W.H. Whitsitt controversy

[rsr]

Those who are sympathetic to Whitsitt's doctrine will make it seem like it was over trail of blood stuff. It wasn't. It was over doctrine.

Only insofar as that "trail of blood stuff" had left the realm of doctrine and entered the realm of dogma.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

When he was stationed in San Antonio during WW2, my dad enjoyed watching the re-fighting of the battle of Gettysberg with ketchup bottles and rest of the table condiment holders. These re-fights occurred in an off base restaurant.
And yes it formed the nucleus of the IFB's who came out of the SBC. But, a large nuber also came out of the NBC for much the same reason. When closely looked at, you can see the IFB movement is bi-polar in its origins.

Me, I'm sitting up in the bleachers watching this thread as a bit of intramural SBC politics.

Fact is that this boat has sailed in SBC "politics". It's old history about a guy who left the faith (salvation thru Christ alone and inerrancy of Scripture) and how he was asked to leave the SBTS.

It's a battle the SBC has had to deal with over and over. In the mid 20th century, we failed to deal with it and many great southern baptist trained theologians left and, in some ways, formed the nucleus of the IFB movement.

So we had to deal with it in the 1980's and 90's. The SBC wll probably deal with it again in the future.

Those who are sympathetic to Whitsitt's doctrine will make it seem like it was over trail of blood stuff. It wasn't. It was over doctrine.

 

[Bob Alkire]

The resolution names two "heresies": maintaining that Baptists recovered immersion in the 17th century and that he "advises that a Baptist woman marrying a Pedobaptist husband should unite with his church, there*by making no difference between Pedo*baptist churches and the Baptist ch*urch set up by the Lord Jesus Christ in person."

Is this not a weak reed on which to hang a charge of "many heresies?"

I would say you are correct.

However my notes are rather short on the subject, but if you read about Dr. Whitsitt I believe it is likely one would find other stuff that got him into hot water.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My research on Whitsitt has led me to believe that he did not deny the perpetuity of Baptists or so says Dr. T.T. Eaton who was his pastor as quoted by Dr. J.B. Moody in his book "My Church."

However, he believed in direct authority from the word of God that any group of believers could read the word of God, administer se-baptism and form a church and that was his position on the origin of English Baptists. He believed that pedobaptists read the scriptures came to the position of believers immersion and started their own church. He believed such self-organized Baptist churches can be found in every generation of history back to the New Testament or so says his Pastor in who sat in Whitsitt's clases on church history.

The truth is that German higher criticism and the historical methods of investigation that higher criticism is based on had infiltrated the seminary at Lousiville. Whitsitt had studied in Germany as did serveral other professors of the Seminary and the Seminary was going to hell in hand basket quickly. Whitsitt was fastly on that road in nearly all other areas.

 

[gb93433]

The truth is that German higher criticism and the historical methods of investigation that higher criticism is based on had infiltrated the seminary at Lousiville. Whitsitt had studied in Germany as did serveral other professors of the Seminary and the Seminary was going to hell in hand basket quickly.

I would assume you do not believe in any forms of higher criticism. If that is the case then what kind of literary genre is Mt. 5:3-10?

If you do not believe in any forms of higher criticism then how do you interpret Proverbs?

If you do not believe in any forms of higher criticism then how do you interpret Philippians 1:3-11, especially verse 6?

Take a look at Rom 1:8, 1Cor 1:4, Col 1:3, Col 1:12, 1The 1:2, 2The 1:3, and Philemon 1:4

Then take a look at 2Cor 1:3, Eph 1:3, and 1Pet 1:3

 

[Dr. Walter]

I would assume you do not believe in any forms of higher criticism. If that is the case then what kind of literary genre is Mt. 5:3-10?

If you do not believe in any forms of higher criticism then how do you interpret Proverbs?

If you do not believe in any forms of higher criticism then how do you interpret Philippians 1:3-11, especially verse 6?

Take a look at Rom 1:8, 1Cor 1:4, Col 1:3, Col 1:12, 1The 1:2, 2The 1:3, and Philemon 1:4

Then take a look at 2Cor 1:3, Eph 1:3, and 1Pet 1:3

I do not believe in the German Rationalism that predominated the seminaries in Europe and crept into Southern Seminary at the time of Whitsitt, that denied the miraculous and defended evolution and was the driving philosophy behind the denial of the inspiration of the scriptures under the pretense of "higher crticism" and manifested particularly in Professor Crawford Howell Toy.

 

[gb93433]

I do not believe in the German Rationalism that predominated the seminaries in Europe and crept into Southern Seminary at the time of Whitsitt, that denied the miraculous and defended evolution and was the driving philosophy behind the denial of the inspiration of the scriptures under the pretense of "higher crticism" and manifested particularly in Professor Crawford Howell Toy.

I am sure you know that Toy was engaged to Lottie Moon at one time and eventually left the faith.

If you have anything to do with dispensationalism (Formerly called Darbyism) then you follow a trail of German Rationalism that was so present in America and such seminaries as Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and any of the Bible Institutes, Darby, Scofield, Chafer, and Larkin. However DTS has been getting away form it more and more while some of the leaders such as some at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary have embraced dispensationalism. While Darby reacted to the rationalism of the day he also embraced it in another way.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I am sure you know that Toy was engaged to Lottie Moon at one time and eventually left the faith.

If you have anything to do with dispensationalism (Formerly called Darbyism) then you follow a trail of German Rationalism that was so present in America and such seminaries as Dallas Theological Seminary (DTS) and any of the Bible Institutes, Darby, Scofield, Chafer, and Larkin. However DTS has been getting away form it more and more while some of the leaders such as some at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary have embraced dispensationalism. While Darby reacted to the rationalism of the day he also embraced it in another way.

No, I did not know that Toy had been engaged to Lottie Moon. Are you saying that Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Larking, Moody Bible Institute as well as DTS embraced the same destructive forms of German rationalism as did Toy and Whitsitt in regard to the inspiration of the Scriptures, evolution, theistic evolution, Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis?

 

[gb93433]

No, I did not know that Toy had been engaged to Lottie Moon. Are you saying that Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Larking, Moody Bible Institute as well as DTS embraced the same destructive forms of German rationalism as did Toy and Whitsitt in regard to the inspiration of the Scriptures, evolution, theistic evolution, Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis?

Not quite, but they fell on the heals of rationalism with literalism and also took a rationalistic approach to scripture. Scofield also perpetuated the Gap Theory. They are now realizing the importance of the historical context approach. I can also remember when they a future approach to The Sermon On The Mount as though it were not for today.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Not quite, but they fell on the heals of rationalism with literalism and also took a rationalistic approach to scripture. Scofield also perpetuated the Gap Theory. They are now realizing the importance of the historical context approach. I can also remember when they a future approach to The Sermon On The Mount as though it were not for today.

I knew that Scofield defended the "gap theory." And I realize that hyperdispensationalism places the Sermon on the Mount in the future - both are errors.

However, I do not place literalism in the camp of German rationalism altogether. One must BEGIN with literalism unless the context (historical/grammatical) demand otherwise and frankly what many demand otherwise on their interpretation of the historical context is not necessarily true.

I am hold to a premill post trib and so am not the conventional dispensationalist. I believe that the nation of Israel has been elected unto salvation according to the Abrahamic promise but the same promise is applicable to all the elect both before Abraham and after the temporary rejection of Israel unto the gentiles but yet to be applied to Israel (Rom. 11:25-32) as "the elect" and beloved of the Father.

I am not trying to enter into an eschatalogical debate with you but merely informing you of my own position relative to our discussion on this particular point of dispensationsalism versus German rationalism.