by Larry R. Oats<\/p>\n
In 1909, as Fundamentalism and theological Liberalism battled in the denominations, two Christian brothers purposed to publish a series of books which would set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Lyman Stewart had helped to found the Hardison and Stewart Oil Company, which later became Union Oil Company of California, with Stewart as Vice President and later President. He attended one of the Bible Conferences at Niagara-on-the-Lake and became interested in publishing literature encouraging the Christian faith. He had grown up in a godly Presbyterian family and remained a member of the Immanuel Presby\u00adterian Church, Los Angeles. His giving, however, was increasingly directed outside the Presbyterian denomina\u00adtion, perhaps because of his increasing interest in and support for dispensationalism and his concern over the increasing liberalism in Presbyterianism.<\/p>\n
In August of 1909, Stewart attended a service at the Baptist Temple in Los Angeles, where A.C. Dixon, pastor of Moody Church, was preaching. He believed he had found the man who could help fulfill his desire. When Dixon returned to Chicago, he established the Testimony Publishing Company, which then published the twelve volumes of The Fundamentals<\/em> from 1910 to 1915. Each volume contained about 125 pages of articles written by many of the leading conservatives in America, Canada, and Great Britain. Lyman and his brother Milton each contributed about $150,000 to the project.<\/p>\n A committee of men oversaw the work, although there is no evidence of the procedure they undertook to invite men to write, decide what articles would be included, or evaluate submissions. This committee originally consisted of three laymen (Henry P. Crowell, Thomas S. Smith, and D.W. Potter) and three clergymen (R.A. Torrey, Louis Meyer, and Elmore Harris, who died in 1911). Several others were eventually added to the committee. Torrey had recently left Moody Bible Institute for full-time evangelism; Meyer was working for the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions; and Harris was a Baptist pastor from Ontario and was serving as president of the Toronto Bible Training School. In addition to the committee was the editor (actually called the Executive Secretary), who initially was A.C. Dixon (volumes 1\u20135). When he left to pastor the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, Dr. Louis Meyer (a Jewish Christian evangelist) assumed the work of the Executive Secretary and oversaw the next five volumes. Upon his death in 1913, R.A. Torrey assumed editorship and produced the last two volumes. There was nothing said about who the editors or the committee members were until the final volume. Three volumes appeared in 1910, three more in 1911, three more in 1912, and the final three volumes appeared between 1913 and 1915.<\/p>\n The first volume was mailed to about 175,000 people in various areas of Christian ministry. The number of the second volume increased significantly. The third volume was sent to about 300,000 ministers. The number of copies of later volumes was reduced to 250,000 copies. By the time all twelve volumes were completed, a total of 3,000,000 copies had been printed and distributed free of charge.<\/p>\n The Fundamentals<\/em> are currently available in a four-volume set, published first by The Bible Institute of Los Angeles in 1917 and since republished by several publishers. The four-volume set reordered the articles, organizing them into broad categories. In one way, this is helpful, enabling the reader to read through similar articles easily. In another, it disturbs the original \u201cfeel\u201d of The Fundamentals<\/em>. For instance, the personal testimonies are all found in volume four of the new edition; in the original set, they were scattered throughout the writings. Sixty-four authors wrote for The Fundamentals<\/em>. The majority were dispensational and millenarian, but not all. The most thorough discussion of The Fundamentals<\/em> is found in Ernest Sandeen\u2019s The Roots of Fundamentalism<\/em>.<\/p>\n One way to establish the \u201cPriorities of the Fundamentals\u201d is by simply identifying how many articles were dedicated to specific topics. Sandeen likens the series of articles to a wheel, \u201cits central hub composed of articles related to the Bible, surrounded by general doctrinal articles arranged like spokes leading to the rim where the more practical or peripheral concerns were handled.\u201d Every volume had articles devoted to the Scriptures. Seven were written in praise of the Scriptures; two others discussed archeological confirmation of the facts of Scripture. Fifteen more either directly attacked higher criticism or contested the critics\u2019 interpretation of particular passages or concepts. Five articles dealt with the doctrine of inspiration. The articles written by George Bishop, A.T. Pierson and William Moorehead were presented at a biblical inspiration conference held by Pierson in Philadelphia in 1887 and reproduced in The Fundamentals<\/em>. Those by James Gray and Leander Munhall were written specifically for The Fundamentals<\/em>. The bibliographic sources for these last two articles are significant. Gray quoted from or alluded to Princeton professors Francis L. Patton, Charles Hodge, and John DeWitt, and millenarians such as Louis Gaussen, Nathaniel West, and James H. Brookes. Munhall quoted extensively from B.B. Warfield and also referred to Louis Gaussen, Princetonian A.A. Hodge, and British scholars B.F. Westcott and John Burgon. Gray and Munhall also made reference to the 1893 Presbyterian General Assembly statement which endorsed the Princetonian position on inspiration, although there was not the dependence on external authority in The Fundamentals<\/em> that there had been in the Presbyterian statement.<\/p>\n Liberal theology had attacked the deity of Christ, the reality of the biblical concept of the Godhead, and numerous other areas of traditionally accepted theology. Numerous articles, therefore, centered on these specific issues. The priorities of The Fundamentals<\/em> were, first the Bible, then key doctrines (particularly Christology) that were under attack by the liberals of the day, and finally the practical outworking of those doctrines.<\/p>\n One important focal point of The Fundamentals<\/em> was \u201cthe defense of the orthodox view of Scripture.\u201d Seven articles focused on positive biblical topics: inspiration of the Scripture, unity of the Scriptures, and prophecy. Eighteen articles were written to defend Scripture from the attacks of higher criticism.<\/p>\n Inspiration, Inerrancy, Authority<\/em>. James Gray wrote a positive, definitive article on inspiration, distinguishing it from revelation, illumination, and human genius. He identified the books, not the writers, as the objects of inspiration. He was insistent that<\/p>\n the record for whose inspiration we contend is the original record\u00a0<\/em>.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0and not any particular translation or transla\u00adtions of them whatever. There is no translation absolutely without error, nor could there be, considering the infirmities of human copyists, unless God were pleased to perform a perpetual miracle to secure it.<\/p>\n He adopted the 1893 Presbyterian Church of America statement on inspiration: \u201cThe Bible as we now have it, in its various translations and revisions, when freed from all errors and mistakes of translators, copyists and printers, (is) the very Word of God, and consequently wholly without error.\u201d<\/p>\n George Bishop agreed. He stated, \u201cWe take the ground that on the original parchment\u2014the membrane\u2014every sentence, word, line, mark, point, pen-stroke, jot, tittle was put there by God.\u201d And he added that while the parchment may be destroyed by man or time, the words written there remain.<\/p>\n Arguments for the inspiration of Scripture were varied. Bishop argued from internal evidence.A.T. Pierson argued from the unity of the Bible.Arno Gaebelein used fulfilled prophecy as the basis for his argument for inspiration.Philip Mauro, a lawyer, wrote a strong article on the authority of Scripture in the life of the believer.<\/p>\n James Gray answered the objection of those who would declare the inerrancy of the originals to be moot since we only possess copies which are not absolutely exact representations. First, those who reject inerrancy fail to see that the \u201ccharacter and perfection of the Godhead are involved in that inerrancy.\u201d Second, Gray compared the perfection of Jesus with the perfection of Scripture. The character of Jesus should not be considered imperfect merely because it has never been perfectly reproduced; neither, then, should the character of the Bible. His third answer focused on textual criticism. If there was not an absolute original standard, then the work of textual criticism would be without value; therefore, the very desire and goal of textual criticism argued for an inerrant original.He was confident that the attainment of that goal was not very far off. \u201cDo not the number and variety of manuscripts and versions extant render it comparatively easy to arrive at a knowledge of its text, and does not competent scholarship today affirm that as to the New Testament at least, we have in 999 cases out of every thousand the very word of that original text?\u201d<\/p>\n James Orr rejected an infallible Church, but argued for an infallible Bible. Thus, he anticipated the recently proposed argument among one segment of Fundamentalism that the Bible gains its identify and authority from the Church. He was critical of Higher Criticism not because it was criticism, but because of the wrong basis and arbitrary methods which led to \u201cdemonstrably false results.\u201d<\/p>\n Marsden notes that the belief in inspiration was so strong that some of the writers tended toward dictation. He identifies specifically Gray\u2019s and Bishop\u2019s articles. Gray had declared by \u201cmiraculous control\u201d the Bible was an \u201cabsolute transcript\u201d of God\u2019s mind. Marsden misreads Gray, however, for Gray also stated, \u201cAnd as to degrading the writers to the level of machines, even if it were true, as it is not, why should fault be found when one considers the result?\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. But we are insisting upon no theory\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. if it altogether excludes the human element in the transmission of the sacred word.\u201d<\/p>\n Bishop spoke of a \u201cdictated inspiration,\u201d \u201ca Book dropped out of heaven.\u201d However, Bishop also stated that each writer of Scripture was an organ, \u201calthough not an unconscious, or unwilling, unspontaneous organ.\u201d In addition, Dixon says of the Bible, \u201cThere are many writers, but one Author. These writers were not automatons. Each one shows his own style and personality which the Holy Spirit uses.\u201d It is clear that, while the writers of The Fundamentals<\/em> believed that every word of the Bible was God\u2019s Word, they rejected the mechanical dictation theory and held to the verbal-plenary view of inspiration.<\/p>\n Science<\/em>. Science was addressed in only a few articles, all of which centered on creation and evolution. In this area one writer of The Fundamentals<\/em> capitulated. While an anonymous layman flatly denied Darwinianism, James Orr was willing to accept certain points of evolution. He stated,<\/p>\n The Bible was never given us in order to anticipate or forestall the discoveries of modern twentieth century science. The Bible, as every sensible interpreter of Scripture has always held, takes the world as it is, not as it is seen through the eyes of twentieth century specialists, but as it lies spread out before the eyes of original men, and uses the popular every-day language appropriate to this standpoint.<\/p>\n Orr allowed for the six days of creation to be longer than solar days. He argued that it is difficult to see \u201chow they [the six days] should be so measured [as twenty-four hour days] when the sun that is to measure them is not introduced until the fourth day.\u201d In a different article, he declared: \u201cThere is no violence done to the narrative [of Genesis 1] in substituting in thought \u2018aeonic\u2019 days\u2014vast cosmic periods\u2014for \u2018days\u2019 on our narrower, sun-measured scales.\u201d He rejected Darwinianism, but then stated, \u201cEvolution is not to be identified offhand with Darwinianism. Later evolutionary theory may rather be described as a revolt against Darwinianism.\u201dHe apparently accepted a theistic-evolutionary concept. \u201c\u2018Evolution,\u2019 in short, is coming to be recognized as but a new name for \u2018creation,\u2019 only that the creative power now works from within<\/em>, instead of, as in the old conception, in an external<\/em>, plastic fashion.\u201d<\/p>\n Henry Beach disagreed. In a scientifically oriented article, he argued that Darwinism was scientifically illegitimate. Dyson Hague also disagreed. \u201cMan was created, not evolved.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [T]he Bible does stand plainly against that garish theory that all species, vegetable and animal, have originated through evolution from lower forms through long natural processes.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. [E]ven the theistic-supernaturalistic theory is opposed to the Bible and to science.\u201d<\/p>\n Higher Criticism<\/em>. Marsden viewed the crucial issue \u201cto have been perceived as that of the authority of God in Scripture in relation to the authority of modern science, particularly science in the form of higher criticism of Scripture itself.\u201d The writers did not reject higher criticism completely, but they did argue against the improper use of higher criticism. True criticism enters into its inquiries with an open mind, while false criticism was controlled by speculative thinking. There was common agreement among the writers that modernists were routinely prejudiced against the supernatural and miraculous. There were articles on specific higher critical issues.<\/p>\n One technical article on the authorship of Isaiah was written by George L. Robinson.Another less technical article by Joseph Wilson was a thorough defense of the book of Daniel. Both of these articles gave a fair representation of the higher critical views, but also presented solid biblical and linguistic arguments to support the biblical position. Andrew Robinson wrote a brief article defending the Pentateuch against the Graf-Wellhausen theory of its composition. J.J. Reeve gave his personal testimony and argued that Higher Criticism was a result of accepting evolution and carrying evolutionary concepts into the development, or the \u201cevolution,\u201d of the Bible.<\/p>\n Other articles dealt with higher criticism in a broader perspective. Hague identified liberal higher criticism with \u201cunbelief,\u201d \u201csubjective conclusions,\u201d \u201cGerman fancies,\u201d and \u201canti-supernaturalism.\u201dHe argued that higher criticism discredits the Bible and that the theory of inspiration would have to be rejected or modified to a position very different from the commonly understood position.The result was the elimination of the authority of the Bible and of Christ.<\/p>\n Franklin Johnson, after listing eight fallacies, con\u00adcluded that there is \u201cintellectual consistency in the lofty church doctrine of inspiration\u201d and that there is no possible way to position oneself between belief in inspiration and belief in higher criticism; they are mutually incompatible.<\/p>\n Interestingly enough, in spite of routine attacks on German<\/em> higher criticism, an article by the German writer F. Bettex and translated for The Fundamentals<\/em> listed a string of biblical<\/em> arguments in opposition to higher criticism.<\/p>\n Archaeology<\/em>. George Frederick Wright and M.G. Kyle used archaeological evidence to show the truth of scriptural statements. While there was some overlap in material, the articles used recent archeological discoveries to verify various historical references in Scripture. These articles were a positive corroboration of historical statements in Scripture designed to counteract higher critical attacks on the veracity of the Bible.<\/p>\n The second priority was theology, particularly the defense of the Godhead and the importance of salvation. Beale sees the most valuable contribution to be these articles which \u201csupported particular doctrines that liberals disputed, as the deity of Christ, the atonement, and future retribution.\u201d<\/p>\n There were four general apologetics for Christianity, two articles argued for the existence of God, and seven articles concerned themselves with issues surrounding the deity and life of Christ. These thirteen articles \u201crank among the most judicious and well argued in the entire collection.\u201dOnly one article dealt with the church, and that was by Anglican low-church bishop J.C. Ryle. His article dealt with the universal church and had no reference to the local church at all. Two articles focused on the Holy Spirit and reflected some of the popular Keswick thought of the time.<\/p>\n William G. Moorehead focused on the deity of Jesus. He argued for the sinlessness of Christ and his omnipotence and omniscience; he also rejected the spurious gospels which denigrated Christ\u2019s character or work. B.B. Warfield also argued for the deity of Christ. In his article, he recognized the dual roles of evidence and experience:<\/p>\n We believe in God and freedom and immortality on good grounds, though we may not be able satisfactorily to analyse these grounds.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. The Christian\u2019s conviction of the deity of his Lord does not depend for its soundness on the Christian\u2019s ability convincingly to state the grounds of his conviction.<\/p>\n He believed that the greatest argument for the deity of Christ was the existence of Christianity. John Stock argued for the deity of Christ based almost entirely on the declarations of Christ himself.James Orr based his belief on the virgin birth of Christ on scriptural testimony, from both the Old and New Testaments. Torrey argued for a literal, physical resurrection of Christ from the dead.<\/p>\n Thomas Whitelaw argued for the existence of God, in opposition to atheists (\u201cThere is no God\u201d), agnostics (\u201cI cannot tell whether there is a God or not\u201d), and materialists (\u201cI do not need a God; I can run the universe without one\u201d).<\/p>\n A more significant article, in light of the modernist\/fundamentalist controversy, was one by Robert Speer on the Fatherhood of God. His approach was a comparison of the \u201cmoral inadequacy of a mere belief in God\u201d and \u201cthe moral and spiritual adequacy of a recognition of God as Father exposed in Christ as God.\u201d The article was not as much a condemnation of the modernist concept of God as the Father of all mankind, as it was a positive explication of the biblical concept of the Fatherhood of God, as shown by Christ\u2019s relationship to God as his Father.<\/p>\n The personality and deity of the Holy Spirit were argued by Torrey. He used the attributes of personality, his activity, and the comparison of the Holy Spirit with Christ as \u201canother Comforter.\u201d This was the only article that discussed the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n The modernist concept of sin as a mere taint in man\u2019s existence or some type of weakness of character or even a figment of a theologically perverted imagination was clearly rejected. Whitelaw defined sin in clear, biblical terms, describing its nature, origin and ultimate outcome. A more technical article on sin, dealing with the biblical words and their meanings, was presented by Charles Williams. A third article by Robert Anderson showed the ultimate results of sin\u2014the judgment of God on mankind. In opposition to modernist hopes of a universal salvation, Anderson declared mankind a failure, without excuse, hopelessly depraved, and lost. He also spoke briefly of modernism as \u201cNeo-Christianism,\u201d having no real connection to genuine Christianity.<\/p>\n Two articles on the Atonement emphasized the only hope for salvation from the judgment of sin. Franklin Johnson rejected the moral influence theory as insufficient, with only the substitutional atonement as adequate to remove the penalty of sin.Dyson Hague\u2019s article was a combination of biblical theology and historical theology, showing that the consensus of Scripture and the Church in history was in support of a substitutional atonement.<\/p>\n Thomas Boston argued against a number of modernist beliefs; he demonstrated that the church cannot save, that good education is not regeneration, and that an external change is not necessarily an indicator of salvation. Instead, salvation is an internal change wrought by the work of the Holy Spirit. Faith was declared to be the only basis for justification.<\/p>\n While there were numerous academic articles dealing with higher criticism, doctrine, etc., there was a later emphasis on more popular themes, particularly beginning with Volume 7. The emphasis on the authority of Scripture was overriding and therefore came first in order; then followed the emphasis on the validity of experience and practicality. Experience, when divorced from doctrine, is dangerous; experience, when tied to the Scriptures, is strengthening. E.Y. Mullins, for instance, based his proof of Christianity almost exclusively on experience and the practical, noting that this brought Christianity into contact with the new philosophy of Pragmatism.<\/p>\n The practical articles included five personal testimonies (appearing as the last article in each of the first five volumes, after which A.C. Dixon left), several articles attacking the \u201cisms\u201d of the day, appeals for missions and evangelism,discussions of the relationship between science and Christianity, and several miscellaneous pieces (including articles on prayer, the Lord\u2019s Day, and money). The practical articles and the personal testimonies showed the importance of evangelism, personal spirituality, and prayer; there was little emphasis on ethical issues or issues of personal separation.<\/p>\n There was a strong emphasis on evangelism, especially in the later volumes. L.W. Munhall delineated the basic doctrines which underlay evangelism.Genuine evangelism must be based upon discipleship; the evangelist must know experientially the power and joy of the gospel. Power from the Holy Spirit and faith in God are necessary as well. The field of evangelism is the world. The message is to be preached, proclaiming the message given by God. The preacher is also to be a martus<\/em>, a martyr or witness to the faith he is proclaiming. The message is that sin is universal and produces eternal consequences, redemption comes through Jesus\u2019 blood, Jesus rose from the dead, and justification comes only through the grace of God.<\/p>\n While thankful for the mass evangelism of Whitefield, Moody and Sankey, Spurgeon, and others, John Stone argued that the foremost means of evangelism was that employed by Christ himself, winning men one-by-one. He warned of trying to focus on one specific method of evangelism: \u201cWhen God\u2019s Spirit leads, we are responsive to all kinds of openings and ways.\u201d Revival meetings provided a means for the unsaved to express an interest in salvation. Christians should be trained how to visit their neighbors and co-workers, in order to develop a friendship from which there can develop opportunities of evangelism.<\/p>\n Charles Trumbull emphasized the role of the Sunday School in evangelizing the lost. Three articles emphasized the necessity of missions. Robert Speer argued that missions was a natural outworking of the nature of the Christianity, the character of God, and the purpose of the Church. In reaction to the social gospel, he argued that evangelism was the only way to save the world \u201cfrom want and disease and injustice and inequality and impurity and lust and hopelessness and fear, because individual men need to be saved from sin and death, and only Christ can save them.\u201dHenry Frost identified the motives of missions as Christ\u2019s atoning work on Calvary, Christ\u2019s compassion for the lost, and Christ\u2019s return for his own.<\/p>\n Sandeen probably rightly concludes that the authors were not viewing themselves as taking the initial shots in the war with modernism, but rather that they were simply standing up for truth. The issues for the most part were a reaction to the current theological and religious scene; for instance, the doctrines of the Father and Christ were dealt with extensively, while the Holy Spirit was all but ignored. The theological articles were part of the fundamentalist\/ modernist controversy and dealt with those issues which were seen as significant threats to orthodoxy in the earlytwentieth century.<\/p>\n The articles, for the most part, were not strident. The style, instead, was moderate. Millennial thought was in the background. Only two articles that were specifically premillennial were included, and the only overtly dispensational article was C.I. Scofield\u2019s on grace. Sandeen attributes this to the irenicism of A.C. Dixon.Keswick doctrine is present but not emphasized.<\/p>\n Sandeen concludes that the The Fundamentals<\/em> reflected a \u201cmillenarian-conservative alliance dedicated at all costs to the defense of the cardinal doctrines of nineteenth-century American evangelicalism.\u201d The articles reflected the situation of the time. They were interdenominational in character, the writers coming from a variety of backgrounds. The later distinction between inerrancy and infallibility was not found in The Fundamentals<\/em>. The writers were united in their view of an inerrant and infallible Bible, issuing from God, given through human writers, and preserved in the mass of the manuscripts. Issues divisive to fundamentalism as a movement were avoided; an example is the single article on the church, which avoided any reference to the local church or to church polity or distinctiveness. There was a common core of doctrine, identified in the articles on Scripture, God, Christ, and the practical issues; there was a willingness to disagree on other issues.<\/p>\n There was a confident spirit in The Fundamentals<\/em>. Perhaps in light of a dependence on the validity of Baconian Common Sense philosophy, the writers exhibited an attitude that a declaration of truth, with clear and apparently convincing arguments, would be sufficient to win the day. It was not. The Fundamentals<\/em> strengthened their own, but did little or nothing to convince the modernists of their day. On the positive side, however, Marsden believes The Fundamentals<\/em> \u201chad a long-term effect of greater importance than its immediate impact or the lack thereof.\u201d<\/p>\n Today\u2019s Fundamentalist may learn much from The Fundamentals<\/em>. Confidence in truth cannot be underrated. The acknowledgement of the legitimacy of soul liberty is critical. The willingness to stand for truth, no matter what the world may think, cannot be abandoned. The insistence on a biblical basis for that truth is an absolute necessity.<\/p>\n[table \u201c1\u201d not found \/] On the cover of each volume was the statement, \u201cCompliments of Two Christian Laymen.\u201d The Stewart brothers were uninterested in publicity or public accolades for their work. The closest thing to a biography on these men appears to be \u201cThe Stewarts as Christian Stewards, the Story of Milton and Lyman Stewart,\u201d Missionary Review of the World<\/em> 47 (August 1924): 595\u2013602. Their personal papers were donated to the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.<\/p>\n Sandeen, 196.<\/p>\n Lyman Stewart was a co-founder of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.<\/p>\n A.C. Dixon, Louis Meyer, R.A. Torrey, eds., The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994). References to articles will be from the four-volume set, since few individuals have access to the original twelve-volume set. The articles are also available online at several websites, and most of these are based on the four-volume set as well. See the Appendix for a comparison of which articles appeared in the various volumes.<\/p>\n Sandeen, 188\u2013207. The basic premise of Sandeen\u2019s work has been negated by those who followed him, but the data presented is still valuable.<\/p>\n Sandeen,\u00a0204.<\/p>\n Sandeen,\u00a0205.<\/p>\n David O. Beale, In Pursuit of Purity<\/em> (Greenville: Bob Jones, 1986), 40.<\/p>\n James Gray, \u201cThe Inspiration of the Bible\u2014Definition, Extent and Proof,\u201d 2:9\u201311. All references to articles in The Fundamentals<\/em> will refer to the four-volume set, since this set is more available than the twelve-volume set. Refer to the Appendix for a comparison of the volumes in which the articles originally appeared.<\/p>\n James Gray,\u00a02:12.<\/p>\n James Gray,\u00a02:43. L.W. Munhall also adopted this definition in his article, \u201cInspiration,\u201d 2:45.<\/p>\n George S. Bishop, \u201cThe Testimony of the Scriptures to Them\u00ad\u00adselves,\u201d 2:92\u201393.<\/p>\n George S. Bishop,\u00a02:80\u201396.<\/p>\n Arthur T. Pierson, \u201cThe Testimony of the Organic Unity of the Bible to its Inspiration,\u201d 2:97\u2013111.<\/p>\n Arno C. Gaebelein, \u201cFulfilled Prophecy a Potent Argument for the Bible,\u201d 2:112\u2013143.<\/p>\n Philip Mauro, \u201cLife in the Word,\u201d 2:144\u2013208.<\/p>\n Gray, \u201cInspiration,\u201d 2:13.<\/p>\n Gray, \u201cInspiration,\u201d 2:14.<\/p>\n James Orr, \u201cHoly Scripture and Modern Negation,\u201d 1:97.<\/p>\n George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870<\/em>\u20131925<\/em> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), 120.<\/p>\n Gray, \u201cInspiration,\u201d 2:16.<\/p>\n Bishop, \u201cTestimony of the Scriptures,\u201d 2:94.<\/p>\n A.C. Dixon, \u201cThe Scriptures,\u201d 4:267.<\/p>\n \u201cEvolution in the Pulpit,\u201d 4:88\u201396.<\/p>\n James Orr, \u201cThe Early Narratives of Genesis,\u201d 1:237.<\/p>\n James Orr, 1:237.<\/p>\n James Orr, \u201cScience and Christian Faith,\u201d 1:344.<\/p>\n Orr, \u201cThe Early Narratives,\u201d 1:239.<\/p>\n Orr, \u201cScience and Christian Faith,\u201d 1:346.<\/p>\n Henry H. Beach, \u201cDecadence of Darwinism,\u201d 4:59\u201371.<\/p>\n Dyson Hague, \u201cThe Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis,\u201d 1:280.<\/p>\n Marsden, 120.<\/p>\n George L. Robinson, \u201cOne Isaiah,\u201d 1:241\u2013258.<\/p>\n Joseph D. Wilson, \u201cThe Book of Daniel,\u201d 1:259\u2013271.<\/p>\n Andrew Craig Robinson, \u201cThree Peculiarities of the Pentateuch Which are Incompatible with the Graf-Wellhausen Theories of its Composition,\u201d 1:288\u2013292.<\/p>\n J.J. Reeve, \u201cMy Personal Experience with the Higher Criticism,\u201d 1:349\u201350.<\/p>\n Dyson Hague, \u201cThe History of the Higher Criticism,\u201d 1:10\u201313.<\/p>\n Dyson Hague, 1:29.<\/p>\n Dyson Hague, 1:33\u201334.<\/p>\n Franklin Johnson, \u201cFallacies of Higher Criticism,\u201d 1:75.<\/p>\n F. Bettex, \u201cThe Bible and Modern Criticism,\u201d 1:76\u201393.<\/p>\n George Frederick Wright, \u201cThe Testimony of the Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures,\u201d 1:293\u2013314.<\/p>\n M.G. Kyle, \u201cThe Recent Testimony of Archeology to the Scriptures,\u201d 1:315\u2013333.<\/p>\n Beale, 40.<\/p>\n Sandeen, 205.<\/p>\n Bishop Ryle, \u201cThe True Church,\u201d 3:313\u2013319.<\/p>\n William G. Moorehead\u2019s \u201cThe Moral Glory of Jesus Christ a Proof of Inspiration,\u201d 2:61\u201379.<\/p>\n Benjamin B. Warfield, \u201cThe Deity of Christ,\u201d 2:239\u2013260.<\/p>\n Benjamin B. Warfield,\u00a02:240\u201341.<\/p>\n Benjamin B. Warfield,\u00a02:244.<\/p>\n John Stock, \u201cThe God-Man,\u201d 2:261\u2013281.<\/p>\n James Orr, \u201cThe Virgin Birth of Christ,\u201d 2:247\u2013260.<\/p>\n Reuben A. Torrey, \u201cThe Certainty and Importance of the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead,\u201d 2:298\u2013322.<\/p>\n Thomas Whitelaw, \u201cIs There a God?\u201d 2:209\u2013223.<\/p>\n Robert E. Speer, \u201cGod in Christ the only Revelation of the Fatherhood of God,\u201d 2:224\u2013238.<\/p>\n Robert E. Speer,\u00a02:224.<\/p>\n R.A. Torrey, \u201cThe Personality and Deity of the Holy Spirit,\u201d 2:323\u2013337.<\/p>\n Thomas Whitelaw, \u201cThe Biblical Conception of Sin,\u201d 3:9\u201324.<\/p>\n Charles B. Williams, \u201cPaul\u2019s Testimony to the Doctrine of Sin,\u201d 3:25\u201339.<\/p>\n Robert Anderson, \u201cSin and Judgment to Come,\u201d 3:40\u201352.<\/p>\n Anderson, 3:46.<\/p>\n Franklin Johnson, \u201cThe Atonement,\u201d 3:64\u201377.<\/p>\n Dyson Hague, \u201cAt-One-Ment by Propitiation,\u201d 3:78\u201397.<\/p>\n Thomas Boston, \u201cThe Nature of Regeneration,\u201d 3:128\u2013132.<\/p>\n H.C.G. Moule, \u201cJustification by Faith,\u201d 3:141\u2013154.<\/p>\n E.Y. Mullins, \u201cThe Testimony of Christian Experience,\u201d 4:314\u2013323.<\/p>\n Millennial Dawnism, Mormonism, Eddyism (Christian Science), Spiritualism, Romanism, and Socialism.<\/p>\n All the articles of the last volume of the original twelve focused on evangelism. See the Appendix.<\/p>\n L.W. Munhall, \u201cThe Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism,\u201d 3:155\u2013167.<\/p>\n John Timothy Stone, \u201cPastoral and Personal Evangelism, or Winning Men to Christ One by One,\u201d 3:178\u2013198.<\/p>\n John Timothy Stone, 3:190.<\/p>\n John Timothy Stone, 3:190ff.<\/p>\n Charles Gallaudet Trumbull, \u201cThe Sunday School\u2019s True Evangelism,\u201d 3:199\u2013217.<\/p>\n Robert Speer, \u201cForeign Missions, or World-Wide Evangelism,\u201d 3:229\u2013249. A similar article was Charles A. Bowen, \u201cA Message from Missions,\u201d 3:250\u2013265.<\/p>\n Robert Speer, 3:238.<\/p>\n Henry W. Frost, \u201cWhat Missionary Motives Should Prevail?\u201d 3:266\u2013277.<\/p>\n C.I. Scofield, \u201cThe Grace of God,\u201d 3:98\u2013109.<\/p>\n Sandeen, 205.<\/p>\n Sandeen, 207.<\/p>\n Marsden, 119.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In 1909, as Fundamentalism and theological Liberalism battled in the denominations, two Christian brothers purposed to publish a series of books which would set forth the fundamentals of the Christian faith. The priorities of The Fundamentals were, first the Bible, then key doctrines that were under attack by the liberals of the day.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":87,"featured_media":3493,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1729],"tags":[324,351],"class_list":["post-786","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-baptist-theological-journal","tag-fundamentalism","tag-volume-2-1"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/786","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/87"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=786"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/786\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}The Bible<\/h2>\n
Theology<\/h2>\n
Practical Theology<\/h2>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n
\n\n[churchpack_divider style=”solid” margin_top=”20px” margin_bottom=”20px”]Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800\u20131930<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 193. Sandeen gives one of the most thorough discussions of The Fundamentals<\/em>, and this author acknowledges his dependence on his information.<\/p>\n