Lance Ketchum on "Authentic Fundamentalism," Hyper-Fundamentalism, Hyper-Calvinism, and "Young Fundamentalists"
Having lived in the Midwest and now being on the East Coast for the last 25 years this is just so foreign. I find it comical that they have 7 followers on the website. Once again I’m guessing they are a significant segment of the Church they must number in the 10’s of hundreds … well 7.
Indeed. One of these seven followers is Lance himself …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’m happy these types of folks are homebodies. They never seem to cross the Great American Desert.
Ahh, the nicety of living on the western side of the Continental Divide.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Another hit piece by the “Dr” who demonstrates a lack of understanding. Being able to read various authors doesn’t mean you understand them “Dr”. It is this point that is glaringly obvious. The only people who are encouraging the “Dr” to continue are those who have an axe to grind or are simply even more ignorant than him. Gone are the days when butchers can say whatever they want from the pulpit and not be fact checked. When the screechers even have to correct him on hyper calvinism, you know he was way off.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I had the opportunity to meet and hear Dr. David Brown when he spoke at a church I attended. That church’s pastor was an ardent five point Calvinist and he and Dr. Brown were and are good friends. Lance needs to watch his back.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Ron, good counsel, you just wrongly judge who needs to watch their back. The fundamentalist illuminati has those like the “Dr” put out nonsense to further enslave the ignorant. The sheep who have outwitted the butchers know enough to not return.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
There needs to be some balance here in evaluating Ketchum’s views. I find myself agreeing with some things he has to say while disagreeing with others.
Undoubtedly, he is right about the KJV/TR point. Reformed churches (Baptist and Presbyterian) historically embraced the TR as the “authentical text” as a counterpoint to Rome’s Alexandrian Vulgate Text. The modern CT perspective that is gaining ground in modern Fundamentalism is a departure from the historical position. I can posit a long list of historical quotes to demonstrate that.
Where Ketchum jumps off the deep end is his view on separation and definitions of what constitutes a fundamentalist. He seems to forget the overwhelming numbers of historic fundamentalists were non-IFB theologians and pastors. Chafer, Scofield, Frank E. Gaebelein, Dwight Pentecost, Vernon McGee, Lloyd Jones, Machen, Paisley, McIntire, Jones (Sr and Jr), were all Presbyterian/Congregationalists in polity. Even men like TT Shields the Toronto Baptist was avowedly Amillennial. Men like Clarence Sexton who embraces non-IFB pastors in his associations is only following in that tradition of defining a “fundamentalist” as someone beyond the dispensational pre-Trib IFB group. Here in Singapore almost no fundamentalist is an IFB. The vast majority are Presbyterian with a small minority of Reformed Baptists.
My Blog: www.oldfaith.wordpress.com
Church Sermons: Cornerstone Sermon Audio
But for those who have a touch of integrity and do wish to discovr more about Ketchum, he has a large body of material with constant exegesis underpinning his teaching on various topics and texts. But that might spoil what you have already determined to only believe about Ketchum.
“Boo hoo you are so mean, one-sided and unfair to (fill in the blank)”, I hear whined quite often when some CE or NE has his work criticized so as to imply these ones crying would never be so one-sided. I guess and the crying was just an act.
I disagree with any form of King Jamesism. I do, however, recognize textual origins which is the basis of his concern, not the inspired translation of the onlyists. That argument is historical whether you agree with his position or not.
I am not a fundamentalist in identification. In fact we have been attending a denominational church recently. But if I had a choice between Lance Ketchum and John Piper, well Lance actually exegetes and Piper invents things often via rationalism mixed with various Bible texts.
Alex,
I am not sure one poison tasting better than another is a valid approval system.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
LOL Chip, that is true but if we are identifying poisons, we ought to be willing to identify them all.
Totally agree.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[PSFerguson] Undoubtedly, he is right about the KJV/TR point. Reformed churches (Baptist and Presbyterian) historically embraced the TR as the “authentical text” as a counterpoint to Rome’s Alexandrian Vulgate Text. The modern CT perspective that is gaining ground in modern Fundamentalism is a departure from the historical position. I can posit a long list of historical quotes to demonstrate that.Actually, that’s not right. People used the KJ because it was the best out there. But as better translations came along, making improvements on the KJ, historic leaders clung to the originals, not the translations. Spurgeon is a perfect example. He was more than willing to use a better translation when he felt it existed. This is just one example from his preaching.
“Notice that I made a correction in the version from which I am reading. The Authorized Version has it [i.e., Isaiah 9:3] , ‘Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy.’ This is not consistent with the connection; and the Revised Version has very properly put it, ‘Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased their joy.’ I have not any learning to display; but I think I could show you, if this were the proper time, how the passage came to be read with a ‘not’, and I could also prove to you that, in this instance, the Revisers were right in making their alteration.”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. 38 (1892)
Sermon #2265, p. 337
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Discussion