FSSL said:
I see that your attempt to bash our "modernism" with Peter Masters comments fell flat.
The point is that Infidelity is being recognised by your own side as becoming pervasive.
The problem is that there are many who are against Infidelity (Higher Criticism, Liberal Theology and Modernism) who have still been affected to some degree with modernistic errors. For example, how they approach the transmission of the Scripture or their rules of interpretation may be coloured by modernistic bias which has subtly crept in.
FSSL said:
You now admit that you fight for a New Reformation. We had our Calvins and Luthers.
A New Reformation, as you well know, is not the rejection of the Reformers, but a re-establishment and building upon their foundation. The Calvins and the Luthers were vital for where Bible believers stand today. I advocate REMEMBERING the Protestant truth.
FSSL said:
You have your Ruckmans and Riplingers.
A totally false accusation on many grounds, particularly, that a proper use of the KJB comes from the Reformation, and that proper doctrine continues today. Even though there may be a profound difference between Anglicans, Baptists and Pentecostals, that's nothing like the difference between orthodox Protestant doctrines and actually believing in God's word as opposed to the trend of modernism. Modernism is really anti-Reformation.
FSSL said:
Your reformation is hardly distinguishable from the Vulgate-only RCC.
Not only is that a false accusation, but that is also a propagandistic misrepresentation of present day Roman Catholicism, which at Vatican 2, upheld the idea of modern versions.
FSSL said:
In fact, your main players might even have out done the RCC in its moral controversies.
Who are my main players? Clearly, you are attempting to smear. The doctrine of advancing Protestantism can hardly be said to be of those "main players", since there are a number of KJBOs who deny that they are "Protestants", but claim to be of some line of Baptists tracing back to the Early Church. As for the moral controversies you allude to, I plainly do not know what you mean. But it would be dishonest to tar all with the same brush. There have been bad people called Calvinists, Baptists and whatever. That does not mean that all are bad people. I am neither a Baptist nor a Calvinist, but those doctrinal differences to mine are less severe than the current blight of Modernism which is affecting churches and Christians everywhere.
FSSL said:
Why are you not willing to succinctly provide us what your interpretative approach looks like?
I don't think there is some highly polished formalised mechanical method of interpreting Scripture. I believe there are right ways to read and use it. I think that rationalistic approach is only detrimental because it is starting from an extraneous source. I am, however, pro-reason and pro-order, but under ordinance of God, not by some humanistic assertion.
