Why I am Not a King James Only Advocate

@tmjbog You've had plenty of time to prove your position and you've already failed way too many times to be taken seriously by any professional analyst.

Your consistent avoidance of facing the uncomfortable truths that we are #1. in a FALLEN world, and #2. in times of MASSIVE cultural apostasy, in favor of constantly arguing "Everything's OK, guys! Anyone who doesn't get along with all the ecumenicalism of our day and the 300 new versions (gay and transgender pastors in church and on translating boards) is a CONSPIRACY THEORIST! Yeah! We all know everything is good, right? It's all good man, haha. CONSPIRACIES DON'T EXIST. EVERYONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE A CHRISTIAN IS A CHRISTIAN. TRUST EVERYTHING. DUH. To claim otherwise is to create disharmony and disunity in the church!" What a woman. Be a man, let the women do that job, we already have too much feminine energy dominating the fallen, pagan world without men betraying their own gender.

You're simply a moron and a liar with a low IQ and an inflated view of your own intellect who hides behind the illusionary shelter of the leftist anti-masculine social norms of 2020 to validate your own passive, beta male, victim mentality to point of even exalting it as if you're doing something tough or admirable. No, you're just a loser.

Your surprise that someone actually told you off, and correlating that to "hormones" tells me you probably act like a female 24/7, because even that low-energy masculinity frightened you and threw you off to the point where you had to connect it to "teenage angst" in your own mind. A group of grown men needs to toss a football around with you and put you down 3 feet into the dirt, then put a garbage bag over your head and fart in your face so you can learn what it's like to be on the receiving end of your toxic femininity. You getting a transgender surgery soon?


All of the anti-KJV, anti-Ruckman, anti-IFB people on this IFB forum (find the irony in that) should look up the Dunning-Kruger effect, because you're all gullible kids who've been pacified by blue-pill culture and are suckers being taken advantage of by New Version businessmen. I'd know: I have an MBA.

You're all currently at the peak of "Mt. Stupid", and you're being duped and deceived by rich scholars who make a living off of megachurch tithes and best-seller books attacking the Bible.
No where have I said every modern version is good. If you are looking at the issue fairly and you want to count a random lesbo that makes it on a translation board than we also have to look at sin that was in the life of King James and the translators of KJV-or will you fall back on "God can use imperfect men to create a perfect work"? You continue your black or white analysis of those who don't hold to KJV-O. Because an individual believes there are accurate modern versions does not mean they accept everything with the Word Bible stamped on it as Scripture. I've said it plenty of times their are many churches that are nothing more than social clubs. Again it's not black and white where only Ruckmanites are Christians and everyone else is an apostate. Ruckmanites follow the same error modern churches do through adding their own speculation to Scripture along with just being weak in applying Scripture. Case in point would be using course language. Insults typically do come from emotionalism. I understand you are emotional and will filter out the insults and just deal with the issues.
 
Even just taking this position in sarcasm demonstrated the truthfulness behind it, because no grown man would be comfortable pretending to be a pansy boy just for humor's sake.

Why don't you go bend over on the casting couch of Hollywood and wear a dress in one of their pagan, Satanically inverted, ecumenical movies like "Noah". Is that a conspiracy theory too?

Everything is a conspiracy theory. The Bible is a conspiracy theory. Life is good man, "good vibes" are the epitome of existence, and anyone who disturbs the sacred "vibes" must be witch hunted.
No issues to deal with here just overt emotionalism.
 
"For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." -John 12:43

Below is 99.99999% of everything yet to be brought from Mount Stupid over there by the nitpicking "cheat your way to a higher position of judgment over actual accomplishers" cult of soy boy.

View attachment 1012

I bet the Proud To Be A Pansy Boy Crew over on Mount Stupid haven't even read one of these through. I bet they just sat there with offended feelings and a Google PhD and Googled "Bad stuff about Ruckman" and got all of their 0.000001% of Ruckman's material from some Geocities site put together in the year 1998.

Put it in record: I don't care if 0.000001% of the time Ruckman said Jesus will be breakdancing to 808's on the Mountain of the Lord while we all breakdance on our own planets as a call-and-response symphony, because what he wrote in the other 99.999999% of his books isn't changed by that one random comment.

God probably used Ruckman to get the pharisee out of men who want truth: you'll just have to put up with the occasional oddity if you want the truth.

Or you can just be like tmjbog, give up, and go fight for the soy boys.

Besides the occasional oddity there is also the 3 marriages. Oh and the racist rants. Oh, and the inaccurate racist doctrines drawn from the Bible. Oh, and the made up doctrine about Eve having adulterous relationship with Satan.
 
I agree, your low-energy, passive-aggressive "with a feminine touch" emotionalism, that is out of touch with your own gender, is concerning. My guess is you live in a lefty state that still has everyone on lock-down, and made best friends with white-collar prunes who work at FedEx Express. Visiting your work would be like watching an episode of The Office.
Yep, you got me again. I live in the Leftist state of West Virginia. We were all really rootin' for Bernie.
 
When we get to heaven, God is going to be like:

"Ransom, thank you for doing my good work down there. I see that you spent all your time following around and trolling Baptists while hiding behind your keyboard. Truly a brave endeavor."
Well, now that you have a week where you don't have to post your vapid nothings to this forum, you can study up on some actual theology. Maybe you'll learn that literally none of the things you promote on this forum--Ruckmanism, KJV-onlyism, Dispensationalism--are particularly "Baptist." I'd recommend studying the LBCF, but you've already proclaimed yourself a higher authority than a 350-year-old historic Baptist confession, and offered to "straighten them out." The vapidity of your posts is exceeded only by the audacity with which you claim them to be the wisdom of the ages.

Talk about being in the top left quadrant of the Dunning-Kruger chart...

dunning-kruger.png
 
Last edited:
By posting the picture of his treasured Rucky library, there's no doubt about it - Ugg has earned his 5th star and is now a full-fledged 5-star or 5-point Ruckmanoid. Has he also earned his angel's wings, like Clarence?
 
your vapid nothings to this forum, you can study up on some actual theology. Maybe you'll learn that literally none of the things you promote on this forum--Ruckmanism, KJV-onlyism, Dispensationalism--are particularly "Baptist." I'd recommend studying the LBCF, but you've already proclaimed yourself a higher authority than a 350-year-old historic Baptist confession, and offered to "straighten them out." The vapidity of your posts is exceeded only by the audacity with which you claim them to be the wisdom of the ages.

UGC not only studies doctrine, we are professional refiners of doctrine. We didn't just pick one of our favorite confessions of the outdated past and indiscriminately follow it without sifting it through the lens of a thorough comparative analysis against scripture.

The Doctrine of Complete Dispensationalism was clarified by UGC; we perform the same professional function as those who outlined, say, the LBCF 350 years ago, except we certainly believe Complete Dispensationalism is more accurate to scripture. Allow me to explain why.

First, asserting that a work carries more credibility because it's older has numerous flaws. If age is an independent variable in analysis, Buddhism and Hinduism should also carry more weight. They've certainly been around a while and are recognized by multitudes of people around the world.

Even my close friends who are practicing scientists often say that when it comes to analysis, men tend to be awed by prestige and other men deemed experts by culture and history.
Especially from the Christian perspective, the problem is, history is written by the winners of the world, not the winners of the faith. We ultimately win when we get to heaven.

“What is History,” said Napoleon, “but a fable agreed upon?”


Rather than applying a confession as a template to help you analyze scripture, analyzing and critiquing confessions from the scriptures is the correct approach.
The former would be a backwards approach since no 2 confessions agree with each other: i.e. the Presbyterian Westminster Confession differs from the LBCF,
despite the seven churches who drafted the LBCF's attempts at appealing to the Presbyterian leadership in Parliament at the time, out of fear of being associated with the Anabaptists (which is why followers of the LBCF are ironically closer in theology to Presbyterians than Baptists who do not hold to this confession, as politics do have any influence over our doctrine whatsoever). UGC disagrees with both of these confessions, as do many others.


Actually, much like science and medicine, our understanding of doctrine and theology has become increasingly refined since a few centuries ago, because each new generation has immediate access to the lifelong work of all who came prior. What took each prior generation a lifetime to clarify now takes us a fraction of the time to learn from reading them, by which we then have an instant head start to take their lifelong work and refine it further.

Speaking as an experienced analyst who confers on a casual basis with scientists, this is how all areas of professional research and analysis work. Doctors do not doubt all of their current refinements and advancements in medicine in favor of going back to some outdated medical practice of the 1600's just because it came first.


Attempting to revive the outdated doctrines of John Calvin, who used a 5-letter acronym to understand the word of God, much like alchemists once broke down all of nature into just 4 elements: air, earth, fire and water... before the Periodic Table of Elements was developed in 1869, is a dated method compared to modern studies into Dispensationalism, which have since refined once foggier distinctions in scripture, albeit without inventing anything completely new.

As just one example of many, Calvin didn’t have access to Bible apps with which he could instantly cross-reference words and phrases across the entirety of scripture with a single click of a button.
It’s innovations like this in addition to all of the work men have consummated both before and after John Calvin, that has made Dispensationalism the surgically accurate theology that it is today.


Show your LBCF friends our latest video on the matter:


FYI: Followers of the LBCF are obviously Calvinist Covenant Theologians, which, while some Baptists around the world do adhere to, is actually the minority doctrinal position of Baptists in the United States.

Actually, the Fundamental Baptist movement in the US is largely defined by its opposition to the New Calvinist Movement seeping back into Baptist churches, and is just one of the reasons many of them split from, for example, the SBC, because Dispensationalism and the Pre-Tribulational Premillennial position is considered orthodox by Fundamental Baptists in the US (and goes back well before Darby). Therefore, while some Baptists might identify with the LBCF, most FUNDAMENTAL Baptists do not. If this were just a Baptist forum, pushing the LBCF over Dispensationalism would be fine. But as a Fundamental Baptist forum, the LBCF is actually the fringe view as Calvinist Covenant Theology is in fact the opposing camp of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism was the predominant position held by Baptists in the US until the recent attempted comeback of the Reformed New Calvinist Movement.
 
UGC not only studies doctrine, we are professional refiners of doctrine. We didn't just pick one of our favorite confessions of the outdated past and indiscriminately follow it without sifting it through the lens of a thorough comparative analysis against scripture.

The Doctrine of Complete Dispensationalism was clarified by UGC; we perform the same professional function as those who outlined, say, the LBCF 350 years ago, except we certainly believe Complete Dispensationalism is more accurate to scripture. Allow me to explain why.

First, asserting that a work carries more credibility because it's older has numerous flaws. If age is an independent variable in analysis, Buddhism and Hinduism should also carry more weight. They've certainly been around a while and are recognized by multitudes of people around the world.

Even my close friends who are practicing scientists often say that when it comes to analysis, men tend to be awed by prestige and other men deemed experts by culture and history.
Especially from the Christian perspective, the problem is, history is written by the winners of the world, not the winners of the faith. We ultimately win when we get to heaven.

“What is History,” said Napoleon, “but a fable agreed upon?”


Rather than applying a confession as a template to help you analyze scripture, analyzing and critiquing confessions from the scriptures is the correct approach.
The former would be a backwards approach since no 2 confessions agree with each other: i.e. the Presbyterian Westminster Confession differs from the LBCF,
despite the seven churches who drafted the LBCF's attempts at appealing to the Presbyterian leadership in Parliament at the time, out of fear of being associated with the Anabaptists (which is why followers of the LBCF are ironically closer in theology to Presbyterians than Baptists who do not hold to this confession, as politics do have any influence over our doctrine whatsoever). UGC disagrees with both of these confessions, as do many others.


Actually, much like science and medicine, our understanding of doctrine and theology has become increasingly refined since a few centuries ago, because each new generation has immediate access to the lifelong work of all who came prior. What took each prior generation a lifetime to clarify now takes us a fraction of the time to learn from reading them, by which we then have an instant head start to take their lifelong work and refine it further.

Speaking as an experienced analyst who confers on a casual basis with scientists, this is how all areas of professional research and analysis work. Doctors do not doubt all of their current refinements and advancements in medicine in favor of going back to some outdated medical practice of the 1600's just because it came first.


Attempting to revive the outdated doctrines of John Calvin, who used a 5-letter acronym to understand the word of God, much like alchemists once broke down all of nature into just 4 elements: air, earth, fire and water... before the Periodic Table of Elements was developed in 1869, is a dated method compared to modern studies into Dispensationalism, which have since refined once foggier distinctions in scripture, albeit without inventing anything completely new.

As just one example of many, Calvin didn’t have access to Bible apps with which he could instantly cross-reference words and phrases across the entirety of scripture with a single click of a button.
It’s innovations like this in addition to all of the work men have consummated both before and after John Calvin, that has made Dispensationalism the surgically accurate theology that it is today.


Show your LBCF friends our latest video on the matter:


FYI: Followers of the LBCF are obviously Calvinist Covenant Theologians, which, while some Baptists around the world do adhere to, is actually the minority doctrinal position of Baptists in the United States.

Actually, the Fundamental Baptist movement in the US is largely defined by its opposition to the New Calvinist Movement seeping back into Baptist churches, and is just one of the reasons many of them split from, for example, the SBC, because Dispensationalism and the Pre-Tribulational Premillennial position is considered orthodox by Fundamental Baptists in the US (and goes back well before Darby). Therefore, while some Baptists might identify with the LBCF, most FUNDAMENTAL Baptists do not. If this were just a Baptist forum, pushing the LBCF over Dispensationalism would be fine. But as a Fundamental Baptist forum, the LBCF is actually the fringe view as Calvinist Covenant Theology is in fact the opposing camp of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism was the predominant position held by Baptists in the US until the recent attempted comeback of the Reformed New Calvinist Movement.
I think I get what you are saying now. So when Joel Olsteen says "no one goes to hell", he is just building on the doctrine of those who have went before. This progressivism is what is taught and believed by many liberal churches. One difference between the fields of Science and Medicine as opposed to theology is that 2000 years ago we had almost no knowledge in the fields of science and medicine. In the area of theology we had Jesus Christ the Creator of theology teaching intensely his 12 disciples who in turn taught many others. So with theology we went from a very high level of knowledge to today's many progressive "refinements".
 
In the field of Christian theology, "If it's new, it isn't true. If it's true, it isn't new."

Dispensationalism is new.
 
UGC not only studies doctrine, we are professional refiners of doctrine. We didn't just pick one of our favorite confessions of the outdated past and indiscriminately follow it without sifting it through the lens of a thorough comparative analysis against scripture.
.

You do not demonstrate that you shift modern, human, non-scriptural KJV-only doctrine though the lens of a thorough comparative analysis against Scripture. You have made no positive, sound, true, scriptural case for your efforts to defend human KJV-only doctrine. In several of your posts, you have tried to defend erroneous, human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.
 
Dispensationalism is new.
Nope. Reformed Calvinism is much newer than Dispensationalism.

Calvin showed up late in the 16th Century and invented a 5-letter acronym to understand the Bible (which aligns in points with Catholic soteriological doctrine).


Recommended reading:
1590162152683.png Book1.jpg


This progressivism is what is taught and believed by many liberal churches.


As we can see, Reformed Calvinism is newer and more progressive than Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is the older tradition. Refining Dispensationalism is not inventing anything new.

Some Covenant Theologians invented the lie that Dispensationalism is new as they couldn't win the debate from scripture, so they instead turned to political smear tactics.
The rest of them bandwagoned without looking into it for themselves.
 
Last edited:
@logos1560 Nothing in your post addresses the doctrinal points in our video.
 
UGC not only studies doctrine
. . . but you love, apparently sexually, the sound of your own voice.

blah-blah-blah.png


You guys sure do have a chronic case of diarrhea of the mouth. Have you been to the doctor to be tested? There's this virus going round.

Anyway, I neither mentioned, nor even care about, your overall "history is bunk" approach to theology, nor your own homemade theological novum of "Complete Dispensationalism" What does that mean--unlike the regular kind of Dispensationalism, you don't have to add an egg?
 
Calvin showed up late in the 16th Century and invented a 5-letter acronym to understand the Bible (which aligns in points with Catholic soteriological doctrine).

Calvin, a Frenchman, invented an English acronym?

Calvin didn't systematize his soteriology. The Synod of Dort did that, over 50 years after his death (and they didn't even organize the articles in the right order to spell "TULIP").

The first documented use of the "TULIP" acronym is in an American source written in English: Lorraine Boettner's The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, written in the 1930s. If there are earlier examples, I highly doubt they go earlier than the 20th century.

The rest of them bandwagoned without looking into it for themselves.

UGC, who just presented an invented history of the five points of Calvinism out of whole cloth because he is ignorant of actual history, complains about Calvinists not "looking into it for themselves." Satire is dead, and irony is impossible.
 
Calvin didn't systematize his soteriology. The Synod of Dort did that, over 50 years after his death.
Actually history states that the origin of the English acronym is uncertain.

But more importantly: Did this systemized acronym depart from his doctrine at all, or did it simply define and clarify what it already was?

Are you trying to argue that TULIP is not Calvin's theology, but that it in fact disagrees with it?


"Complete Dispensationalism" What does that mean

Continue to follow our videos and you'll see.
 
Actually history states that the origin of the English acronym is uncertain.

Maybe the "history" you make up is uncertain. But I wasn't referencing your imagination. I said the first documented usage of "TULIP" was Boettner. Documented usage is not--by virtue of being in print, it is, by definition, documented.

But more importantly:
Did this systemized acronym depart from his doctrine at all, or did it simply define and clarify what it already was?

Even more importantly, are you changing the subject, again, rather than have to admit your "arguments" lack substance, again?

Are you trying to argue that TULIP is not Calvin's theology, but that it in fact disagrees with it?

This is what you get from my post? LOL, you are obtuse.

Continue to follow our videos and you'll see.

To "continue," I'd have to start. I don't waste my time on your videos. If they're anything like your posts, life's too short for such drivel.
 
Maybe the "history" you make up is uncertain

"The origins of the five points and the acronym are uncertain, but they appear to be outlined in the Counter Remonstrance of 1611, a less known Reformed reply to the Arminians that occurred prior to the Canons of Dort."

Source: Document translated in DeJong, Peter Y. (1968). Crisis In The Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Synod of Dort (1618–1619). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Fellowship, Inc. pp. 52–58.

LOL, you are obtuse.

So you concur, TULIP is Calvin's theology. Your superfluous departure from identifying with TULIP as delineating the doctrines of Calvinism in defense of Calvinism, while amusingly anecdotal in regards to Boettner, was cumbersome; oxymoronic at best.
 
"The origins of the five points and the acronym are uncertain, but they appear to be outlined in the Counter Remonstrance of 1611, a less known Reformed reply to the Arminians that occurred prior to the Canons of Dort."

"Tulip" is an English word, and the Counter-Remonstrance was Dutch. They systematized Reformed soteriology into seven points, not five.

Source: Document translated in DeJong, Peter Y. (1968). Crisis In The Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Synod of Dort (1618–1619). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Reformed Fellowship, Inc. pp. 52–58.

Source: this thing UGC just found, which he hopes will impress Ransom with his "scholarship" and distract him enough to forget he originally said:

Calvin showed up late in the 16th Century and invented a 5-letter acronym to understand the Bible

LOL. Way to move those goalposts!

I should add, since I overlooked it the first time, that Calvin (1509-64) first published the Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536, at about the same time he became a pastor in Geneva. So by no reasonable definition (or "applicational meaning," LOL!) of the terms did Calvin "show up late in the 16th century." UGC is either so careless or dishonest, he can't be bothered to look up relevant dates.
 
Last edited:
Top