Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

copper

What is a Ruckmanite

Recommended Posts



You have proved my point exactly. This is a careless categorization, far from accurate, and therefore not at all helpful in discussions. My pastor is a graduate of BJU, but he's not a member of the FBF. (I can't imagine that he ever would be, even if invited. He disagrees with them on a number of significant issues.) Our church is certainly NOT "anything goes on the Bible." I'm not sure what you mean by "dress standards"...but most of the ladies of the church wear dresses to worship services, and all of them wear modest apparel on the street. Our music is not CCM or Southern gospel, but there are no "rules" in place when it comes to music. So...not sure on the "strong music standards" part, either ("strong" compared to what, and according to whose definition?). People who use Southern gospel in their worship would not call our church's practice "strong," since they obviously think it's "stronger" to use S.G. You see, this label reflects your own personal experience and perspective...not mine or anybody else's. The word "standards" is used very little, if at all, at our church, so using that word to define our church really isn't accurate at all. So, what might happen now (if you want to defend your use of the label) is that we'll all start weighing in on who thinks it's a good label, and who doesn't...which will, as always, distract from the original topic of the discussion. Such is the problem with applying labels.


I don't think it matters what college you graduate, but where you stand that put you in that crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, I wasn't the one who picked my label. My audiologist, doctors, and teachers choose it for me. I rather label myself deaf but it wouldn't be an accurate description of my hearing loss especially if I wear hearing aids and don't use sign languages. The reason I wanted to label deaf because without my hearing aids, that is what I am. I can't hear a thing.

oh and the teachers also label me as stubborn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am labeled male (which I am), believers were called Christians 1st @ Antioch (labeled by others and yet I am willing to acceot that label), I am labeled overweight (which I am), bald (somewhat), middle aged (OK), American (right). Labeling itself is not always a negative thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rightly applied, labels can be helpful and generally accurate. Of course, overuse, wrong use or the broadbrush use of labels can be a problem.

Those who label anyone who is pro-KJB as a Ruckmanite are using a very broadbrush application of the term Ruckmanite and they are wrong.

That said, with regards to Ruckmanites, there are many who proudly take that label upon themselves. There are also those who fit the label because of their stands with regards to Ruckman and his teachings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do some people dislike labels because they want to be political correct? Do they consider it name calling?

Are there any other label like a Ruckmanite label? One thing for sure, most of us know what it meant when some is called a Ruckmanite. without using that word it would take an unnecessary very long post to tell people what that person was.

I believe the label that would be put on most of us has been mentioned, extremist who have already passed being fundamentalist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't think it matters what college you graduate, but where you stand that put you in that crowd.


I think I understand what you are saying, but my point is that a label does not accurately describe "that crowd," because "the crowd" described by the label doesn't really exist. Labels express stereotypes, not real people. Stereotyping is an unwelcome distraction from discussions of more important matters. We should let someone's ideas speak for themselves, not try to put the person in a neat little compartment which doesn't fit him.

EDIT: I probably shouldn't have said that "the crowd" described by the label doesn't really exist. It probably actually does, considering the fact that the number of thinking people seems to be dwindling faster and faster as our culture heads down the tubes. But I still would say that labels are expressions of stereotypes more often than they are descriptions of actual individual people and churches. Even in cases where a label might actually describe a person "to a T," we should be careful not to apply labels if they do not fit.

Someone mentioned obvious labels like "female," "Caucasian," etc. Those, of course, are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about ideological labels that are applied unjustifiably, and used to write off other people, or somehow bring resolution to a discussion (which the label never succeeds in doing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I think I understand what you are saying, but my point is that a label does not accurately describe "that crowd," because "the crowd" described by the label doesn't really exist. Labels express stereotypes, not real people. Stereotyping is an unwelcome distraction from discussions of more important matters. We should let someone's ideas speak for themselves, not try to put the person in a neat little compartment which doesn't fit him.


Labels are indeed generally helpful. For example "most" of us here are IFB. Most of us on this forum would not have found one another without that label. If someone calls themselves an IFB I know certain things about them in most cases. The same applies to labels others give us. For example, if I hear an atheist talking about "bible thumpers" I know more than likely he is speaking of people I would generally agree with, while when he talks of "good christians" that don't "push anything" and "accept him" I know pretty much what those people will believe too. When we use "Labels" within "Christianity" they are not "neat little compartments" usually, rather they are broad categories which contain significant variations while also containing a number of similarities. For example, no one who is called or calls themself a ruckmanite(since that is what is being discussed) is ever going to hold any views similar to those I know you personally hold on scripture. Knowing things like that can be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Labels are indeed generally helpful. For example "most" of us here are IFB. Most of us on this forum would not have found one another without that label. If someone calls themselves an IFB I know certain things about them in most cases.


I agree 100%. But these labels are self-applied. And...since I've been here at OLB, I've seen people assume things about the label "IFB" that simply aren't true about all IFB's. They've taken the label too far. That's one example of when the label ceases to have meaning, and is therefore rendered useless. For example, I have gotten the idea from more than one person on here that "IFB" means "KJVO." O.K...then I don't wear that label...but I AM IFB...so...what does that really mean? Since it means something different to different people, it's really not a useful label (in a discussion where assumptions like this are being made). It is better to just let people discuss ideas, and leave the meaningless label out of the discussion. When a label becomes baggage, it's time to ditch it.

The same applies to labels others give us. For example, if I hear an atheist talking about "bible thumpers" I know more than likely he is speaking of people I would generally agree with, while when he talks of "good christians" that don't "push anything" and "accept him" I know pretty much what those people will believe too.


My approach would be different than yours. Rather than assuming who he is talking about, I would ask him, "What do you mean when you say 'Bible thumpers'?" Everyone has had different experiences, and has run across different people. I wouldn't automatically assume that the "Bible thumpers" are the good guys, and the "other Christians" the bad guys. There are enough abrasive, unChristlike, proud "Bible thumpers" out there that I would want to inquire further to see just whom this guy is referring to. I would seek to understand, rather than gloss over, these things.

When we use "Labels" within "Christianity" they are not "neat little compartments" usually, rather they are broad categories which contain significant variations while also containing a number of similarities. For example, no one who is called or calls themself a ruckmanite(since that is what is being discussed) is ever going to hold any views similar to those I know you personally hold on scripture. Knowing things like that can be helpful.


You're right...Anyone who displays the "Ruckmanite" badge has labeled himself, placing himself in that category (which would still need explaining to me, since I am totally unfamiliar with all of Ruckman's teachings). But I have seen (on this board) some receiving--unwillingly--the label "Ruckmanite" from others, simply because they happen to agree with Ruckman on a point or two. Now, Seth, you know what I think of Peter Ruckman. That fact alone makes me loathe to slap a fellow believer with his nametag without undeniable justification. To sum up, sure, labels can be useful, especially when self-applied...But they can also be an insult and a hindrance to clear communication, especially in a forum like this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

Takes off mod hat...

I've seen people assume things about the label "IFB" that simply aren't true about all IFB's. They've taken the label too far. That's one example of when the label ceases to have meaning, and is therefore rendered useless. For example, I have gotten the idea from more than one person on here that "IFB" means "KJVO." O.K...then I don't wear that label...but I AM IFB...so...


You don't like labels, so why call yourself an IFB at all? Why not let what you say identify you as you said before? I mean, in another post I remembered you broadly condemning all other IFB churches in your area and free admitting that your church is "a very different stripe". Possibly the issue is that you are applying a label to yourself when you wouldn't doctrinally line up with most people called that. Like if you started to insist you were a ruckmanite for some reason regardless of the fact you are not even KJVO. :bonk:

Anyway, here is a quote from that old post I remembered, you said:

"In our "mountain" area of the country, "independent Baptist" churches are, to put it kindly, more known for their "rantin' and ravin', "windsucking" preachers and superstitious, almost cultic ideas than they are for their solid, informed standing on Scripture. Our "independent Baptist" church is not at all this way. People are pleasantly surprised when they enter our church and hear rational preaching based on a sound exegesis of Scripture. People say things like, "We didn't know a church like this even existed!" and then stay to hear more. My point here is that our church is of a very different stripe than various other "independent Baptist" churches in our community."

It sure sounds like from that you are applying a label to yourself that very few others would apply quite so freely... Certainly not those rantin' and ravin', "windsucking" and superstitious preachers with almost cultic ideas who don't have an informed standing on Scripture. I suspect a lot of us would be classified as similar to that by you if we were your neighbors...

Of course, I can't stop you from calling yourself anything you like, and if enough people with views similar to yours start calling themselves "IFB" sooner or later we will just have to use a new name. "Christian" or even "baptist" doesn't mean much of anything any more and IFB may reach that point eventually, but it isn't there yet, right now it still means something, and your views aren't lined up real well with what it currently means to most people. :2cents


Puts mod hat back on and leaves thread... :Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Takes off mod hat...



You don't like labels, so why call yourself an IFB at all? Why not let what you say identify you as you said before? I mean, in another post I remembered you broadly condemning all other IFB churches in your area and free admitting that your church is "a very different stripe". Possibly the issue is that you are applying a label to yourself when you wouldn't doctrinally line up with most people called that. Like if you started to insist you were a ruckmanite for some reason regardless of the fact you are not KJVO. :bonk:

Anyway, here is a quote from that old post I remembered, you said:

"In our "mountain" area of the country, "independent Baptist" churches are, to put it kindly, more known for their "rantin' and ravin', "windsucking" preachers and superstitious, almost cultic ideas than they are for their solid, informed standing on Scripture. Our "independent Baptist" church is not at all this way. People are pleasantly surprised when they enter our church and hear rational preaching based on a sound exegesis of Scripture. People say things like, "We didn't know a church like this even existed!" and then stay to hear more. My point here is that our church is of a very different stripe than various other "independent Baptist" churches in our community."

It sure sounds like from that you are applying a label to yourself that very few others would apply quite so freely... Certainly not those rantin' and ravin', "windsucking" and superstitious preachers with almost cultic ideas who don't have an informed standing on Scripture. I suspect a lot of us would be classified as similar to that by you if we were your neighbors...

Of course, I can't stop you from calling yourself anything you like, and if enough people with views similar to yours start calling themselves "IFB" sooner or later we will just have to use a new name. "Christian" or even "baptist" doesn't mean much of anything any more and IFB may reach that point eventually, but it isn't there yet, right now it still means something, and your views aren't lined up real well with what it currently means to most people. :2cents


Puts mod hat back on and leaves thread... :Green


Good post Seth. The only exception might be in what IFB means today. Just as Christian and Baptist no longer mean what they once did, I do believe IFB is quickly heading the same direction. Already there are several "camps" within what most here would call IFB. Outside of those "camps" (don't necessarily like that term, but that's what most use so for the sake of continuity...) there are other IFB churches which wouldn't fit into any of those "camps".

We encountered problems with this when we were searching for a new church home. We began our search with IFB churches. We found IFB churches which had switched to MVs and CCM. We found IFB churches which had decided to yoke, unite and work with all the local area churches regardless of whether they were true Christian churches or not (not talking about just collecting food for the hungry or something like that either, but more of an ecumenical deal). The one area IFB church that might hold to what many here would call good IFB standards had about a dozen elderly members with a pastor who didn't want to answer questions and gave the clear impression they were not really interested in others joining their church.

When looking into some of these IFB churches I would often find myself wondering why they still held to the IFB label.

Things were worse when looking at the non-IFB Baptist churches. We finally found our church home in an independent non-denominational church (this church has always been non-denominational since it's founding in the 1800s).

In the near future, either these much more liberal IFB churches are going to change their names to separate their image from more traditional IFB churches, or the more traditional IFB churches are going to have to add more to their title in order to clarify themselves from the growing number of the more liberal IFB churches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Annie is making a good point here. When I was in college, I had a teacher who was in the Vietnam War, and he told us that they were taught to use the slang term for the Vietnamese soldiers because it de-humanized and de-individualized them - it took them off the same level as themselves and made it easier to pull the trigger to kill them. They were no longer men with wives and children, but rather just a vague group of hated people - like a pack of mangy annoying dogs or something. When we give people a label that they don't readily accept (I readily accept the label "woman" and "christian", for example, but not "liberal" or "legalist"), it tends to set the person on a different (lower) spiritual level than us and hence makes it easier to have un-Christ-like attitudes towards the person and tune out all they have to say. I've seen it so often here - once a person has a label in their mind towards someone else, they tune out all the person has to say or they decide to disagree with whatever the person says no matter what the topic is.

Some conversations around here look a little like this:

Mr/Mrs Labeler: I love Hershey's chocolate!

Mr/Mrs Labeled: Chocolate is very good!

Mr/Mrs Labeler: If you're not going to agree with the Scripture on this topic, then stay out of it!

Mr/Mrs Labeled: Hershey's is a great brand, but have you ever tried Dove?

Mr/Mrs Labeler: Why do you have to criticize everything I say?!?

and so on and so on and so on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your post reminded me what I read today for some reasons: http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/188529

But anyway, I don't really see anything wrong with the word ruckmanite. If one don't like it because they disagree with Ruckman most of the time, she/he should stay away from Ruckman teaching. I feel that those who keep defending the guy but yet disagree with him MOST of the time are not doing young christians and lost a favor. It's almost like saying, I agree with Rick Warren some things. And the next thing you know, people who are learning are picking up his book because they think it doesn't make a difference.

of course, you have Lutheran, Wesleyan (sp?), campbellites, calvinists, etc. named after people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Takes off mod hat...

:smile

You don't like labels, so why call yourself an IFB at all? Why not let what you say identify you as you said before?


It's not that I don't like labels. I have no problem with self-applied labels, for the most part. When I call myself an IFB, I'm merely stating that I identify enough with the teachings of my IFB church to take the name for myself. What I am NOT saying is that I agree 100% with all other INDEPENDENTFB's on every single issue. More than one person has expressed surprise that I would "call myself an IFB" and [fill in the blank...wear pants, study from other versions than the KJV, etc.]. The point here is that even the label I have given myself becomes meaningless at some point to those who misinterpret it. At that particular point (in that discussion), labels are not helpful; they just muddy the water.

I mean, in another post I remembered you broadly condemning all other IFB churches in your area and free admitting that your church is "a very different stripe". Possibly the issue is that you are applying a label to yourself when you wouldn't doctrinally line up with most people called that.

Anyway, here is a quote from that old post I remembered, you said:

"In our "mountain" area of the country, "independent Baptist" churches are, to put it kindly, more known for their "rantin' and ravin', "windsucking" preachers and superstitious, almost cultic ideas than they are for their solid, informed standing on Scripture. Our "independent Baptist" church is not at all this way. People are pleasantly surprised when they enter our church and hear rational preaching based on a sound exegesis of Scripture. People say things like, "We didn't know a church like this even existed!" and then stay to hear more. My point here is that our church is of a very different stripe than various other "independent Baptist" churches in our community."


I don't think most people who are called IFB's fall into that category. I was merely referring to the churches in our mountainous area. In no way do I think that those churches represent an accurate idea of what most IFB churches are like. I'd like to think that most IFB churches are in fact not like the churches I mentioned. And I don't think I labeled any churches; I merely described and contrasted them. This is not the same as slapping an unwarranted label (like "Ruckmanite" or "liberal") on a person during the course of a discussion.

It sure sounds like from that you are applying a label to yourself that very few others would apply quite so freely... Certainly not those rantin' and ravin', "windsucking" and superstitious preachers with almost cultic ideas who don't have an informed standing on Scripture. I suspect a lot of us would be classified as similar to that by you if we were your neighbors...


I hope not...I've never gotten the idea that anyone on here is part of a church such as I've described. And, also keep in mind that I was talking about the general reputation of the "IFB" label in our area. No doubt, most people who drive by our IFB church classify us in that way as well. It isn't until they actually come in and see the difference that they understand we're not like that.

Of course, I can't stop you from calling yourself anything you like, and if enough people with views similar to yours start calling themselves "IFB" sooner or later we will just have to use a new name. "Christian" or even "baptist" doesn't mean much of anything any more and IFB may reach that point eventually, but it isn't there yet, right now it still means something, and your views aren't lined up real well with what it currently means to most people. :2cents


As for the "IFB" label...Hey, that's what I am. I can't think of another label that would describe my doctrinal positions better, so I'll stick with that one.I'm sure it depends on who ya talk to...As I've said repeatedly, the "I" in "IFB" does mean something. I found it interesting that someone earlier in this thread applied the IFB label to BJU, which is not even a Baptist institution. Curious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Some conversations around here look a little like this:

Mr/Mrs Labeler: I love Hershey's chocolate!

Mr/Mrs Labeled: Chocolate is very good!

Mr/Mrs Labeler: If you're not going to agree with the Scripture on this topic, then stay out of it!

Mr/Mrs Labeled: Hershey's is a great brand, but have you ever tried Dove?

Mr/Mrs Labeler: Why do you have to criticize everything I say?!?

and so on and so on and so on


ROFLOL, matiek! So very true this is!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Followers of Ruckman do not come out and say they are in a cult. However, their behavior states otherwise. Here on this board, the followers of Ruckman spue their heresy and defense of Mr. Ruckman.

As to the other men you mention, Hyles was another cult leader. He demanded worship of those who went to Hyles Anderson. He is, as some say, the Baptist Pope.

Paul dealt with this in Corinthians when he said, that he follows Christ, not man. When a man gets to that point, he allows this to go to his head and begins to teach things that draw men to himself, rather than to God.


This is a new one to me, I've known more than a few Hyles graduates....haven't seen anything even remotely indicative of this allegation. I've read more than a few of Hyles' books, never read a single thing indicative of this....in fact, everything I've read indicated that Hyles was pretty well like the rest of us: A Christian doing his best according to his understanding of Scripture, to obey and honor the Lord God and the risen saviour. Did he make some mistakes? Sure.... we dare not admit thus of ourselves I take it? Baptist Pope? Been reading, studying, teaching and am pretty well read for 20 yrs.... guess I've been in the wrong pasture, cause I've never once heard that title for him. :uuhm:

Heresy and defense of Ruckman? Guess I am guilty of that..... he believes in the risen Lord Jesus Christ. I'd defend that. He believes the King James Bible is not merely a version but is "THE BIBLE". I'd defend that....absolutely. He believes that since not a soul has seen "the originals" in 1500 yrs, it's rather foolish to blabber about what was said in them as a basis to correct the Bible. He's certainly right on that.

In short, many of the things Ruckman teaches are not "Ruckmanite teachings" but merely true and correct sound teachings which long preexisted Ruckman....but because he's been staunch in those teachings, even offended some well known and liked Bible correctors, he's garnered a bad name and bad attention. He's compounded that with inappropriate comments and being disqualified from the pastorate by being divorced....

I'm not a Hyles graduate and wouldn't consider myself a Hyles follower perse, nor am I a PBI graduate or a Ruckman follower (though I do own some of his commentaries). I think though to fling broad spectrum insults at everything they say is rather foolish - for I know of a certainty that if one is KJB only, IFB and believes in Eternal Security and is against most of Augustine and Calvin's teachings -- You'd be very embarrassed I think, to learn just how much you may be in perfect agreement with as it relates to what those two men believed and taught.

Yes...they've made some mistakes. So did Peter but lets not be too rash in labelling everyone who backslides as a Peterite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found it interesting that someone earlier in this thread applied the IFB label to BJU' date=' which is not even a Baptist institution.[/quote']

I always thought BJU was a Baptist institution. If they are not, what would you label them? The only next best label that I could think of would have to do with their stance on inter-racial marriage and the races in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob Jones, Sr. was a Methodist evangelist and was still Methodist @ the time he started BJU. Though many of their students are from Baptist churches (not all), to the best of my knowledge BJU was never identified themselves as a Baptist institution or as a ministry of a Baptist church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



At this point, I think they would actually be non-denominational - maybe even inter-denominational now. The first Dr. Bob was a Methodist. BJU wasn't founded with any particular denomination in mind, just the fundamental truths of the Bible. Annie, correct me if I'm wrong, please.


BTW, Katie, I like Hershey's and Dove! :Green

Old-fashioned beat me to the post!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob Jones' date=' Sr. was a Methodist evangelist and was still Methodist @ the time he started BJU. Though many of their students are from Baptist churches (not all), to the best of my knowledge BJU was never identified themselves as a Baptist institution or as a ministry of a Baptist church.[/quote']

I did not know that. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 24 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...