(avoiding the issue fallacy, means he's terrified to implement his usual red herring, though ad hominem may follow) Don't worry Ransom, your ad verecundiam of both LBCF and Calvin himself will fall apart with our next video.
What is the sine-qua-non of a Fundamentalist
- Thread starter FSSL
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,040
- Reaction score
- 2,132
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Actually, "terrified" is an adjective describing how the noun, you, was modified to react via avoiding the issue in stead of your customary red herring, and not your incessant character, as your character was not modified in said response the same way your routine was, neither is "terrified" an adjective of character, but of experiential transience.
Projecting.
You know it will.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,040
- Reaction score
- 2,132
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,040
- Reaction score
- 2,132
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Also, UGC needs to stick to the issue of the OP. There have been enough threads hijacked by his incessant need to respond to every perceived threat to his precision Ruckmanism.
How wonderful it must be to be stupid (that was ad hominem). In the same way, Calvin and all Covenant Theologians generalize the scriptures to their peril rather than simply reading all of the verses and believing them. Instead they isolate a few and stretch a fallacious interpretation of them across all of scripture via hasty generalization.
Ad hominem means to the character of a man as opposed to his transient state, which is a practical tell in HUMINT, and empirical evidence of his motives, which elucidate his defenses and therefore the holes in his arguments. If it meant to the man in the general blanketed sense, everything describing the man would be ad hominem, and therefore one must also conclude that all of the aforementioned collection methods are unreliable. Of course, they aren't just reliable, professionals actively rely on them with consistently accurate results when analyzed in cohesion with other tensors.
Ruckman was not mentioned in my previous post. Red herring to strawman. He's returning to the only thing familiar to him. Grasping at straws. Breathe, Ransom. Breathe. It's not going to kill you to admit you aren't the smartest man in the universe, and neither was Calvin. Only God can hold that title, and if you really want to increase in knowledge, you need to know his book. Attack his book, and he will chasten you.
"...God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble." -James 4:6
Is there any more proud endeavor than standing over the King James Bible in judgment of God's words? Doubt it not.
We can all now see who needs to read that book.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,040
- Reaction score
- 2,132
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
You realize this thread has a topic, right? And it's not what you keep wanting to talk about?
(notice the return of the routine red herring, verifying my analysis)
I do realize it has a topic, Ransom. the title of this thread is "What is the sine qua non of a Fundamentalist" (incorrect syntax for what the OP implies, rendering his application of sine qua non inapt and ironically conveying the opposite of his intent to flex his intellect, but we give him a pass because he hasn't tried to fake a high IQ as much as you).
I was responding to OP's post in kind, to which he applied the avoiding the issue fallacy and responded with:
"all of those words [notice how he now addresses none of "those words" but instead says] and you could not even attempt to identify the sine qua non?" (unaware that he himself doesn't understand the sine qua non, therefore in direct response to his question, I clarified this in addition to defining the very nature of this thread).
My response was:
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)
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,040
- Reaction score
- 2,132
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
and
Something tells me these two points are not unrelated. Back in the early days of the FFF, about the time Hyles assumed hell temperature, I seem to recall that there was practically an arms race between various camps of fundamental Baptists, based on more and more theological insignificant minutiae.
It probably wasn't just eschatological differences in the 1960s. I was listening to Phil Johnson's seminar "Dead Right" from the 2005 Shepherd's Conference, about the failure of fundamentalism. He says that when he graduated from Moody in the early 1970s, the movement had splintered over personalities, shallow theology and evangelism, bickering amongst leadership, anti-intellectualism, and moral failure.
The first major point of the seminar is that fundamentalism lacked definition: even from the beginning, there was no consensus on what constituted a true fundamental of the case. Johnson remarks, for example, that The Fundamentals said nothing about original sin. Little wonder, then, that the fundamentalist movement latched on men like Charles Finney (who denied original sin) or Billy Sunday (better known for his pulpit theatrics than theological rigour) as the heroes of the faith.
Militancy is good, of course. Spurgeon militated against the downgrade within the Baptist Union in his day. But he was fighting against real, soul-damning theological rot--not the timing of the Rapture, the Blessed Version King James Bible, whether John MacArthur "denies the blood," or other such nonsense.
Johnson also notes the insane factiousness that higher-order "separation" leads to. For example: "A fundamentalist pastor friend told me that the main reason he could never attend a Shepherds' Conference or have anything to do with John MacArthur is because MacArthur hasn't broken fellowship with Al Mohler, and Mohler has a connection to Billy Graham, and therefore MacArthur is not a truly separated man." That, if you're counting, is fifth-order separation:
- The fundamentalist pastor friend would be connected to the Shepherds' Conference.
- Shepherds' Conference is connected to John MacArthur.
- MacArthur is connected to Al Mohler.
- Mohler is connected to Billy Graham.
- Graham is connected to Roman Catholics.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,040
- Reaction score
- 2,132
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
What contributed to the splintering? See the list of colleges below. Each on, vying for its unique space in Fundamentalism. Bob Jones saw itself as the very bastion of Fundamentalism with Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptists all co-mingled. Maranatha Baptist viewed Pillsbury as more liberal (cause of the falling out between two personalities (Cedarholm vs Clearwaters). Tennessee Temple? Well, they were a fringe, fundamental school. GARBC colleges? Other colleges saw them as just small microcosms of the liberal Cedarville. These attitudes were expressed, daily at both the college and seminary levels.
I would add to Johnson's list... these colleges had the need to remain competitive in the small fundamentalism "marketplace." The one who could claim to be the leading Fundamentalist school, without compromise, was the winner! (... and develop easy-to-gain doctorates to build loyalties among the fundamental churches to gain students from said churches).
Unfortunately, all of this will fly over UGC's head. He rejects Historical Theology as being pertinent here and has not been able to even enunciate what Fundamentalism really is. He is stuck on mocking a commonly used phrase found in solid, current, theology books and journals. (Which indicates he never reads them).
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,040
- Reaction score
- 2,132
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
David Doran of DBTS quipped, in his response to Phil's seminar, that there was a time when if you wanted to start a fundamentalist school, you had to justify its existence by picking a fight.
Funny how the further left someone is on the Dunning-Kruger, the more resistant they are to new information. Apparently FFF is still unaware of the vast difference between his NIV education and what UGC has posted in this thread so far, which is why he's had to shut off his brain by implementing nonstop avoiding the issue fallacies by diverting his gaze each time they are posted, no doubt having read a grand total of 1% of UGC's posts here, and understanding 0%. Maintaining ego by upholding the delusion takes clear precedence.
Notice the persistent determination to validate his ecumenical stance via ad hoc reductio ad absurdum.
First the illiterate attempt to flaunt feigned intellect with sine qua non, and now masquerading ecumenicalism as unity by juxtaposing it against yet another fabricated extreme grounded on false pretense: "splintering". The tenuous implication? Disagree with FFF's ecumenical definition of "fundamental" and you can only be divisively "splintering" into your own variant of "fundamental", thereby concluding that the only true definition of fundamental is his ecumenical one which combines all of them. A classically deceptive bandwagon fallacy validating the middle ground fallacy, verifying my prior analysis and my current statement which he did not read it (nor understand it if he did).
Therefore, because FFF can identify sample sets of people who did not wholly agree on the matter, he concludes that the definition of fundamental cannot be held by any one group due to these variations and therefore that no one group claiming it does can possibly have the answer. The Personal Incredulity Fallacy (making sure the font is visible here, so that he is without excuse), verifying my prior analysis.
The question avoided: was Bob Jones right or wrong? Why? Notice the intellectually lazy pettiness of the personal incredulity fallacy.
Ecumenicalism.
The question avoided: which one was right and which was one wrong. Were both wrong? Why?
And here we see the crux of FFF's motives. He is terrified of how other men see him, so much so that this dominates his rationale while truth, which only God can reveal to him, has taken a backseat. The fact is, it doesn't matter how many people disagree with you, if you happen to right and they're wrong, they're wrong and you're right. Instead, FFF's focus is designed to red herring away from truth itself by concluding definitive truth "unknowable" and redirecting his reader to the middle ground fallacy by appealing to reductio ad absurdum.
Naturally he strawman's the extreme. UGC has never claimed such a sweeping notion. In reality, FFF has conducted a poor comparative analysis of sweepingly generalized historical data sets and then prioritized them via hasty generalization on the appeal to authority fallacy (the one they must ignore at all costs, for if they acknowledged it, they must give scripture itself higher precedence, another reason they must detract from any definitive accessibility of said scripture via personal incredulity).
Again validating bent to appeal to authority by echoed tendency.
I'm certain this will fly over FFF's head, but we do have humble readers out there who aren't partial to ecumenicalism who will understand and appreciate this exposure quite well.
... and the most basic tenants of Fundamentalism, historically, are?
This is at least your FOURTH opportunity to contribute to the OP.
We are 34 posts in and you haven't contributed.
This is at least your FOURTH opportunity to contribute to the OP.
We are 34 posts in and you haven't contributed.
And your fourth refusal to specifically address anything I said.
Everyone sees, FFF. Everyone. Does this frighten you? It shouldn't. You should be worried about what God sees.
Go back and actually read my posts before lying in your heart before God.
Why should I address anything you said.... when you can't address the OP?
Your response is childish. We do put people in time-outs when they are hijacking threads and not contributing to them.
Your response is childish. We do put people in time-outs when they are hijacking threads and not contributing to them.
While off-topic for this thread, you will claim to prove things that you do not actually prove to be true. You avoid and ignore some of the historical facts concerning the Church of England's doctrinal views leading up to 1611. Are you unaware that the Puritans were Calvinists so that any Puritan-leaning KJV translators would have been Calvinists?
During the period of 1604-1610, back up your own claim and name the specific KJV translators that you can prove to be "not Calvinist." It will be interesting to see if you can provide any documented quotations from writings of "many" KJV translators during the years 1604-1610 that support Arminianism and oppose Calvinism. Can you identify even ten out of the 47 to 52 KJV translators who were Arminian?
John Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury (1583-1604), had "shared the strong Calvinist theology of the Puritans" (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 397). In 1595, the Lambeth Articles had been approved by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. The Lambeth "Articles were intended to be a supplement to the Thirty-Nine Articles, and they express a Calvinistic doctrine of predestination" (p. 399).
There is historical evidence that during the period of 1604-1610 those in positions of authority in the Church of England had to endorse and accept all Thirty-nine Articles. William Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Gerald Berry noted that after the 1604 canons, "subscription to them [the Thirty-Nine Articles] was regularly insisted upon" (Documents of the English Reformation, p. 397). Maurice Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172).
King James VI had been taught by Presbyterian Calvinist tutors in Scotland. In 1611, King James I appointed KJV translator George Abbott, a Calvinist, to be Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1618, King James I sent delegates to represent the Church of England at the Synod of Dort, and those delegates supported Calvinism as the position of the Church of England. The controversy concerning Arminius in the Netherlands that led up to the Synod of Dort did not develop until 1610 in the Netherlands, which makes it unlikely that any KJV translators were writing in support of Arminius.
The Arminians gained favor or support in the Church of England after 1618, during the 1620's and later especially under Archbishop Laud. Perhaps you are trying to rewrite the history of the Church of England by trying to insert post-1620's thinking into the period of 1604-1610.
Those very few KJV translators which can be identified as being Arminian depends for the most part upon their views stated after 1611 or even after 1620.
Last edited:
The problem is he must deny history in order for his attacks on Calvinists involved in modern versions to hold any credibility.
(Notice how no one is calling out "logos" for veering off-topic. The bias of these emotional, tribally-dependent amateurs is evident. Don't worry, I will salvage this by connecting this topic to "the fundamentals of the faith", see if you can find where below)
As I've stated before, "logos", you talk more than you think.
"King James was very hostile to the Arminians. He soon, however, became more lenient toward them, when convinced by Bishop Laud, that the laxity and pliancy of Arminianism made it far more supple and convenient for the purposes of “kingcraft” and civil despotism, than the stiff and unyielding temper of Calvinism"
Not all of them supported the Anglican Church, as some were Puritan, and multiple sources list Arminian members of the committee as well (an explanation on why Arminianism didn't just suddenly pop out of the woodwork once the Church of England "officially" cozied up to it later below).
Then all we need is one example from the Arminian camp, which is the staunch enemy camp of Calvinism, as this alone will refute your position that "all" of them were Calvinist.
"Richard Thomson, sometimes spelled Thompson, was a Dutch-born English theologian and translator. He was Fellow of Clare Hall, Cambridge and the translator of Martial's epigrams and among the "First Westminster Company" charged by James I of England with the translation of the first 12 books of the King James Version of the Bible. He was also known for his intemperance and his doctrinal belief in Arminianism."
The Puritans:
"Some Protestants thought that the Anglican Church was still too much like the Catholic church. These people became known as Puritans.
...persecution of Puritans meant that most members of this religious group supported Parliament, whereas most Anglicans and Catholics tended to favour the royalists."
Notice how numerous Protestants were staunchly against corruption in the Anglican Church that echoed the Catholic Church.
"Though the Church of England in 1600 may have been unscriptural in its episcopal form of church polity, views on baptism, and an incipient lack of evangelistic fervor... The Church of England at the end of the nineteenth century still was wrong in its polity and views on baptism, but it had become completely apostate concerning the fundamentals of the faith. Though orthodox on paper, the Anglican Church by the twentieth century had loosed its moorings, effectively departing from the faith once delivered to the saints. It had become intoxicated with the liquor of German Rationalism and therefore died spiritually. Westcott and Hort clearly exhibited this in their writings."
The King James translators "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."
An example of one Puritan who represented numerous other Puritans on the board:
"Dr. Lawrence Chaderton was described as a "staunch Puritan," godly, learned, and full of moderation. He also had a reputation of being a "pious Protestant," who after being converted from Catholicism turned his back on Rome. He was familiar in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew and was "thoroughly skilled in them." When appointed to the translation committee, he was described as being "the most grave, learned, and modest of the aggrieved sort" to represent the Puritan faction of the committee. He also was noted as an excellent preacher (82-89)."
And another:
"Dr. John Reynolds originally was a Catholic until he was converted to Christ by his brother. He went on to become a leader of the Puritan movement within the Church of England."
As we can see here, the Puritan movement was happening within the church of England. Meaning members of the Church of England did not agree with all its doctrinal or political views. Why? Keep reading.
Of course, by this point we can already conclude that to argue "all of the King James Translators agreed with the Church of England's doctrinal views" is ludicrous. All you needed was one example of an Arminian to disprove this deceptive claim.
Now with the above post #39 completely refuting that fallacious claim (don't be lazy now, find out which fallacy on your own this time),
Since you somehow missed this bold subtitle in my previous explanation of why they did not all follow the Church of England's doctrinal views,
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.
Since you somehow missed this bold subtitle in my previous explanation of why they did not all follow the Church of England's doctrinal views,
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.