Morphing off of a Facebook post by Pastor Jason Skipper, October 2025.
“M’s” you can mention in order to get in a big fuss with someone:
- Men only as preachers
- Music in church
- Modesty in apparel
- Manuscripts of the Bible
Showing posts with label Controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Controversy. Show all posts
Saturday, February 14, 2026
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
Yes, Doug, I am a genealogist
“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer
Last week, in contrast to Jonathan Burris, I mentioned that I have found non- and anti- KJV controversialists who are open, honest, and sincere.[i] I find others who are stuck playing one string on their banjoes and can pluck no other! In some cases, they may be willingly ignorant, determined to debate (regardless), and even deceivers & being deceived.
The Gary Hudson-Doug Kutilek-Rick Norton team of contenders seem to fit that description. They have lit on their “true truth,” found the one string they can pluck, and will not be dislodged from it regardless of the evidence. In “The TRUE Genealogy & Genesis of ‘KJV–Onlyism,’” Doug Kutilek writes:
In the realm of King-James-Version-Onlyism, just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (died 1968), through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants.
They have determined to dismiss “King James Only” theology and history out of hand by foisting on it a genealogy error. Doug Kutilek and others have made a cottage industry out of it.
Find someone who believed only the King James Bible was the word of God before Benjamin Wilkinson? “Dismissed! They can’t be KJVO because that does not fit our pre-determined genealogical scheme.” If my Baptist ancestors never heard of Benjamin Wilkinson, J. J. Ray, Fuller, or Ruckman, but believed their King James Bibles represented the inspired word of God? “Dismissed! This can’t be so, because we have already set the parameters and drawn the lines.” There is no reasoning with these guys. They will not be budged by any kind of evidence. How do we know? We’ve tried, and they still won’t move.[ii]
The H-K-N team excels in hypocrisy. When olden King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team then erases them from the line of “KJV Only” supporters. However, when contemporary King James Bible supporters say they could accept some changes in the KJV, this team charges that these are lying and are still to be considered “KJV Only.”
These are:
- Deceivers, Deceiving, Being Deceived?
- Woefully Willfully Ignorant?
- Dogmatically Dead-Set to Debate?
- Quibblers Qualified in Quibbling?
“A half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth.” -- J. I. Packer
[i] When
I first became acquainted with him, I thought Mark Ward fit in that category.
Continued interactions with him make me doubt it.
[ii] 1. One of Rick Norton’s perennial lines is that Archbishop Richard Bancroft (or another prelate or somebody) altered “robbers of temples” in Acts 19:37 to make it say “robbers of churches.” He can find one old 1671 quote to that effect; inflate the claim with dozens of others with no evidence other than the first claim; ignore the fact that that translation previously appeared in the translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, the Great Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible; ignore the fact that the King James translators used “churchrobber” in 2 Maccabees 4:42, clearly in reference to the temple; and then just keep repeating the claim ad infinitum. 2. Plenty of Pre-Wilkinsonian historical evidence has been provided of the existence of supporters of the exclusive use of the King James Bible as the word of God. It seems to be dismissed out of hand because they simply cannot be KJVO. For a few samples, see HERE, HERE, and HERE.
[ii] 1. One of Rick Norton’s perennial lines is that Archbishop Richard Bancroft (or another prelate or somebody) altered “robbers of temples” in Acts 19:37 to make it say “robbers of churches.” He can find one old 1671 quote to that effect; inflate the claim with dozens of others with no evidence other than the first claim; ignore the fact that that translation previously appeared in the translations of Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Taverner, the Great Bible, and the Bishop’s Bible; ignore the fact that the King James translators used “churchrobber” in 2 Maccabees 4:42, clearly in reference to the temple; and then just keep repeating the claim ad infinitum. 2. Plenty of Pre-Wilkinsonian historical evidence has been provided of the existence of supporters of the exclusive use of the King James Bible as the word of God. It seems to be dismissed out of hand because they simply cannot be KJVO. For a few samples, see HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
What is a Ruckmanite?
Anyone who engages in the Bible Versions debates will become familiar with the name of Peter S. Ruckman. Some elevate him as a demigod and others despise him as the devil. My opinion about him can be found here: The King James Bible and Peter Ruckman.
Because Ruckman is such a lightning rod, it has become a popular tactic to identify a King James Bible supporter as a “Ruckmanite.”[i]
What is a Ruckmanite?
Is there a standard definition that is useful and consistent when using the term “Ruckmanite”? Here are three explanations I found online, with one being very broad, and the other two relatively close.
- A Ruckmanite is one who follows the teachings (or most of the teachings) of Peter Ruckman and defend his divorces and cursing and such.
- A Ruckmanite is anyone who is King James Version Only.
- A Ruckmanite position is one that is hyper-dispensationalism (e.g., OT saints saved by works, etc.) and hyper-KJVOism (advanced revelation, KJV corrects the Greek and Hebrew, foreign language Bible should be translated from the KJV, etc.).[ii]
Valid or not, like the wording or not, these represent explanations that I found online. I think the term “Ruckmanite” gets used in all three of those ways. Based on the comments I have read in Facebook discussion groups and elsewhere, the terminology “Ruckmanite” is undefined (i.e., it has no standard and easily recognized meaning). It means anything and everything – whatever the person using it wants it to mean. It is not worth much other than as a pejorative. (It really fits the modern secular divide-and-conquer methodology.) Calling a KJV supporter a “Ruckmanite” is the equivalent of calling a person a racist, Nazi, and such like .The term is not very useful beyond that, and should be avoided.
Is there a proper, standard, and consistent way to define a “Ruckmanite”? What are your thoughts?
[i] -ite is a suffix of nouns denoting especially persons associated with a place, tribe, leader, doctrine, system, etc. (for example, Campbellite; Canaanite; Hittite; Israelite).
[ii] When Peter Ruckman speaks against hyper-dispensationalism, I think he means the view that starts the church mid-Acts or later. On the other hand, those using it in reference to Peter Ruckman are pointing out his teaching of different ways of salvation in different dispensations.
[ii] When Peter Ruckman speaks against hyper-dispensationalism, I think he means the view that starts the church mid-Acts or later. On the other hand, those using it in reference to Peter Ruckman are pointing out his teaching of different ways of salvation in different dispensations.
Friday, December 26, 2025
King James Idolatry
One slick maneuver in the King James Version debate...
Call “King James ‘Onlyists’” idolaters and the King James Bible an idol. That is, they are saying that those who hold the King James Bible as the only true English Bible have made it an idol. This is a strong piece of rhetoric that plays well with many people. For an example, notice a commenter on the Haifley-Ward video discussion “Do We Need a KJV Update? A Candid and Cordial Conversation.” He wrote concerning the KJV, “The problem is that the bronze serpent in the wilderness is being repurposed as an idol.”
That is nevertheless an insincere tactic for those opponents who continue to use the “I love the KJV” trope. I adjure those who sincerely believe this charge of idolatry to come up to the lick log and prove they believe what they say. Stop playing the “nice card” and call for demolishing the idol. That’s what Hezekiah did.
[Hezekiah] … brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4)
Tuesday, July 04, 2023
160 Years of Rumbles on Bible Revision
Awhile back I began to put together a file to help keep up with and find again online materials related to opposition of revising the King James Bible. The research and file have expanded to include a few other things, that I thought worth formatting and sharing with others. I settled on a time frame of 19th century to “mid”-20th century. This began as an effort for my own benefit, because I have trouble keeping up with things that I have found. I decided it might be useful to others also.
So, I cleaned up the file, did some formatting, created an index, and am posting it here. The material is divided into three sections. The first begins in the 19th century (1801) until the 1870 Convocation vote to revise the King James Bible. The second begins in 1870 until the appearance of the Revised Standard Version New Testament in 1946. The third is from 1946 to 1961. There ends the review.
The file is “Rumbles on Revision” and may be viewed by selecting the following link:
Any and all comments are welcome. Thanks.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Who are the Missionary Baptists?
In a discussion thread on the Baptist Board, a member asked another member, “Why do you use the name of Missionary Baptist or why is it used?” Here is a response with an historical summary of the reason.
During the 19th century in the United States (roughly 1820-1840), there was a controversy – and finally a split – among Baptists over the nature of “missions.” The development of a national missionary society and other types of church auxiliaries gradually festered a sore spot. The “General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions” (more commonly called the Triennial Convention) was formed in 1814. Within a few years Baptists were writing treatises questioning the propriety of and authority for such an organization. In more recent times, this has often been incorrectly framed as a controversy over preaching the gospel. Most, if not all, of the Baptists believed in preaching the gospel to those who had not heard. The objection to the formation of missionary societies was ecclesiological rather than soteriological. One of the early treatises, Daniel Parker’s A Public Address to the Baptist Society...on the Principle and Practice of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, clearly shows the ecclesiological argumentation.
Once the churches divided into camps favoring or opposing missionary societies, mission boards, and some other church auxiliaries, those who favored the formalized missionary efforts were classed as “Missionary Baptists.” They referred to the other side as “anti-missionary.” Those “anti-missionaries” used Regular, Old School, Primitive, etc. for self-identification. Due to this background, the name “Missionary Baptist” is usually applied to those with historical origins that trace back to the Regular Baptists in the United States and the Particular Baptists in England (i.e., the Baptists among who this split occurred). The name is seldom applied to churches with a background rooted in the General Baptist movement (historically). For example, most Freewill Baptists and General Baptists in the United States favor some type of organized missionary effort but would not normally use “Missionary Baptist” in any kind of official or descriptive way.
The name “Missionary Baptist” still falls in the realm of those churches descending from the “missionary” side of the 19th century U.S. Baptist split. Any of them may be “missionary Baptists” while it is a minority that officially uses “Missionary Baptist” in church and organizational names. Late in the 19th century and early in the 20th, the “Missionary Baptists” split over the way to do missions. Some favored missionary societies or mission boards, while others favored Gospel missions or direct missions. Therefore, today there are independent churches and associations who are “Missionary Baptists” who would have greater ecclesiological agreement on the matter of missions with Daniel Parker, for example, rather than J. M. Peck.
Seeing “Missionary Baptist” in a church name will not tell the same story in different regions of the country. In East Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mississippi – and probably Tennessee and Missouri – “Missionary Baptist” likely means one of two things: (1) a predominantly white church that is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, or (2) a predominantly African-American church that is affiliated with one of the National Baptist Conventions. In my visits to northern Alabama and northern Georgia, I have found that if a church had “Missionary Baptist” in the name it was usually Southern Baptist.
In my outdated list of Baptist Groups in the United States, I believe you will find churches in the following groups who use in some official way the name “Missionary Baptist.” I probably miss some.
During the 19th century in the United States (roughly 1820-1840), there was a controversy – and finally a split – among Baptists over the nature of “missions.” The development of a national missionary society and other types of church auxiliaries gradually festered a sore spot. The “General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions” (more commonly called the Triennial Convention) was formed in 1814. Within a few years Baptists were writing treatises questioning the propriety of and authority for such an organization. In more recent times, this has often been incorrectly framed as a controversy over preaching the gospel. Most, if not all, of the Baptists believed in preaching the gospel to those who had not heard. The objection to the formation of missionary societies was ecclesiological rather than soteriological. One of the early treatises, Daniel Parker’s A Public Address to the Baptist Society...on the Principle and Practice of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, clearly shows the ecclesiological argumentation.
Once the churches divided into camps favoring or opposing missionary societies, mission boards, and some other church auxiliaries, those who favored the formalized missionary efforts were classed as “Missionary Baptists.” They referred to the other side as “anti-missionary.” Those “anti-missionaries” used Regular, Old School, Primitive, etc. for self-identification. Due to this background, the name “Missionary Baptist” is usually applied to those with historical origins that trace back to the Regular Baptists in the United States and the Particular Baptists in England (i.e., the Baptists among who this split occurred). The name is seldom applied to churches with a background rooted in the General Baptist movement (historically). For example, most Freewill Baptists and General Baptists in the United States favor some type of organized missionary effort but would not normally use “Missionary Baptist” in any kind of official or descriptive way.
The name “Missionary Baptist” still falls in the realm of those churches descending from the “missionary” side of the 19th century U.S. Baptist split. Any of them may be “missionary Baptists” while it is a minority that officially uses “Missionary Baptist” in church and organizational names. Late in the 19th century and early in the 20th, the “Missionary Baptists” split over the way to do missions. Some favored missionary societies or mission boards, while others favored Gospel missions or direct missions. Therefore, today there are independent churches and associations who are “Missionary Baptists” who would have greater ecclesiological agreement on the matter of missions with Daniel Parker, for example, rather than J. M. Peck.
Seeing “Missionary Baptist” in a church name will not tell the same story in different regions of the country. In East Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Mississippi – and probably Tennessee and Missouri – “Missionary Baptist” likely means one of two things: (1) a predominantly white church that is not affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, or (2) a predominantly African-American church that is affiliated with one of the National Baptist Conventions. In my visits to northern Alabama and northern Georgia, I have found that if a church had “Missionary Baptist” in the name it was usually Southern Baptist.
In my outdated list of Baptist Groups in the United States, I believe you will find churches in the following groups who use in some official way the name “Missionary Baptist.” I probably miss some.
- American Baptist Association
- Baptist Missionary Association of America
- Independent Missionary Baptist Associations
- Independent Missionary Baptist Churches
- Interstate and Foreign Landmark Missionary Baptist Association of America
- National Baptist Convention of America
- National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
- National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
- Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
- Some (probably a small minority) Southern Baptist Convention
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)