Featured Neo-evangelicalism

+

FBs came later,

 

The early dispensationalists like Darby and Irving and others were all Calvinists although their the children US Evangelicals and FBs are all anti Calvinist. Strange.
Also strange is that many US churches state it in their Declaration of Faith when it is only an interpretation and a a relatively modern one at that.

 

Some of the most famous Presbyterian pastors/teachers of late 1800's/early 1900's were pre mil, and while not full dispy, did see Israel still had a Promise from God!

 

So did the Brethren. Some even to Exclusivity. One of our deacons family came from an Exclusive Brethren background. As a child he used to visit his grandparents every Wednesday after school, but when he got to the age of 13 his grandmother said he couldn't visit anymore as he wasn't a member of their assembly.

 

No that is not what I was suggesting. I was saying that he was the main force behind the expansion of dispensational futurism.

 

Dr. Dollar's books would certainly help out this Brit, that's for sure!

 

You still don't quite have it right. What I was saying is that New Evangelicals thought fundamentalists to be wrong on ecclesiastical separation. (Do you know what that is as opposed to personal separation?) NE's believed in a strategy of infiltration with liberals, trying to win them by making friends with them. Fundamentalists disagreed, separating from them.

What you are talking about here is called secondary separation (not personal or ecclesiastical separation), and some fundamentalists practice it, but many fundamentalists disagree with it, so much so that in the fall of 1971 there was a split between two main factions of fundamentalism (Bob Jones Jr. vs. John R. Rice) over the issue (and other issues).

 

Are you aware that many New Evangelicals are dispensationalists, and quite a few fundamentalists are not? Dispensationalism and fundamentalism are overlapping circles in evangelicalism, but not the same subset.

Also, there is no need to say "dispensational futurism." Dispensationalists (including hyper- and progressive) are always futurists, without exception.

 

All sorts of sects are dispensational. After Presbyterians AOG were one of the early US sects that accepted the new teaching.

Yes but all futurists are not dispensational.

The books of Philip Mauro are on the preterist site, but I consider him to be a futurist because he considered Anitchrist to be future. He was one of the early followers in the US, some of his books when he was a dispi from about 1908, are on the site.

 

Relevance to the thread?

Um, yes, I've already noted on this thread that first generation fundamentalist John R. Rice was not a dispensationalist. He was historical premil.

You appear to have a rather large bee in your bonnet about dispensationalism. However, this thread is not about that, but about New Evangelicalism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to know next to nothing about that subject.

 

If by FB you mean Fundamental Baptist, I fail to see your point re the Brethren.

But yes, the Fundamental Baptist movement began in the South of the US in the 1930's with John R. Rice (my grandfather) and J. Frank Norris, and in the North later on with men like Monroe Parker (a mentor of mine) and Richard Clearwaters pulling out of the Northern Baptists and then the Conservative Baptists, forming my mission board and the FBF.

 

Didn't know about Bob Shaker. No doubt one of the many unsung heroes of fundamentalism. I didn't mention the "initials only" guys of the North because, if my memory serves me, Shields and Riley never really came out of the Northern Baptists, so they weren't really founders of the IFB movement IMO.

And Clearwaters was a "come outer."

Yesterday I was looking at some of the correspondence between Rice and Graham from the John R. Rice Papers.

Billy wrote Rice on Dec. 14 of 1955 telling how his Oxford and Cambridge meetings went, then outlining how the 1957 NY Crusade was being planned, and saying, "Dr. Rice, I am going to need your friendship, support, and prayers. It is my hope that you will use the good offices of the Sword of the Lord to help promote prayer interest everywhere" (John R. Rice Papers at Southwestern). Unfortunately, when Rice gave his advice about the NY Crusade, Graham didn't follow it and then resigned from the board of the Sword.

Amen to that!

 

Talking to Dr. Robinson once, I made the mistake of saying that no denomination had ever come back from liberalism. Of course he reminded me of the SBC Conservative Resurgence. When I was down at SWBTS for research, Dr. Patterson told me that Rice laid the foundation for his and the Judge's blueprint for the resurgence by informing all of the SBC pastors about the liberalism. The Northern Baptists had not one to do that for them, unfortunately.

And as you know, out of his stand and that Monk Parker and the others came the FBF and my mission board, BWM.

You hit that nail smack on the head. I've had a number of fundamentalist leaders tell me that Hyles went radical because JRR wasn't there to set him straight. But unfortunately, Billy abandoned JRR while he was still alive.

 

I have a whole book of his containing these articles. SBC pastors would chafe and rebel and try to correct him with letters--but they read them.

Thanks for the link. I don't remember reading that one, but's it's good.

Yeah, Granddad did not play nicely with most Calvinists. Now Spurgeon, though, that was another story. Pilgrim gave JRR their entire set of Spurgeon for printing so many of his sermons, and even had JRR write the forward to one volume. Bob Ross gave me a copy of that one when I visited their bookstore in TX once.

Those are kind words. Thank you! My best friend from college, a retired cop in Houston, talks the same way though also a 5 pointer. He helped me with my research at Southwestern, and is now a Paige Patterson fan after meeting the man.