Well done, brothers. Brett, good to hear and see you again. I’m very thankful for these three, exposing more of their misunderstanding. Its like sound words, when listened to (2 Tim. 1:13), are far from being heard. Some who hold the CT position. It should be scary, frankly, because the moment one hears of the Classic Protestant position on Bibliology, it should be a seeking that cannot be stopped and devouring of sources and insights until there is no going back. That is what confession Bibliology does; it is the answer the Christian knew along, and it is the very heartbeat in the storm that our Lord freely gave us to have as He prayed for us, “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth.” (Jn. 17:17). Thank you both for the edifying 2:28 hours that I was glad to spend what I will never get back. If we dealt transactionally with our time, maybe we would spend it strategically, like money invested, instead of listening to the world, the flesh, and the devil, who tells us we have all the time in the world, spend it! You can always make more. We only have so many seconds, minutes, hours, days… Ps. 90:12: “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.” Grace and Peace, John
I believe the Reformation Bible Society is the US counterpart to the Trinitarian Bible Society. I hope for God's great blessing on both. By the way, Im listening to this as I'm out working in my shop. Keeps my mind occupied and learn while I work. Thanks
Is it not rather odd that some of the CT crowd counts the Received Text to be inferior, and then turns around and wants to "correct" the Masoretic text with the shipwreck of the LXX? This is the classic glass house situation. They are repeating history due to their lack of understanding concerning what are the inspired texts. Thanks for your observations! ✅😊👍📖🙏
Ward and others like him will not ever deal with the biblical and historical theology. It's all modern methodology. It's so important to them because they don't have scriptural presuppositions and this is a tenuous, spider thin connection to a biblical argument. They never started with scripture. The Septuagint argument gives them a pseudo biblical argument. Brett, what is fundamentalism actually and what's wrong with it? Ruckman is not a representative of fundamentalism any more than independent Baptists are not orthodox Presbyterians. A gigantic percentage of fundamentalists reject Ruckman. You've got this wrong. Do you know the history of fundamentalism? What do you think of Machen, for instance? Do you repudiate him? What do you think of Christianity and Liberalism, his book? As I say that, I don't consider myself a fundamentalist, but I would figure it is for different reasons.
A lot of us of the old Fundamentalist type are treated as alien to the faith for either clinging to the scriptures or to the Holy Spirit. Adrian Rogers preached on the necessity of both (as did many other wonderful ministers).
Hi @Betbapt thank you for listening and thank you for your comment. I have read a lot on the history of fundamentalism and J. Gresham Machen. The trouble with fundamentalism is that it has many definitions because it does not define itself; as a movement, it opposed definition, because it opposed use of creeds, confessions, and catechisms, and therefore it defied definition. Non-Christians use the term fundamentalist to mean anyone who believes the Bible or Koran and takes the teachings seriously; that is not the meaning I am using in this video. The 12-volume set of essays called The Fundamentals had a lot of good things to say, and I believe we would all find a lot that we agree with, there. If agreement with things we find in those essays is fundamentalism, then maybe we are all fundamentalists, more or less. That is not the meaning I am using in the video. Another candidate for the meaning of Fundamentalism is someone who believes the five fundamentals (inerrancy, virgin birth, divinity of Christ, resurrection, second coming), though there is not one list of the five fundamentals. While I believe all five of those doctrines, I oppose reducing the Christian faith to five doctrines. If belief in those five doctrines is fundamentalism, then I suppose I am a fundamentalist, though I would oppose the term because Christianity is much richer than this; the Westminster Confession would be a much fuller expression of Christianity than the five fundamentals. Evangelicalism is another term that defies definition and constantly changes, just like fundamentalism, because evangelicalism is also reductionistic, reducing the Christian faith to just a few tenets. Some have said “a fundamentalist is just an evangelical who is angry.” I am afraid this is what you get when two terms are opposed to definition, but used often; in this sense, I don’t think I am fundamentalist. What I mean when I say fundamentalist, in the video, is a form of Christianity which may hold to the five fundamentals, but which tends to be anti-intellectual, anti-educational, anti-creedal, anti-catechism, anti-historical, anti-Calvinist, anti-infant baptism, anti-college, anti-seminary, opposes alcohol, opposes tobacco, opposes dancing, opposes movies, etc. In other words, it is a movement that is defined more by what it is opposed to, rather than what it positively affirms (think of the failure of 7-Up advertising as “the un-cola,” rather than saying what it is, they marketed what it wasn’t, which is why Sprite is still in existence and 7-Up largely is not). This is what I mean when I use the term fundamentalist, in the video. This form of Christianity can be quite bizarre. Among the few things it says, positively, are things about the King James Bible and the imminent return of Christ (usually dispensational premillenialism). Here you have an American movement that uses the KJV, but would not recognize itself in the KJV translators, who were some Puritans and mostly Anglican, creedal and paedobaptist; and the KJV translators would not recognize this form of fundamentalism as Christian; they would have seen it as a dangerous form of anabaptism. Many people have been harmed by fundamentalism, because of its divisiveness. I would oppose this form of fundamentalism just as much as I would oppose modernism/liberalism. Liberalism/modernism takes away from the word of God (Sadduceeism); fundamentalism adds manmade rules to the word of God (Phariseeism), like “Thou shalt not drink wine,” which God never said. I recommend Mark Ward’s long series called The Textual Confidence Collective, because although I don’t agree with plenty that they say, they are brothers who grew up in fundamentalism and they are like a recovery group, talking about how they learned to cope with their upbringings in fundamentalism. I have read Machen’s books, and used C&L as a textbook, and although by some definitions, he could be labeled a fundamentalist, I would oppose that title for him. Machen was a Confessional Protestant, not a fundamentalist. If the only options in “Christianity” are modernism/liberalism or fundamentalism, then I would go with the third option, the middle road, which is Confessional Protestantism. Wherever you are, brother, I encourage you to embrace Confessional Protestantism, and oppose those who add to or take away from the word of God. Join with Machen and me, if you are not there already; it really is the best of both worlds.
@@brettmahlen722 Brett, for anyone watching, this was much clearer. I agree with much of what you said. When you talk about someone being known for what he is against, I'm afraid that many times, the lost or disobedient brothers reveal what someone is against. In 1 Corinthians Paul is against about everything related to the church at Corinth. When you read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and those types of lists in the NT, they are lots of nots or negative things which are not in heaven or not in the kingdom of God. The ten commandments are almost all negative. Jesus very often went negative. If I stand against abortion and against same sex marriage and against transgenderism and against divorce and against fornication and against egalitarianism and against nudity, this is very often how it works, especially on cultural issues. Are you "for Game of Thrones"? Machen was against liberalism and every single one of the iterations of it. If you are going to be "for health," you must be "against disease." Just like Ward and his group try to slot you in the Ruckmanite-like KJVO category, you put these independent Baptists, all of them, into your very special representation of fundamentalism. I see those attacking fundamentalism (again, I don't claim to be one) still separating from others, but in an unscriptural form of it, much like one sees in the political realm, giving a cold shoulder and taking ad hominem pot shots from afar. Can we not just keep it to the doctrines and practices and find unity around what scripture says about it?
@@betbapt I believe there is a place for polemics; the whole Bible is polemical, and so should we be polemical. Every line of the Nicene Creed takes a shot at an error; every sentence of the Confessions and Catechisms corrects error. While polemic is essential to the Christian faith, I believe we should spend a lot of our time putting forth positive truth, than the opposite. Notice that the Nicene Creed positively teaches what is true. The same is with the 3 Forms of Unity, the Westminster Standards, and the London Baptist Confession; they are mostly positive statements of what we believe. We are simply seeking to put forth the positive case for what WCF/LBC 1:8 meant, and seeking to be faithful to our Confessions.
May the Lord have mercy upon us all; we have all fallen far short of the reformation attainments of our forefathers! These are days of declension, rather than days of reformation, as is evident all around us.
Well done, brothers. Brett, good to hear and see you again. I’m very thankful for these three, exposing more of their misunderstanding. Its like sound words, when listened to (2 Tim. 1:13), are far from being heard. Some who hold the CT position. It should be scary, frankly, because the moment one hears of the Classic Protestant position on Bibliology, it should be a seeking that cannot be stopped and devouring of sources and insights until there is no going back. That is what confession Bibliology does; it is the answer the Christian knew along, and it is the very heartbeat in the storm that our Lord freely gave us to have as He prayed for us, “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth.” (Jn. 17:17).
Thank you both for the edifying 2:28 hours that I was glad to spend what I will never get back. If we dealt transactionally with our time, maybe we would spend it strategically, like money invested, instead of listening to the world, the flesh, and the devil, who tells us we have all the time in the world, spend it! You can always make more.
We only have so many seconds, minutes, hours, days…
Ps. 90:12: “So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.”
Grace and Peace,
John
We are so happy you listened or watched!
I believe the Reformation Bible Society is the US counterpart to the Trinitarian Bible Society. I hope for God's great blessing on both. By the way, Im listening to this as I'm out working in my shop. Keeps my mind occupied and learn while I work. Thanks
Pastor Brett, thanks for sharing your ministry. I was in prison ministry for 18 years with my wife. Praying for your ministry. Thank you Dr. Riddle.
Thank you, Pastor Brett, for listening, and thank you for praying.
Don't forget to post episode 312 to your podcast feed!
Good stuff. Thank you, brothers.
Thank you!
Very insightful.
Is it not rather odd that some of the CT crowd counts the Received Text to be inferior, and then turns around and wants to "correct" the Masoretic text with the shipwreck of the LXX?
This is the classic glass house situation. They are repeating history due to their lack of understanding concerning what are the inspired texts. Thanks for your observations!
✅😊👍📖🙏
Yes, so very odd !
"Left-wing Ruckmanism" such a great term and accurate.
Thanks for watching or listening!
What was the source of the times the modern versions uses the Septuagint to correct the Masoretic?
Ward and others like him will not ever deal with the biblical and historical theology. It's all modern methodology. It's so important to them because they don't have scriptural presuppositions and this is a tenuous, spider thin connection to a biblical argument. They never started with scripture. The Septuagint argument gives them a pseudo biblical argument.
Brett, what is fundamentalism actually and what's wrong with it? Ruckman is not a representative of fundamentalism any more than independent Baptists are not orthodox Presbyterians. A gigantic percentage of fundamentalists reject Ruckman. You've got this wrong. Do you know the history of fundamentalism? What do you think of Machen, for instance? Do you repudiate him? What do you think of Christianity and Liberalism, his book? As I say that, I don't consider myself a fundamentalist, but I would figure it is for different reasons.
A lot of us of the old Fundamentalist type are treated as alien to the faith for either clinging to the scriptures or to the Holy Spirit. Adrian Rogers preached on the necessity of both (as did many other wonderful ministers).
@@brich2542 I loved Adrian Rogers' preaching!
Hi @Betbapt thank you for listening and thank you for your comment.
I have read a lot on the history of fundamentalism and J. Gresham Machen. The trouble with fundamentalism is that it has many definitions because it does not define itself; as a movement, it opposed definition, because it opposed use of creeds, confessions, and catechisms, and therefore it defied definition.
Non-Christians use the term fundamentalist to mean anyone who believes the Bible or Koran and takes the teachings seriously; that is not the meaning I am using in this video.
The 12-volume set of essays called The Fundamentals had a lot of good things to say, and I believe we would all find a lot that we agree with, there. If agreement with things we find in those essays is fundamentalism, then maybe we are all fundamentalists, more or less. That is not the meaning I am using in the video.
Another candidate for the meaning of Fundamentalism is someone who believes the five fundamentals (inerrancy, virgin birth, divinity of Christ, resurrection, second coming), though there is not one list of the five fundamentals. While I believe all five of those doctrines, I oppose reducing the Christian faith to five doctrines. If belief in those five doctrines is fundamentalism, then I suppose I am a fundamentalist, though I would oppose the term because Christianity is much richer than this; the Westminster Confession would be a much fuller expression of Christianity than the five fundamentals.
Evangelicalism is another term that defies definition and constantly changes, just like fundamentalism, because evangelicalism is also reductionistic, reducing the Christian faith to just a few tenets. Some have said “a fundamentalist is just an evangelical who is angry.” I am afraid this is what you get when two terms are opposed to definition, but used often; in this sense, I don’t think I am fundamentalist.
What I mean when I say fundamentalist, in the video, is a form of Christianity which may hold to the five fundamentals, but which tends to be anti-intellectual, anti-educational, anti-creedal, anti-catechism, anti-historical, anti-Calvinist, anti-infant baptism, anti-college, anti-seminary, opposes alcohol, opposes tobacco, opposes dancing, opposes movies, etc. In other words, it is a movement that is defined more by what it is opposed to, rather than what it positively affirms (think of the failure of 7-Up advertising as “the un-cola,” rather than saying what it is, they marketed what it wasn’t, which is why Sprite is still in existence and 7-Up largely is not). This is what I mean when I use the term fundamentalist, in the video. This form of Christianity can be quite bizarre. Among the few things it says, positively, are things about the King James Bible and the imminent return of Christ (usually dispensational premillenialism). Here you have an American movement that uses the KJV, but would not recognize itself in the KJV translators, who were some Puritans and mostly Anglican, creedal and paedobaptist; and the KJV translators would not recognize this form of fundamentalism as Christian; they would have seen it as a dangerous form of anabaptism. Many people have been harmed by fundamentalism, because of its divisiveness. I would oppose this form of fundamentalism just as much as I would oppose modernism/liberalism.
Liberalism/modernism takes away from the word of God (Sadduceeism); fundamentalism adds manmade rules to the word of God (Phariseeism), like “Thou shalt not drink wine,” which God never said.
I recommend Mark Ward’s long series called The Textual Confidence Collective, because although I don’t agree with plenty that they say, they are brothers who grew up in fundamentalism and they are like a recovery group, talking about how they learned to cope with their upbringings in fundamentalism.
I have read Machen’s books, and used C&L as a textbook, and although by some definitions, he could be labeled a fundamentalist, I would oppose that title for him. Machen was a Confessional Protestant, not a fundamentalist.
If the only options in “Christianity” are modernism/liberalism or fundamentalism, then I would go with the third option, the middle road, which is Confessional Protestantism.
Wherever you are, brother, I encourage you to embrace Confessional Protestantism, and oppose those who add to or take away from the word of God. Join with Machen and me, if you are not there already; it really is the best of both worlds.
@@brettmahlen722 Brett, for anyone watching, this was much clearer. I agree with much of what you said. When you talk about someone being known for what he is against, I'm afraid that many times, the lost or disobedient brothers reveal what someone is against.
In 1 Corinthians Paul is against about everything related to the church at Corinth. When you read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and those types of lists in the NT, they are lots of nots or negative things which are not in heaven or not in the kingdom of God. The ten commandments are almost all negative. Jesus very often went negative. If I stand against abortion and against same sex marriage and against transgenderism and against divorce and against fornication and against egalitarianism and against nudity, this is very often how it works, especially on cultural issues. Are you "for Game of Thrones"? Machen was against liberalism and every single one of the iterations of it. If you are going to be "for health," you must be "against disease."
Just like Ward and his group try to slot you in the Ruckmanite-like KJVO category, you put these independent Baptists, all of them, into your very special representation of fundamentalism. I see those attacking fundamentalism (again, I don't claim to be one) still separating from others, but in an unscriptural form of it, much like one sees in the political realm, giving a cold shoulder and taking ad hominem pot shots from afar. Can we not just keep it to the doctrines and practices and find unity around what scripture says about it?
@@betbapt I believe there is a place for polemics; the whole Bible is polemical, and so should we be polemical. Every line of the Nicene Creed takes a shot at an error; every sentence of the Confessions and Catechisms corrects error. While polemic is essential to the Christian faith, I believe we should spend a lot of our time putting forth positive truth, than the opposite. Notice that the Nicene Creed positively teaches what is true. The same is with the 3 Forms of Unity, the Westminster Standards, and the London Baptist Confession; they are mostly positive statements of what we believe. We are simply seeking to put forth the positive case for what WCF/LBC 1:8 meant, and seeking to be faithful to our Confessions.
CBGM = Chimera Based Genealogical Method
I love it!
Those 3 guys don't like the answer so they pretend there is no answer.
May the Lord have mercy upon us all; we have all fallen far short of the reformation attainments of our forefathers! These are days of declension, rather than days of reformation, as is evident all around us.