends to a liberal interpretation of the Bible story. In the Red Sea story of the Israelites he finds (Genesis 14:21) that "Jehovah caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land." Here, to the "Modernist," is a natural cause of the miracle; and God used the wind to sweep the water back. Perpendicular walls, in a world where water does not stand upright, is to him unnatural.
The average church member should do his own thinking. God spoke to the boy Samuel and the Apostle Paul directly, and He will speak to humble hearts today. If this controversy is the result of earnest desire to understand God, we can be sure God will lead us to a higher understanding of Him. It is a sign that Christians are thinking. We have not "decayed at the top," but are using our heads. And it speaks well for the spirit of the day. The average man, therefore, ought to take a keen interest in the discussion. He ought to feel that God's truth is eternally true, and science can't kill it any more than "conservative stubbornness."
A New Year dawns. It will be an epochal year in the history of religion in America. It may end in a progressive step; it can end in disaster. It ought to call forth Christian patience and tolerance on each side of the controversy. Each side is Christian. Each believes in God the Father and Creator of the universe and of mankind. Each believes devoutly in Jesus as God's incarnate Son. Each desires to spread the Gospel of Love and Purity, and Peace, through Him. Let us hope that next year will see more light and less heat; more patience and less denunciation; more tolerance and less intolerance. We shall then come through the discussion without harm to the churches, and with less to regret.
—The Merchants Telegram, Chicago, Dec. 27, 1923, p. 4.
Showing posts with label fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fundamentalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Brands Higher Critics of The Bible as Judases
1907
Minister Attacks Biblical World and Professors Are Scored
St. Louis, Nov. 13.— At yesterday's session of the Bible League of North America meeting the conference's 13-inch theological guns were turned upon the Biblical World, one of the official publications of the University of Chicago. The indignation of the conference was aroused by the publication recently of an editorial in this magazine, in which the second advent of Christ was derided and the resurrection of Jesus denied.
The chief address of the day was made by Rev. W. M. McPheeters, D.D., instructor in the Southern Presbyterian Theological seminary at Columbia S.C. His subject was "Has the Influence of Radical Criticism Been Wholly to the Advantage of Religion and the Bible?"
This question the minister answered with an emphatic and indignant negative.
Criticism Kiss of Judas.
"Higher criticism is not the Roman's spear," said he, "which pierced the side of the Lord. It is rather the kiss of Judas, which, under the pretense of friendliness, aims at the destruction of religion. We, the adherents of literal faith in every work of holy writ, are contending today for the altar and the hearthstone.
"Radical criticism, such as that voiced by the University of Chicago proposes a complete change from Christianity to infidelity. It not only presumes to modify, but even, on occasions, rejects the truth taught by Christ, such as his resurrection and second advent.
"There are a few ambitious young men at the university, who, impatient of obscurity and meager pay, think to procure themselves better positions by attracting publicity. This aim they can accomplish best by sensational attacks upon what is holy.
"The editorial says that the expectation of Christ's second coming is based not on the historical but the imaginative portions of the Bible. But the second advent is mentioned in the Acts, a historical book. It is estimated that every twenty-fifth verse of the Old Testament refers to the second coming of the Messiah."
Uses Sarcasm as Weapon.
A paper satirizing the methods of higher criticism, by one of the ministers present, was read at the morning session by Rev. P. V. Genness. The author, by adopting the reasoning as he understood it, of the higher critics, sarcastically proved that the Declaration of Independence was not written until after the civil war.
Rev. Dr. C. J. Scofield, of the First Congregational church, Dallas, Texas, said that the beliefs expressed by the Biblical World, if generally adopted, would work the subversion of all religion.
"These young professors, said he, "have almost reached the point where they consider the Bible not a divine, but merely a human document."
The motto of the Bible League of America is "Back to the Bible." Its purpose is to renew faith in both testaments and to oppose the inroads of higher criticism.
—Fort Wayne Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, Nov. 13, 1907, p. 5.
Minister Attacks Biblical World and Professors Are Scored
St. Louis, Nov. 13.— At yesterday's session of the Bible League of North America meeting the conference's 13-inch theological guns were turned upon the Biblical World, one of the official publications of the University of Chicago. The indignation of the conference was aroused by the publication recently of an editorial in this magazine, in which the second advent of Christ was derided and the resurrection of Jesus denied.
The chief address of the day was made by Rev. W. M. McPheeters, D.D., instructor in the Southern Presbyterian Theological seminary at Columbia S.C. His subject was "Has the Influence of Radical Criticism Been Wholly to the Advantage of Religion and the Bible?"
This question the minister answered with an emphatic and indignant negative.
Criticism Kiss of Judas.
"Higher criticism is not the Roman's spear," said he, "which pierced the side of the Lord. It is rather the kiss of Judas, which, under the pretense of friendliness, aims at the destruction of religion. We, the adherents of literal faith in every work of holy writ, are contending today for the altar and the hearthstone.
"Radical criticism, such as that voiced by the University of Chicago proposes a complete change from Christianity to infidelity. It not only presumes to modify, but even, on occasions, rejects the truth taught by Christ, such as his resurrection and second advent.
"There are a few ambitious young men at the university, who, impatient of obscurity and meager pay, think to procure themselves better positions by attracting publicity. This aim they can accomplish best by sensational attacks upon what is holy.
"The editorial says that the expectation of Christ's second coming is based not on the historical but the imaginative portions of the Bible. But the second advent is mentioned in the Acts, a historical book. It is estimated that every twenty-fifth verse of the Old Testament refers to the second coming of the Messiah."
Uses Sarcasm as Weapon.
A paper satirizing the methods of higher criticism, by one of the ministers present, was read at the morning session by Rev. P. V. Genness. The author, by adopting the reasoning as he understood it, of the higher critics, sarcastically proved that the Declaration of Independence was not written until after the civil war.
Rev. Dr. C. J. Scofield, of the First Congregational church, Dallas, Texas, said that the beliefs expressed by the Biblical World, if generally adopted, would work the subversion of all religion.
"These young professors, said he, "have almost reached the point where they consider the Bible not a divine, but merely a human document."
The motto of the Bible League of America is "Back to the Bible." Its purpose is to renew faith in both testaments and to oppose the inroads of higher criticism.
—Fort Wayne Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, Nov. 13, 1907, p. 5.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Churchmen Refute 'Man Descended From Horse' Theory
1936
CHURCH CHIEFS RISE TO REFUTE 'HORSE' THEORY
Man was created in the image of God — not of a horse.
Such, at any rate, was the answer yesterday of Chicago fundamentalists to the assertion made before the American Museum of Natural History, that man is a "quadruped turned up on end" and descended from the same family tree as the horse.
Said his holiness the metropolitan, Theophilus, head of the Russian-Greek Orthodox Church of North America, here for bishops' conference:
"Despite scientific theories, I, for one, prefer to cling to the Biblical account of the creation, and believe that God made man, a higher being, after His own image."
"Unfortunately I was not an eyewitness either at the creation of man or of the horse," said Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, president of Wheaton college, "but the suggestion of horse and man being in any way related strikes me as ridiculous."
James Watt, company servant of Jehovah's Witnesses, added:
"Everybody who ever read the Bible knows that Adam was the first man and that Jehovah created him. To say that man is even a distant relation to a horse is to deny the holy writ."
—The Hammond Times, Hammond, IN, Nov. 18, 1936, p. 7.
CHURCH CHIEFS RISE TO REFUTE 'HORSE' THEORY
Man was created in the image of God — not of a horse.
Such, at any rate, was the answer yesterday of Chicago fundamentalists to the assertion made before the American Museum of Natural History, that man is a "quadruped turned up on end" and descended from the same family tree as the horse.
Said his holiness the metropolitan, Theophilus, head of the Russian-Greek Orthodox Church of North America, here for bishops' conference:
"Despite scientific theories, I, for one, prefer to cling to the Biblical account of the creation, and believe that God made man, a higher being, after His own image."
"Unfortunately I was not an eyewitness either at the creation of man or of the horse," said Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, president of Wheaton college, "but the suggestion of horse and man being in any way related strikes me as ridiculous."
James Watt, company servant of Jehovah's Witnesses, added:
"Everybody who ever read the Bible knows that Adam was the first man and that Jehovah created him. To say that man is even a distant relation to a horse is to deny the holy writ."
—The Hammond Times, Hammond, IN, Nov. 18, 1936, p. 7.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Denominations Coming Together Not All Good
1903
Not The Common View
One often hears it remarked that the church denominations are feeling much more kindly toward each other than formerly, and that the spirit of sectarianism is evidently on the wane. Most people are inclined to regard the change as for the better. The editor of St. Paul's Lutheran Messenger, of this city does not approve this view of the matter. In the last number of that excellent publication, he has the following to say on the subject:
"There is at present a very pronounced tendency for the various branches of the Christian church to come closer together. The exchange of pulpits, and the passing of members from one church to another, or the passing of preachers from the pulpit of one denomination to another, are quite frequently hailed as signs of a wonderful unity and harmony of God's people. People who can thus perform these spiritual acrobatic movements without any compunction of conscience are lauded as very liberal and advanced thinkers. There are no doubt very many things upon which we can agree; many enterprises where we can work side by side for the blessing of humanity; where Christian and Jew can look each other in the face as men, sometimes of noble pattern, and exchange thoughts and edify one the other. But I suspect that very much of this lauded liberalism is but a shallow concealment of the ignorance concerning the deep things of Jesus Christ. The ignoring of the fundamentals of the gospel may make a man very acceptable to people who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, provided he has the ear tickling faculty. The reason why so many seemingly well meaning people, members of Christian churches, can so readily pass from one to another is no doubt largely due to the want of knowledge of those people concerning the doctrinal foundation of the church. It is no doubt true that some denominations are losing power and prestige, because they were not built on the eternal rock. But it is just there, where the fallacy lies in the statement that one church is as good as another.
"That church is best, that holds closest to the great fundamental of faith in Jesus Christ. There is however ever one consolation in this whole movement and that is this: the man or the church that preaches the great fundamentals of the gospel persistently and positively will ultimately shape the faith and practice of the entire church. Negations never amounted to anything anyway. For a while these great, liberal spirits scorn to make a stir, but when the mists have rolled away after the storm, there will be nothing left but a remembrance of a mighty hubbub. Only what is built on the one sure foundation will outlast the test of the tempest shock."
Not The Common View
One often hears it remarked that the church denominations are feeling much more kindly toward each other than formerly, and that the spirit of sectarianism is evidently on the wane. Most people are inclined to regard the change as for the better. The editor of St. Paul's Lutheran Messenger, of this city does not approve this view of the matter. In the last number of that excellent publication, he has the following to say on the subject:
"There is at present a very pronounced tendency for the various branches of the Christian church to come closer together. The exchange of pulpits, and the passing of members from one church to another, or the passing of preachers from the pulpit of one denomination to another, are quite frequently hailed as signs of a wonderful unity and harmony of God's people. People who can thus perform these spiritual acrobatic movements without any compunction of conscience are lauded as very liberal and advanced thinkers. There are no doubt very many things upon which we can agree; many enterprises where we can work side by side for the blessing of humanity; where Christian and Jew can look each other in the face as men, sometimes of noble pattern, and exchange thoughts and edify one the other. But I suspect that very much of this lauded liberalism is but a shallow concealment of the ignorance concerning the deep things of Jesus Christ. The ignoring of the fundamentals of the gospel may make a man very acceptable to people who do not love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, provided he has the ear tickling faculty. The reason why so many seemingly well meaning people, members of Christian churches, can so readily pass from one to another is no doubt largely due to the want of knowledge of those people concerning the doctrinal foundation of the church. It is no doubt true that some denominations are losing power and prestige, because they were not built on the eternal rock. But it is just there, where the fallacy lies in the statement that one church is as good as another.
"That church is best, that holds closest to the great fundamental of faith in Jesus Christ. There is however ever one consolation in this whole movement and that is this: the man or the church that preaches the great fundamentals of the gospel persistently and positively will ultimately shape the faith and practice of the entire church. Negations never amounted to anything anyway. For a while these great, liberal spirits scorn to make a stir, but when the mists have rolled away after the storm, there will be nothing left but a remembrance of a mighty hubbub. Only what is built on the one sure foundation will outlast the test of the tempest shock."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
