BECAUSE THIS IS A HISTORICAL POST, IT WILL HAVE NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT
In 1922 the liberal Baptist preacher Harry Emerson Fosdick a guest preacher, preached a world-famous sermon in the First Presbyterian Church in the West Village section of Manhattan called, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win? This was a direct assault upon the traditional views of the Presbyterian Church USA, which maintained that in order for a preacher to be ordained in the PCUSA, the ordinand had to swear allegiance to the Westminster Catechism, and to the Five Historical Fundamentals which were derived from that Confession.
These Five Historic Fundamentals are:
ordinand would swear allegiance.
The document has six sections, of which this is a summary:
Some of us regard the particular theories contained in the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.
The astute reader will notice that the words "Historic" and "Fundamentals" are downgraded to be mere theories, no different from the ones that are attached to the theological philosophy called "Higher Criticism".
I post this as a background to examine some of the different philosophies that are seen by the posters here on CF. It is obvious to me that there are posters in both camps here, and that is perhaps the underlying reason why there are so many divergent viewpoints, and consequently so many snarky remarks and insults that come up far too often when we seek to defend our "personal turf". In that disagreement, no matter how gentle, or how much Scripture both in and out of context is posted in support of one's position, someone is bound to step on the toes of another, who will inevitably respond by saying "OUCH!"
So before you continue to post any sort of reply, I request that you read the two different positions, and then respond to one of the six possible choices possible which best describe your theological viewpoint: Auburn Confession, Five Historic Fundamentals, Other.
I will be the first to respond, and I vote for the Five Historical Fundamentals
In 1922 the liberal Baptist preacher Harry Emerson Fosdick a guest preacher, preached a world-famous sermon in the First Presbyterian Church in the West Village section of Manhattan called, "Shall the Fundamentalists Win? This was a direct assault upon the traditional views of the Presbyterian Church USA, which maintained that in order for a preacher to be ordained in the PCUSA, the ordinand had to swear allegiance to the Westminster Catechism, and to the Five Historical Fundamentals which were derived from that Confession.
These Five Historic Fundamentals are:
- Inerrancy of the Scriptures
- The virgin birth (and the deity of Jesus)
- The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
- The bodily resurrection of Jesus
- The authenticity of Christ's miracles
ordinand would swear allegiance.
The document has six sections, of which this is a summary:
- The Bible is not inerrant. The supreme guide of scripture interpretation is the Spirit of God to the individual believer and not ecclesiastical authority. Thus, "liberty of conscience" is elevated.
- The General Assembly has no power to dictate doctrine to the Presbyteries.
- The General Assembly's condemnation of those asserting "doctrines contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian Church" circumvented the due process set forth in the Book of Discipline.
- None of the five essential doctrines should be used as a test of ordination. Alternated "theories" of these doctrines are permissible.
- Liberty of thought and teaching, within the bounds of evangelical Christianity is necessary.
- Division is deplored, unity and freedom are commended.
Some of us regard the particular theories contained in the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.
The astute reader will notice that the words "Historic" and "Fundamentals" are downgraded to be mere theories, no different from the ones that are attached to the theological philosophy called "Higher Criticism".
I post this as a background to examine some of the different philosophies that are seen by the posters here on CF. It is obvious to me that there are posters in both camps here, and that is perhaps the underlying reason why there are so many divergent viewpoints, and consequently so many snarky remarks and insults that come up far too often when we seek to defend our "personal turf". In that disagreement, no matter how gentle, or how much Scripture both in and out of context is posted in support of one's position, someone is bound to step on the toes of another, who will inevitably respond by saying "OUCH!"
So before you continue to post any sort of reply, I request that you read the two different positions, and then respond to one of the six possible choices possible which best describe your theological viewpoint: Auburn Confession, Five Historic Fundamentals, Other.
I will be the first to respond, and I vote for the Five Historical Fundamentals