What is the sine-qua-non of a Fundamentalist
- Thread starter FSSL
- Start date
...No, I think you need to work on your sense of humor.
It's bordering asperger's (not to make fun of individuals with asperger's, it's a real condition).
Threatening to sue others, especially in text-only format (we aren't in person) without explicitly making it clear that you're joking is not typically interpreted by most people as "humor".
This might help explain why your forum is so wild and generally unmanaged, it's like the wild wild west in here, man.
I recommend tightening up the standards at least a little bit.
It is good that you're attempting to clarify what you all define as "the fundamentals" here, that is a start.
And it's why I've been posting in here so much, because I can see that something productive might actually come out of it.
These are public forums that are attempting to represent a wide range of Fundamental Baptist and Dispensational colleges that otherwise don't have much online visibility outside of their personal websites, so I do think these things are somewhat important; at least worth a portion of our time to see how it all plays out here at UGC.
"wild," "generally unmanaged" "wild west"... I agree! It will remain that way. I do like to engage in the serious discussion, but fundamental churches are wild, wild west, and generally unmanaged... unless your hair covers your ears and your woman wears pants, then management comes down on you! Fundamentalists describe their pulpits as hot and their people as sheep... They solicit "Preach it!" and "Park it right there!" from their audiences. So, this forum will never become the stodgy CARM or the one-man-show, Trinity-denying Pure Bible Believer's forum.
That's not what that means. I said in my first post on this thread: if you want to get more inclusive of multiple denominations, it's your free will to do so.
It will actually be good to clarify that publicly so people can easily understand what to expect when they come here.
UGC initially came here and saw all of the Fundamental Baptist and Dispensational colleges with their own top threads in addition to the name "Fundamental Forums", and this led us to think we'd found a like-minded crowd. Then suddenly every single thread posted after our arrival was attacking the KJV and obsessing over Ruckman's flaws; it just didn't jive with how people will interpret your brand.
If you want to be a more inclusive forum where multiple denominations can come share their differing viewpoints, that's great. I know other forums that do that, but you need to make that clear in your presentation so people coming here know what to expect and how to approach their interactions with you. And, more importantly, you'll scare everyone from all those denominations away anyway if you bandwagon harass them and make it your sole mission in life to create ten back-to-back threads attacking their preferred pastor or Bible teacher, or Bible version. That's not going to win anyone to your side, nor does it make your forum look open and tolerant: it actually makes it look like a cult. This is why the same 4 or 5 people are the only ones still posting, and have been allowed to bully and police everyone who isn't a Calvinist that prefers the New Versions, without clear standards to keep it all in check.
If you want this to be open and tolerant to multiple denominations, make that clear. If that's the case, UGC for one will adjust its approach on how we engage with people in here to keep the setting in mind. Until now the setting is portrayed by all those top threads, in connection with the name as a place for Fundamental Baptists, which is why UGC was taking a stand to maintain some level of respect for the KJV, Dispensationalism, and for KJV teachers. It's really up to you, but communication is everything: we all have to strive to make our message clear.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 989
- Reaction score
- 472
- Points
- 63
The reason we have been "obsessing over Ruckman's flaws" is because you came on board and started ramming Rucky down our throats and demanding that we submit to Dead Petey. Since you are so thin-skinned about it as FSSL has correctly observed, why don't you just back off if you can't handle the heat. As for "maintaining some level of respect for . . . KJV teachers" if they are anything like you, then they are going to get the same amount of respect from me as what Rodney Daingerfield gets - that is to say, not much.
Ruckmanism is a small, microcosm of Fundamentalism. I live 30 minutes away from Ruckman's old stomping grounds in Pensacola and most Christians I talk to dont recognize his name.
I don't remember a follower of Ruckman at my Independent Baptist College (Maranatha)... and certainly not at my Independent Baptist Seminary (DBTS). So, Ruckman does not define Fundamentalism. His influence was limited.
I attempted to layout the historical realities of Fundamentalism. Clearly, you think Fundamentalism is "Baptist-only." That is not how Fundamentalist began. For 75 years, the term "Fundamentalism" included a wide variety of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists and Episcopalians. Most of these groups chose the word "conservative" to disassociate with some of the craziness that developed. My fundamentalist Baptist pastor went to Wheaton College and knew the missionary Jim Elliot... while Wheaton could hardly be called "fundamental" and "conservative," these days... it certainly filled the pulpits of many fundamentalist and conservative Baptist churches...
This does not mean that I believe Fundamentalism is ecumenical. It does mean that I recognize that many non-Baptists hold to the same believes that sprung from the Niagara Bible Conference.
This forum grew from other forums that are now defunct. This forum is flavored by a large contingent of Hyles-Anderson alumni, hence the Colleges represented on this forum are primarily Baptist/ic.
I don't remember a follower of Ruckman at my Independent Baptist College (Maranatha)... and certainly not at my Independent Baptist Seminary (DBTS). So, Ruckman does not define Fundamentalism. His influence was limited.
I attempted to layout the historical realities of Fundamentalism. Clearly, you think Fundamentalism is "Baptist-only." That is not how Fundamentalist began. For 75 years, the term "Fundamentalism" included a wide variety of Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists and Episcopalians. Most of these groups chose the word "conservative" to disassociate with some of the craziness that developed. My fundamentalist Baptist pastor went to Wheaton College and knew the missionary Jim Elliot... while Wheaton could hardly be called "fundamental" and "conservative," these days... it certainly filled the pulpits of many fundamentalist and conservative Baptist churches...
This does not mean that I believe Fundamentalism is ecumenical. It does mean that I recognize that many non-Baptists hold to the same believes that sprung from the Niagara Bible Conference.
This forum grew from other forums that are now defunct. This forum is flavored by a large contingent of Hyles-Anderson alumni, hence the Colleges represented on this forum are primarily Baptist/ic.
Right on we're victims here we don't attack any of yer all's preachers (much) or if we do it's in a loving Ruckmanite way. We don't attack any of yer all Bible versions or if we do it's in a loving Ruckmanite way. Any you know how us Rucky's honor openness and tolerance. So I want all of you Alexandrian Gurrrly men to start being more tolerant immediately. As UGC is the most flawless person I've met I thought I'd give you lesser folks a lessen in tolerance. Below is a collection of a few of UGC's tolerant posts.
"Only if they blatantly skipped over the works salvation verses inserted by the Theosophists."
"I don't know why anyone would want to use a version with so many holes that could cause them to be placed under a false gospel when there's a perfectly good alternative."
"This is why Dr. Ruckman was a genius, and real recognize real.
It's also why Calvin was an idiot, as were those who put the LBCF together.
And mostly it's why those who both follow Calvin and attack Ruckman are the biggest idiots of all."
"Anti-KJV people are basically just tools going along with the pop church culture of the times. Every Christian with half a brain from the 1600's to 1900 would think you're the crazy new cult on the block trying to change their tried and true Bible with these crap-u-scripts. But no, your 300 "New Versions" (marketing pitch: choose the one that suits you best!) are doing a great job in our time, their fruits are really showing in society. Compared to "back in the day", there's no apostasy in the first world at all right now."
Actually his doctrines are currently represented and taught by the largest Baptist Church internet ministries in the entire world, with the widest reach in the entire world.
Look into Robert Breaker and Dr. Gene Kim as just two examples.
Each of their YouTube channels by itself has more total followers, and specifically a larger Baptist following, than if you were to multiply the total number of attendees for the largest megachurch in the world, Joel Osteen's megachurch, 5 times over.
And this is being conservative with the numbers.
The largest megachurch in the world actually has a capacity of 16,800, but "officially" lists 40,000 members in total attendance combining all weekend services together.
If we were to actually go by the potential reach each service has, just one of Ruckman's students' followers would actually total 11 times the number of the largest megachurch in the world.
Sorry, but it looks like the people have spoken: People are hungry for what the Bible has to say to them, and they're going to Ruckman's students.
So while you may attend a 200 person "Fundamental" church that uses the NIV, there is a massive awakening going on in Christendom across the world that you're missing.
Evidence:
(Keep in mind, Joel Osteen's massive megachurch 40K attendees combines all weekend services)
And these are only 2 examples of Ruckman's students (and how much more influential is the internet in times of COVID-19).
"Ruckmanism is a small, microcosm of Fundamentalism." -Some hermit living in the Stone Age
(Keep in mind, Joel Osteen's massive megachurch 40K attendees combines all weekend services)
And these are only 2 examples of Ruckman's students (and how much more influential is the internet in times of COVID-19).
"Ruckmanism is a small, microcosm of Fundamentalism." -Some hermit living in the Stone Age
We had hoped you would not bring Gene Kim up. Yes I know he gets lots of views. Some of our deeper analytics have shown that there are some of the Alexandrian type who, to put it bluntly, watch his videos for their comedic value. We see places all over the internet where Alexandrians are linking to his videos.
I'm sure.
Everyone wait and see what the Bible has to say in our next video. Remember folks, our final authority is the Bible, not Ruckman, not Calvin, and not a Confessional. What separates us from the Catholics, what Luther himself stood upon, was that our final authority is the Bible, not any organization.
Of that, we can all agree on. So let's wait and see what the Bible has to say.
Until then, feel free to catch up with our recent video Bible study:
You fail to practice what you preach since you do not demonstrate from the Bible that it clearly teaches your human KJV-only reasoning/teaching.
As soundly noted before, you present no positive, clear, consistent, sound, just, true, scriptural case for modern KJV-only teaching.
KJV-onlyism in effect makes the opinions and traditions of men a greater authority than Thus saith the LORD. Some KJV-only advocates make Peter Ruckman a greater authority than what the Scriptures state. You appeal to a video made by fallible men instead of to the Scriptures.
He's back at it again!
Why don't you specifically point out to me which verse in that video was taken out of context.
Or are we allergic to talking about what's in the Bible here at FundamentalForums,
and only want to talk around the Bible.
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 15,057
- Reaction score
- 1,056
- Points
- 113
Neither does Hyles, yet so many think he does.
To be truthful I had gotten used to it just be the two of us. You know the "Dynamic Duo" putting those Calvinists in their place. I guess if you want to bring the good doctor in I can respect that. There are a few issues...maybe concerns would be a better word. He's got some shall we say unorthodox ideas. The one about cats being demons I'm not necessarily opposed to-I've never been a fan of cats. The problem is how do market this new doctrine. Polling showed we were getting hammered on our plans of savation doctrines (maybe because we don't have the 7th one yet?). So it hit me-Music. If we want people receptive to this new truth we need to jazz it up. So I'm putting you in charge (you've got the music degree) of giving us some sort of a demon cat ballad. Maybe play around with the words demon cat - democrat? Anyway it's your project lets help the good Dr. Kim get the reception he deserves.
Like logos666, a grand total of 0.00% of your response addressed any of the specific verses directly from the Bible in our video.
It means you employed the avoiding the issue fallacy and are now red herring.
You quoted my video in your previous post, then attempted to bash it by addressing absolutely nothing in it.
Why don't you have a pleasant little watch so you aren't unaware of how everyone else who's already seen it is learning just how silly Calvinism is.
I see what you mean about Logos. A typical Alexandrian refuses to view our videos showcasing our brilliance. I'm just thinking out loud here but did you tell him you were going to explain the long awaited 7th method of salvation? If that doesn't work we could always hold a raffle. You know get some prizes to give away, call numbers in the middle of the video, that sort of thing. I'll talk to marketing as well. I've some other ideas in works we can discuss later-don't worry I'm here to help.