What is the sine-qua-non of a Fundamentalist

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
If you were to boil down what the most basic elements which make up "Fundamentalist," what are they?

We are being told (by UGC) that one must use a KJV, be dispensationalist and the rapture. That describes only ONE segment of fundamentalism. It ignores the history of fundamentalism which included Presbyterians, Methodists... and GASP! Episcopalians.

Princeton University was at the forefront as one of the main fundamentalist institutions. In fact, a recent fundamentalist leader, B. Myron Cedarholm was a graduate.

There are microcosms within fundamentalism. Many, today, don't use the term anymore for themselves (like me)... because it is now a confusing term.

Fundamentalism included people who used the KJV, ASV and even the RSV (John R. Rice promoted the RSV in the 1960s).
Fundamentalism splintered in the 1960s into groups related to eschatological differences.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Oh, if you want to go ecumenical, that's fine. God gave you the free will to do that.

But I wouldn't associate yourself with "Fundamental Baptists" (who are the only camp that still refers to themselves as "Fundamental" by actual title today; the Presbyterians do not, the Methodists do not (Methodists are essentially works salvationists who are now accepting gay and transgender pastors behind their pulpits and paying anyone who disagrees to leave the Methodist church, so I have no idea why you think they're "Fundamental" by any definition of the word and want to stay ecumenically associated with them, nice guy), and I also wouldn't attempt to represent that large list which includes a plethora of Fundamental Baptist Colleges.

Additionally, almost all those on that list you're trying to represent publicly to the whole world do not believe the Church replaced Israel as most Covenant Theologians do. The majority of them also hold to the rapture and are Dispensational for these reasons.

Look. If you want to be ecumenical yet include the Fundamental Baptists in your forums and top threads, I'd recommend you get along peaceably with them that hold to the King James Bible and Dispensationalism without harassing them, as they are the predominant camp of Fundamentalists that actually go by this title today (and Dr. Ruckman's graduates now have the largest Baptist audience online compared to any other Baptist denomination: the numbers don't lie). This forum does not exist back in the 1800's where others may have referred to themselves as "fundamental" but clearly do not anymore.

I would suggest a change in name to "Ecumenical Forums, Fundamental Methodist Gay and Transgender Preachers Welcome" since you clearly want to be hip, relevant, and tolerant to the times and are terrified of distinctly identifying with any position that may disagree with another denomination. I'm sure they taught you this was a virtuous value to have at the seminary where you used the NIV that you told me about, but Bible-believing Christians do not see it that way.

Learn to respect what God is doing right now in the Baptist movement or change your name. But do not falsely represent Fundamental Baptists or all of those Fundamental Baptist and Dispensational colleges you're trying to represent here in your top threads. That's my input.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
Look. If you want to be ecumenical yet include the Fundamental Baptists in your forums and top threads, I'd recommend you get along peaceably with them that hold to the King James Bible and Dispensationalism without harassing them, as they are the predominant camp of Fundamentalists that actually go by this title today (and Dr. Ruckman's graduates now have the largest Baptist audience online compared to any other Baptist denomination: the numbers don't lie). This forum does not exist back in the 1800's where others may have referred to themselves as "fundamental" but clearly do not anymore.
Can you provide those numbers to prove your point?
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,730
Reaction score
118
Points
63
(and Dr. Ruckman's graduates now have the largest Baptist audience online compared to any other Baptist denomination: the numbers don't lie).
Can't help noticing you didn't actually cite any statstics to back this assertion up. Nor will you. You never do, when challenged.

Nothing to see here, just more UGC hot air.

I would suggest a change in name to "Ecumenical Forums, Fundamental Methodist Gay and Transgender Preachers Welcome"
Better yet, how about "The UGC Are A Pair of Feckless Crybabies Forums," since you seem to want to hijack every thread to complain that it's not being run to your standards.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Can you provide those numbers to prove your point?
Nah, I don't work for Calvinist moles.

Get off your lazy behind and discover the obvious for yourself.
I've already provided a plethora of information from my professional services on these forums, free of charge,
all of which you've rejected in stiff-necked stubbornness and selective ignorance in favor of pushing forward with your little amateur covert Fundamental Baptist smear op.
The world doesn't owe you anything. Go out and get it.

By the way, instead of using the 16-year old high school classroom term "sine qua non" as a smoke and mirrors to redirect everyone into ecumenicalism (which is essentially how that phrase has been used on these forums), why don't you call it precisely what it is: you desire to pigeon-hole all who disagree as being "exclusive" (shrouded in the intellectually-stunted pseudo-scholarly language, "sine qua non") in favor of the antonym: being all "inclusive" by which anyone who isn't must therefore be harassed for being in a "cult".

My oh my, FFF had it coming. You can can't outrun the fist of God.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
Nah, I don't work for Calvinist moles.

Get off your lazy behind and discover the obvious for yourself.
I've already provided a plethora of information from my professional services on these forums, free of charge,
all of which you've rejected in stiff-necked stubbornness and selective ignorance in favor of pushing forward with your little amateur covert Fundamental Baptist smear op.
The world doesn't owe you anything. Go out and get it.

By the way, instead of using the 16-year old high school classroom term "sine qua non" as a smoke and mirrors to redirect everyone into ecumenicalism (which is essentially how that phrase has been used on these forums), why don't you call it precisely what it is: you desire to pigeon-hole all who disagree as being "exclusive" (shrouded in the intellectually-stunted pseudo-scholarly language, "sine qua non") in favor of the antonym: being all "inclusive" by which anyone who isn't must therefore be harassed for being in a "cult".

My oh my, FFF had it coming. You can can't outrun the fist of God.
Now I'm a Calvinist too, eh. So apparently you had no numbers to back up your made up fact about the internet crawling with all these Ruckmnites.
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,730
Reaction score
118
Points
63
Nah, I don't work for Calvinist moles.
Translation: You made up BS, and got called on it.

Get off your lazy behind and discover the obvious for yourself.
We've sure found it obvious you are a fraud and a liar.

My oh my, FFF had it coming. You can can't outrun the fist of God.
Aww. That's cute.
 

illinoisguy

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
258
Reaction score
28
Points
28
To come up with a definition for the sine qua non of fundamentalism - now that's a tough one. Over the years, there have been various watered-down lists of "5 Fundamentals of the Faith," such as the one promulgated by Jerry Falwell, that consisted of points of doctrine that most Roman Catholics would cheerfully agree with.

But I would not have us react by becoming too strict. To the best of my recollection, none of the historic lists of irreducible fundamentals of the faith included:
King James Only
Ban on Woman's Slacks
Dictatorial Preacher Rule
Support for Pre-Emptive "Wars of Choice" in the Middle East
100% For Jack Hyles

I am not sure where IFBs got all that stuff, but I would not include any of them in a list of "21st Century Fundamentals of the Faith."
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Now I'm a Calvinist too
Let's expose this covert forum clown right now. Do read this from start to finish, it's going to get good.

First, promoting the lie that "all the King James Translators were Calvinists" to attack the validity of Dispensationalism and the KJV, then backing up and pretending you're not a Calvinist (by the way, there are only 3 predominant camps among Protestants, unless you're fringe: Dispensationalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism. And no, authentic Dispensationalists are not Calvinist as already proven by mentioning the meeting of 1944 but I digress):

You said:
"KJV translators were all followers of the Article 17 of the Articles of Religion from their day: XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION"

By which I then refuted your lie:
"They were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, school teachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats. All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius."

By which you then said:
"So just for the sake of argument let's pretend their were only two Calvinists working on KJV." (gotta sneak Calvinism in at all costs, huh?)

By which I then pointed out:
"You know how deceivers like to combine 2 totally unrelated topics like Calvinism and the KJV translators who were Puritan, Arminian, and not all Calvinist?"

And you continued:
"You are not entitled to assume your unproven KJV-only premises by the use of fallacies" (no fallacies or unproven statements were used, what was presented here has already been proven: you're just attempting to bury the information).

Wait, wait. Not Calvinist? You said:
"How about John Calvin's successor and a man who printed John Calvin's literature being involved in the underlying Received Text that the KJV is based on? Is that Calvinist enough?

The Reformer,
Theodore Beza, was even more influential than Stephanus... Therefore, Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin at Geneva, a great Reformer himself, was a leading influence..."


You have repeatedly defended and even blatantly lied in favor of Calvinism in opposition to both Dispensationalism and the King James Bible, which is the standard Calvinist mode of approach. Ransom does this openly; you just ally with him while hiding behind the bushes to try and evade being identified. You also created your account about a month after UGC started posting in here to reawaken these forums to what's going on. Mole.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
Let's expose this covert forum clown right now. Do read this from start to finish, it's going to get good.

First, promoting the lie that "all the King James Translators were Calvinists" to attack the validity of Dispensationalism and the KJV, then backing up and pretending you're not a Calvinist (by the way, there are only 3 predominant camps among Protestants, unless you're fringe: Dispensationalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism. And no, authentic Dispensationalists are not Calvinist as already proven by mentioning the meeting of 1944 but I digress):

You said:
"KJV translators were all followers of the Article 17 of the Articles of Religion from their day: XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION"

By which I then refuted your lie:
"They were a diverse group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, school teachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and aristocrats. All were members of the Church of England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius."

By which you then said:
"So just for the sake of argument let's pretend their were only two Calvinists working on KJV." (gotta sneak Calvinism in at all costs, huh?)

By which I then pointed out:
"You know how deceivers like to combine 2 totally unrelated topics like Calvinism and the KJV translators who were Puritan, Arminian, and not all Calvinist?"

And you continued:
"You are not entitled to assume your unproven KJV-only premises by the use of fallacies" (no fallacies or unproven statements were used, what was presented here has already been proven: you're just attempting to bury the information).

Wait, wait. Not Calvinist? You said:
"How about John Calvin's successor and a man who printed John Calvin's literature being involved in the underlying Received Text that the KJV is based on? Is that Calvinist enough?

The Reformer,
Theodore Beza, was even more influential than Stephanus... Therefore, Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin at Geneva, a great Reformer himself, was a leading influence..."


You have repeatedly defended and even blatantly lied in favor of Calvinism in opposition to both Dispensationalism and the King James Bible, which is the standard Calvinist mode of approach. Ransom does this openly; you just ally with him while hiding behind the bushes to try and evade being identified. You also created your account about a month after UGC started posting in here to reawaken these forums to what's going on. Mole.
What Fist of god said I said:

You said:
"KJV translators were all followers of the Article 17 of the Articles of Religion from their day: XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION"

What I really said was that, that was an article of their Church. Being an article of their church it's not unreasonable to think it would likely be the belief most of them held.

For the other details of recognizing this or that Calvinists involvement in the KJV that is simply recognizing history not taking sides. I know the name of the pope but that doesn't make me Catholic. I know Castro is the leader of Cuba but that doesn't make me communist. I'm not a Calvinist hater. If it makes you feel better to call me Calvinist feel free or just call me a collaborator .
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,730
Reaction score
118
Points
63
To come up with a definition for the sine qua non of fundamentalism - now that's a tough one. Over the years, there have been various watered-down lists of "5 Fundamentals of the Faith," such as the one promulgated by Jerry Falwell, that consisted of points of doctrine that most Roman Catholics would cheerfully agree with.
I don't know how Falwell's formulation compared, but the "classic" formulation of the five fundamentals, as presented at the Niagara Bible Conference in 1910, was something like:

  • the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible
  • the virgin birth
  • substitutionary atonement
  • the bodily resurrection of Jesus
  • the reality of miracles

Of course, this list was formulated to address a specific challenge that faced the church at the time: the modernist heresy, along with its anti-supernatural bias. Of course a Roman Catholic could go along with this list. Evangelical and Roman theology is basically in agreement about those points. That's not what it was meant to address.

On the other hand, in the 90 essays of The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, which began publication the same year, there are a few that address Roman Catholicism directly. So it's not like the fundamentalists were trying to water down doctrine: just that different presentations had different emphases.

So where does the sine qua non of fundamentalism lie? Probably somewhere in between. Sure, Roman Catholics may believe in the five fundamentals, but it's pretty much inarguable that you can't be a fundamentalist without them. On the other hand, Tommy Douglas, the founder of Canada's largest socialist political party (and Keifer Sutherland's grandfather, as a point of interest) was a fundamentalist preacher before he was elected to Parliament. So while The Fundamentals contain essays arguing against socialism, and while I would happen to agree with that critique, I'm not so sure that it rises to the level of sine qua non.
 
Last edited:

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
What Fist of god said I said:

You said:
"KJV translators were all followers of the Article 17 of the Articles of Religion from their day: XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION"

What I really said was that
As if I didn't just quote your post. You clearly said "all" and I cited you in context of the point you made.

"What I really said was"

You know, all of the posts on this forum only serve as evidence against the typical tactics of Calvinism, it really goes without saying at this point.


All topics like this one should ultimately be rooted in scripture, because unfortunately, opinions that don't match what God said are extra-biblical. Scripture should be the deciding factor in whatever decisions you guys decide on, not church history and not confessions. History is written by men. The Bible was written by God.

Look out for the next UGC Bible Study where we will prove from scripture (not a 400 year old political confession) that the Gospel of the Grace of God is not the Gospel of the Kingdom, and that conglomerating all the scriptures together is why so many denominations believe in a faith+works salvation. It will be clear, there will be no obscure passages used and no wresting of what plain verses say. I recommend watching that video once it drops in the future before jumping on board with all of these anti-KJV anti-Dispensational guys who think the church replaced Israel and believe in doctrines created by fallible men like "Perseverance of the Saints".

You need to ask yourself: do you want the truth, or do you only want to believe something if it's popular and accepted among your friends? Unfortunately, truth does not always fall into both of those categories. Jesus said: count the cost.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
As if I didn't just quote your post. You clearly said "all" and I cited you in context of the point you made.

"What I really said was"

You know, all of the posts on this forum only serve as evidence against the typical tactics of Calvinism, it really goes without saying at this point.


All topics like this one should ultimately be rooted in scripture, because unfortunately, opinions that don't match what God said are extra-biblical. Scripture should be the deciding factor in whatever decisions you guys decide on, not church history and not confessions. History is written by men. The Bible was written by God.

Look out for the next UGC Bible Study where we will prove from scripture (not a 400 year old political confession) that the Gospel of the Grace of God is not the Gospel of the Kingdom, and that conglomerating all the scriptures together is why so many denominations believe in a faith+works salvation. It will be clear, there will be no obscure passages used and no wresting of what plain verses say. I recommend watching that video once it drops in the future before jumping on board with all of these anti-KJV anti-Dispensational guys who think the church replaced Israel and believe in doctrines created by fallible men like "Perseverance of the Saints".

You need to ask yourself: do you want the truth, or do you only want to believe something if it's popular and accepted among your friends? Unfortunately, truth does not always fall into both of those categories. Jesus said: count the cost.
Just for you I went back and copied my post. Below is the post in it's entirety:


KJV translators were all members of the Church of England. Article 17 of the Articles of Religion from there day is below.

XVII. OF PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal Salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God: So, for curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's Predestination, is a most dangerous downfal, whereby the Devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture: and, in our doings, that Will of God is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the Word of God.
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
Correct, you were arguing that all of the KJV translators believed in the Calvinist doctrines of Predestination and Election just because the Church of England had that in their Articles of Religion.

However, we've proven that many of the translators were not Calvinist, but were in fact of the opposing camp: Arminianism, and some were even Puritan.

Your post, whether intentional or not, forced two variables together to make them envelop one another without understanding their context.

The correct way to compare those two variables would actually look more like a venn diagram,
not an all-encompassing overlap (which, if you go back and read the entire conversation, was the thrust of your argument:
to assert that those who hold to the King James shouldn't separate themselves from Calvinism because "all" of the
King James translators were Calvinist because of their association with the Church of England).


Here is the proper context of the Church of England and the King James translators:

Much like the Catholic Church in Rome, The Church of England was a highly political organization.
Who hired the translators? King James. So essentially, who were they working for? The Church of England.
Even so, some were Arminian. Some were Puritan. So why did they become "members" of the Church of England?

The KJV was translated directly in the center of the Reformation period. At that time, there was usually only one church that dominated the region you were in and if you wanted to be taken seriously as a professional in the church you had to associate with them. Very unlike today with, for example, the greatest nation on earth, the United States of America, where we won our religious freedoms and liberties from the British later on. Now, being spoiled by this privilege, we often think of church in the context that anyone is able to freely and openly espouse different doctrinal positions: we can start Independent Baptist Churches without fearing the extreme consequences of excommunication or getting our careers ruined by mother church to the point where we can't even feed our own families.

Even so, much like how larger megachurches or nondenominational churches function today, not everyone who espouses a political or professional association with a larger church agrees with all of its positions or doctrinal statements. How much more so for the KJV translators, who we know were certainly not all Calvinist. And remember, they were not theologians tasked with analyzing and refining the doctrines of the church from scripture: they were translators tasked with translating the scriptures. So the fact that a few of them adopted the contemporary Calvinist tenets at the time in no way means they made the KJV Calvinist as well: most of them probably didn't have the time outside their busy professions to totally question and study Calvinism on their own.
 

tmjbog

Active member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
649
Reaction score
83
Points
28
Correct, you were arguing that all of the KJV translators believed in the Calvinist doctrines of Predestination and Election just because the Church of England had that in their Articles of Religion.

However, we've proven that many of the translators were not Calvinist, but were in fact of the opposing camp: Arminianism, and some were even Puritan.

Your post, whether intentional or not, forced two variables together to make them envelop one another without understanding their context.

The correct way to compare those two variables would actually look more like a venn diagram,
not an all-encompassing overlap (which, if you go back and read the entire conversation, was the thrust of your argument:
to assert that those who hold to the King James shouldn't separate themselves from Calvinism because "all" of the
King James translators were Calvinist because of their association with the Church of England).


Here is the proper context of the Church of England and the King James translators:

Much like the Catholic Church in Rome, The Church of England was a highly political organization.
Who hired the translators? King James. So essentially, who were they working for? The Church of England.
Even so, some were Arminian. Some were Puritan. So why did they become "members" of the Church of England?

The KJV was translated directly in the center of the Reformation period. At that time, there was usually only one church that dominated the region you were in and if you wanted to be taken seriously as a professional in the church you had to associate with them. Very unlike today with, for example, the greatest nation on earth, the United States of America, where we won our religious freedoms and liberties from the British later on. Now, being spoiled by this privilege, we often think of church in the context that anyone is able to freely and openly espouse different doctrinal positions: we can start Independent Baptist Churches without fearing the extreme consequences of excommunication or getting our careers ruined by mother church to the point where we can't even feed our own families.

Even so, much like how larger megachurches or nondenominational churches function today, not everyone who espouses a political or professional association with a larger church agrees with all of its positions or doctrinal statements. How much more so for the KJV translators, who we know were certainly not all Calvinist. And remember, they were not theologians tasked with analyzing and refining the doctrines of the church from scripture: they were translators tasked with translating the scriptures. So the fact that a few of them adopted the contemporary Calvinist tenets at the time in no way means they made the KJV Calvinist as well: most of them probably didn't have the time outside their busy professions to totally question and study Calvinism on their own.
Showing article 17 was to show the belief that their church had. Being that they would be taught according to those articles in services it would seem most likely that the majority would be along the Calvinistic line. I never said 100% Calvinists-but likely majority Calvinist. I also don't see a problem with them as Bible translators whether it be for the KJV or the ESV. The only reason it was mentioned is because you considered them to be following doctrines of satan.
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
  • the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible
  • the virgin birth
  • substitutionary atonement
  • the bodily resurrection of Jesus
  • the reality of miracles
... all of which were defended with a spirit of militancy. As my former prof wrote: [Fundamentalism's] “esprit is principally its militant separatism. Fundamentalism is a movement, not an attitude of belligerence, ugliness, or a negative mentality as often depicted” (p. 16). The fundamentalist movement’s “essence” consists of (1) “core biblical truths, principally those concerning Christ and the Scriptures,” (2) “ecclesiastical separation,” and (3) “militancy” (p. 16)." Promise Unfulfilled. Roland McCune
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
I break rank from my fundamentalist friends and profs in that a squabble among some fundamental Baptists in the 1960s ended up splitting a mission board. The squabble was about pre-post millinealism... TT Shields, an earlier fundamentalist was an amillinealist.

Having studied fundamentalism from its inception... I found that, every 20 years, fundamentalism has splintered and splintered to such a degree that it has become an essentially meaningless term. It means one thing to UGC and quite another to Bob Jones University.
 

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
6,941
Reaction score
49
Points
48
By the way, instead of using the 16-year old high school classroom term "sine qua non" as a smoke and mirrors to redirect everyone into ecumenicalism
... all of those words and you could not even attempt to identify the sine qua non?
 

UGC

Active member
Joined
Jan 18, 2020
Messages
904
Reaction score
33
Points
28
all of those words and you could not even attempt to identify the sine qua non?
I could not even, ay my good man? Allow me to struggle to find my response.

Parroting the phrase "sine qua non" does not make one intelligent. In this case it made you look foolish.

Next time try implementing the sine qua non without birthing it in juxtaposition to a bandwagon fallacy validated by an appeal to authority fallacy held together by sweeping generalization to draw your final conclusion on the middle ground fallacy, all the while parrying empirical data with the slothful induction fallacy.

The mole "tmjbog" will perhaps better persuade others should he avoid post hoc ergo propter hoc and the occasional Tu quoque, though "logos" is more fond of the Tu quoque as a favorite. Ultimately, though, "tmjbog" is under the primary stronghold of equivocation whereby he wrests scripture.

"Logos" ironically argues from ethos rather than logos, perhaps he should change his name, but that's another story.

Ransom is just a liar who's too proud to admit when he's wrong whenever clear scripture is held up against his appeal to authority fallacies, but instead resorts to red herrings concealed behind ad hominem attacks to retain face.

I recommend all of you stop pretending to be professional analysts and go back to school. Let the professionals handle the professional work.
If you don't understand this post, don't bother appealing to The Personal Incredulity Fallacy and countering against a strawman of your own delusional imagination just to protect your ego. We all know I know precisely what I'm talking about.

And everyone else, look out for our next Bible Study with which we will dismantle all of the fallacies and lies that hold together that age old heresy "Covenant Theology".

Once the video is released, you will all see that non causa pro causa was in fact the fons et origo of your fallacious application of sine qua non.

And that, gentlemen. Is how it's done.
(Let this serve as a presage to all Calvinists dwelling in daring deception)

sherlockUGC.gif
 

Ransom

An admitted Calvinist, supposedly
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
7,730
Reaction score
118
Points
63
... all of those words and you could not even attempt to identify the sine qua non?
I could not even, ay my good man? Allow me to struggle to find my response.

[continues blabbing until he foams at the mouth and falls over]
So that will, once again, be a "no."
 
Top