Featured Taxonomy of Fundamentalism (IFB)

John, I have to agree. I don't know how scholarly one would rate Stewart Custer, but he has been a blessing to me many times reading his work. Others from there as well but I'm looking at three of his books on my book shelves now.

 

Stewart Custer is a genuine Greek scholar with, for example, his book on Greek idioms being widely accepted.

 

I have also been in Jack Hyles clone churches and they are very bad. BJU is far better and less legalistic than those types.

Pastors in those churches love to yell, bark, scream, and get political, and then go on rants and use their personal experiences as authority. Good speakers, but very poor expositors. The only advantage was that the speakers were not afraid to get political which is sometimes necessary. However for that I have Charles Stanley.

 

I went to his church a few times (Trinity Bible Church) read one of his books and met the man. A powerful exegete.

Bye the way if you want one of his sermons I can send it to you.

 

BJU no question is scholarly, and perhaps the best among the IFB movement.

 

John is my name.

BJU profs are not ignorant by any means. However some of the chapel speakers were very bigoted and made me angry with some of their comments about other non IFB Churches, and even some back handed comments about The Way of the Master. Sometimes I wanted to go do some open air preaching in front of the chapel speakers church, but I would be in sin, as open air preaching is meant to call the ungodly to repentenence and not to get into quarrells with other Christians on secondary issues.

 

Thanks for the sentiment, but I probably already have too many sermons to listen to or read.

 

My alma mater for the MA is Maranatha Baptist Bible College, which is regionally accredited and therefore has very high standards for scholarship, higher than BJU I believe. BJ has just recently gotten TRACS accreditation, to my understanding, which has somewhat lower standards than regional accreditation.

Other IFB schools with high standards of scholarship include Northland (TRACS), Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (TRACS), Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary (regional), etc. Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary does not have accreditation, but does produce a scholarly journal with good content.

There are plenty of IFB scholars with worthy degrees. The reasons you don't read many articles in the evangelical journals by them are: (1) We often have our own journals. (2) Unfortunately, IFB schools are usually not big enough to afford paying research profs like the big schools (Kostenberger at SEBTS, Carson at Trinity, etc.). (By the way, my IFB scholar son now has four articles, I think it is, published in major theological journals.)

 

Hi, John.

I'm glad to read from you finally that there are IFB folk who are not ignorant. I was beginning to think you thought us all to be losers.

One man's bigot is another man's partisan. One man's rant is another man taking a strong position. One man's intolerance is another man's stand for righteousness. :smilewinkgrin:

 

You also need to realize that DA Carson and the evangelical journals are not against the NIV, nor contemporary worship as many IFB are. Carson himself uses the translation in some of his books. BJU hated the NIV and would not sell it, yet I found it odd that it was used by many of the books in the seminary.

They may deny that but ask yourself why they do not sell it in the bookstore, do not preach from it, and none of their churches in the area use it. Explain that? Thats what I call indifference.

 

It's not indifference, it's opposition to the dynamic equivalence translation method with which the NIV was translated. (Granted, the NIV is not as radical in its DE as, say, the GNB.) As a Greek teacher and translator, I've examined the NIV and found many places where the NIV ignored the syntax or semantics of the original in its renderings. And there are evangelicals who oppose this. See Translating Truth, by Grudem, Ryken, Collins, Poythress and Winter.

But if we go down this route in our discussion, once again we will be derailing this thread.

 

Thats your opinion. DA Carson wrote a book on NT Introduction and he uses the NIV as his primary text. Grant Osborne wrote a book on biblical hermeneutics and uses the NIV as his main text. Josh McDowell has also written some great apologetics books and he often uses the NIV.

You have a opinion. Yes we are getting OT.

 

You asked why BJU-type fundamentalists don't use the NIV. I told you why. End of story on this thread. (And I don't really care why evangelicals use the NIV and who they are. It doesn't interest me.)

 

Oh,now you admit it. The NIV is not anywhere near the GNP. The NIV was not modeled after Mr. Nida's methodology.

They were not ignored. Perhaps you are aware that the translators of the NIV have greater scholarship than you possess.

Grudem and Co. are so far off the beam it is ridiculous. Ryken spouts nonsense. It is a shame that some evangelicals I admire fall for the shallow, grossly mistaken, and prejudical views of these kind of authors.

I see your G,R,C,P and W. I raise it up to Carson,Moo,Silva,Fee,Strauss.

Not necessarily. Translation issues are part and parcel of Fundamentalism.

 

The OP is not about fundamentalists and Bible translation, but specifically about a taxonomy of fundamentalism. So climb down off your hobby horse! :tongue3:

 

Okay lets use another thread for that one.

 

Although Scofield influenced the Plymouth Brethren tremendously;he was not a PB'er. He pastored a Congrgational church, Moody's church in Mass.,and later became a Southern Presbyterian per Wickipedia.

 

Thanks for the information.