Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

PastorMatt

Where do we draw the line for IFB?

Recommended Posts

This topic needs reconsidering for people posting. Maybe only IFB church members only can post. If others have questions we already have the Questions forum or area for asking an IFB any question.

 

What about people, such as myself, who attend independent conservative KJV-only Baptist churches that don't necessarily advertise themselves as IFB? My views are very much in line with the fundamentals of the IFB churches and my pastor graduated from an IFB Bible college and says he is unapologetic standing for the fundamentals of the faith, but the church is not, specifically, IFB. There are a lot of people who attend churches that are independent, conservative, Bible preaching, and fundamentalist that don't specify themselves as an IFB church. Or they don't have one near where they live, so they attend the next best church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading your posts so far you sound like a better Christian than me and they let me be on here.

 

I like your screen name by the way, sounds sincerely self-descript.

 

Thank you for the kind reassurance. I'm afraid I'm far from a great Christian. God nudges me back toward the straight and narrow every minute of every day. Many days I still feel like the newborn baby Christian 1 Peter 2:2 describes. I'm slowly cutting my "teeth on the meat", so to speak.

 

As far as my screen name is concerned, being a joyful helpmeet was not something that I came by naturally. I was unsaved, Pagan, and a radical feminist when I married my husband. The Holy Spirit got a hold of me and convicted me about being a helpmeet, being modest, and being a content keeper at home very quickly after I accepted Christ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have a powerful testimony there also. I think they will all welcome you here no doubt. I think the problems that brought this whole thread about are more in the line of non-believer trolls that keep popping up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about people, such as myself, who attend independent conservative KJV-only Baptist churches that don't necessarily advertise themselves as IFB? My views are very much in line with the fundamentals of the IFB churches and my pastor graduated from an IFB Bible college and says he is unapologetic standing for the fundamentals of the faith, but the church is not, specifically, IFB. There are a lot of people who attend churches that are independent, conservative, Bible preaching, and fundamentalist that don't specify themselves as an IFB church. Or they don't have one near where they live, so they attend the next best church.

 

 

Could fundamental be substitute for the word I underlined & mean the same thing, I mean close to the same thing?

 

 independent conservative KJV-only Baptist church

 independent fundamental  KJV-only Baptist church

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the kind reassurance. I'm afraid I'm far from a great Christian. God nudges me back toward the straight and narrow every minute of every day. Many days I still feel like the newborn baby Christian 1 Peter 2:2 describes. I'm slowly cutting my "teeth on the meat", so to speak.

 

As far as my screen name is concerned, being a joyful helpmeet was not something that I came by naturally. I was unsaved, Pagan, and a radical feminist when I married my husband. The Holy Spirit got a hold of me and convicted me about being a helpmeet, being modest, and being a content keeper at home very quickly after I accepted Christ. 

 

Jimhelpmeet,

Your husband must be a real man to have married a radical feminist. HA. People willing to take a strong stand before becoming a Christian should be strong warriors for Jesus after conversion. Welcome aborad.

Edited by Eric Stahl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could fundamental be substitute for the word I underlined & mean the same thing, I mean close to the same thing?

 

 independent conservative KJV-only Baptist church

 independent fundamental  KJV-only Baptist church

I think that would make a lot of sense. Our church is over a hundred years old and has been  KJV-only, conservative, completely autonomous church all these years. We support about six missionaries, and they are all IFB missionaries. 

 

Jimhelpmeet,

Your husband must be a real man to have married a radical feminist. HA. People willing to take a strong stand before becoming a Christian should be strong warriors for Jesus after conversion. Welcome aborad.

Thank you for the welcome. My husband told me he was patient with me, because he saw the real me, and not the person I was pretending to be. I certainly was not raised to be a radical feminist. My father is an ordained deacon, my mother was a homemaker. It wasn't until I was living out in the world that I became enthralled with all of the trappings of liberalism. It's truly evil stuff. Praise God for His grace and for my husband's unconditional patience.

Edited by JimsHelpmeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, back in 1968, having first met in 67, while in the Air Force while home for Thanksgiving, & seeing each other only a very few times, if Linda saw the real me them, would she have said yes marrying me on May 18?

 

​My mother played the piano in our church for as long as she was able, her & grandmother drug me to church, did not give me a choice  if they had, I would not have gone. Yet, once drug there, when we returned home, I was always happy they drug me to church, leaving home for church unhappy, returning rejoicing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to "Ruckmanism", I have never met anybody or read anybody who states the AV was "re-inspired". Ruckman himself does not teach that the Bible somehow lost inspiration and then was reinspired by the King James translators. This is a common thing I hear and read from people who allegedly believe the King James Bible. They want to distance themselves from the "Ruckmanites" by stating that they don't believe in "re-inspiration". Well who does believe such a thing?

 

I have self identified as a "Ruckmanite" in the past in order to remove the phrase from the arsenal of somebody looking to discredit me. My position on the King James Bible is that it is the perfect word of God. It is what I refer to when I say "The Scriptures". I do not correct it with any text from any language. I do not remove any words I don't like or add any if I think something is missing. It is the text, for these last days, that God has placed his providential stamp of approval on via his usage of it in history. Therefore I hold it to be absolutely authoritative and able to correct anything that disagrees with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to "Ruckmanism", I have never met anybody or read anybody who states the AV was "re-inspired". Ruckman himself does not teach that the Bible somehow lost inspiration and then was reinspired by the King James translators. This is a common thing I hear and read from people who allegedly believe the King James Bible. They want to distance themselves from the "Ruckmanites" by stating that they don't believe in "re-inspiration". Well who does believe such a thing?

 

I would suggest you look at his teachings more carefully. He teaches that the word of God in the original greek and hebrew was/is corrupted & or lost, that the KJV translators were inspired, that some new revelation was given in the KJV, and that only the KJV is valid. By definition that is re-inspiration. In contrast a Non-ruckmanite KJVO position would be that the word of God in the greek and hebrew is not and never has been lost, and that the KJV is the only available accurate translation of  the proper texts in the English language. Therefore the the KJV is indeed inspired, but it is inspired because it is the preserved word of God translated into english, not because it is somehow superior to that which it was translated from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to "Ruckmanism", I have never met anybody or read anybody who states the AV was "re-inspired". Ruckman himself does not teach that the Bible somehow lost inspiration and then was reinspired by the King James translators. This is a common thing I hear and read from people who allegedly believe the King James Bible. They want to distance themselves from the "Ruckmanites" by stating that they don't believe in "re-inspiration". Well who does believe such a thing?

 

I have self identified as a "Ruckmanite" in the past in order to remove the phrase from the arsenal of somebody looking to discredit me. My position on the King James Bible is that it is the perfect word of God. It is what I refer to when I say "The Scriptures". I do not correct it with any text from any language. I do not remove any words I don't like or add any if I think something is missing. It is the text, for these last days, that God has placed his providential stamp of approval on via his usage of it in history. Therefore I hold it to be absolutely authoritative and able to correct anything that disagrees with it. 

It's just an argument over semantics IMO. If I believe the KJV is the inspired word of God then why is it wrong for me to say that it is so?

 

I would suggest you look at his teachings more carefully. He teaches that the word of God in the original greek and hebrew was/is corrupted & or lost, that the KJV translators were inspired, that some new revelation was given in the KJV, and that only the KJV is valid. By definition that is re-inspiration. In contrast a Non-ruckmanite KJVO position would be that the word of God in the greek and hebrew is not and never has been lost, and that the KJV is the only available accurate translation of  the proper texts in the English language. Therefore the the KJV is indeed inspired, but it is inspired because it is the preserved word of God translated into english, not because it is somehow superior to that which it was translated from.

Brother, you are way off on this. Perhaps you should look at his teachings more closely. He does not teach the word of God was lost. I've read just about everything he has written on the subject of the KJV and he doesn't even come close to teaching this. He teaches that the words of God went through a purification process of seven steps (Psalms 12:7) culminating in the AV 1611. He teaches that it was never bound.

 

I will grant you that he says that the KJV is superior to the originals but some of the reasons he gives for this statement are:

 

!) We no longer have the originals.

 

2) If we did they would be scraps in a museum and unattainable.

 

3) I you had a copy of them in one book (which the originals never were) you wouldn't be able to read them.

 

4) The originals had no punctuation, capitalization, verse and chapter divisions and would have been missing many words that were added to the KJV that make it more clearer.

 

5) They would be useless in soulwinning. Even if you went soulwinning among Greeks since they don't even speak koine Greek anymore.

 

6) English is the universal language and the language the originals were written in are a dead language. Therefore you can reach more people with the KJV making it superior.

 

7) The KJV has born more fruit than the originals.

 

These are a few reasons why he teaches the KJV is superior to the originals. You see, he speaking superior in the practical sense. Not that somehow the KJV is more inspired than the originals.

 

Also, your last statement is a complete contradiction to your original objection. You knock Ruckman for saying the KJV is inspired then you turn right around and say it is inspired.

 

Anyways, what does it matter? At the end of the day we both believe the KJV is without error so who cares what TERMINOLOGY is used to describe how it got there, whether inspiration or preservation? It nothing but unnecessary division.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just an argument over semantics IMO. If I believe the KJV is the inspired word of God then why is it wrong for me to say that it is so?

 

Brother, you are way off on this. Perhaps you should look at his teachings more closely. He does not teach the word of God was lost. I've read just about everything he has written on the subject of the KJV and he doesn't even come close to teaching this. He teaches that the words of God went through a purification process of seven steps (Psalms 12:7) culminating in the AV 1611. He teaches that it was never bound.

 

I will grant you that he says that the KJV is superior to the originals but some of the reasons he gives for this statement are:

 

!) We no longer have the originals.

 

2) If we did they would be scraps in a museum and unattainable.

 

3) I you had a copy of them in one book (which the originals never were) you wouldn't be able to read them.

 

4) The originals had no punctuation, capitalization, verse and chapter divisions and would have been missing many words that were added to the KJV that make it more clearer.

 

5) They would be useless in soulwinning. Even if you went soulwinning among Greeks since they don't even speak koine Greek anymore.

 

6) English is the universal language and the language the originals were written in are a dead language. Therefore you can reach more people with the KJV making it superior.

 

7) The KJV has born more fruit than the originals.

 

These are a few reasons why he teaches the KJV is superior to the originals. You see, he speaking superior in the practical sense. Not that somehow the KJV is more inspired than the originals.

 

Also, your last statement is a complete contradiction to your original objection. You knock Ruckman for saying the KJV is inspired then you turn right around and say it is inspired.

 

Anyways, what does it matter? At the end of the day we both believe the KJV is without error so who cares what TERMINOLOGY is used to describe how it got there, whether inspiration or preservation? It nothing but unnecessary division.

Right on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great quantity of information available in ruckmans own writings that demonstrates that what I said is true. It really isn't debatable. The reason it matters is because it is basing a foundation doctrine(the authority of the word of God) on a false premise. Do that and you create something that is not the truth, is not of God, and thus is bound to be used of the devil for his purposes. I believe that has happened and is happening every day. Ruckmanites causing trouble on this board over some of the very things I mentioned was one of the main reasons the IFB forums were created here several years ago. Many of the board members got sick and tired of arguing with Ruckmanites on the one hand, and Calvinists, Catholics and neo-evangelicals on the other. Waste of time at least 95% of the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great quantity of information available in ruckmans own writings that demonstrates that what I said is true. It really isn't debatable. The reason it matters is because it is basing a foundation doctrine(the authority of the word of God) on a false premise. Do that and you create something that is not the truth, is not of God, and thus is bound to be used of the devil for his purposes. I believe that has happened and is happening every day. Ruckmanites causing trouble on this board over some of the very things I mentioned was one of the main reasons the IFB forums were created here several years ago. Many of the board members got sick and tired of arguing with Ruckmanites on the one hand, and Calvinists, Catholics and neo-evangelicals on the other. Waste of time at least 95% of the time. 

Could you please provide documented evidence showing that Dr. Ruckman teaches that the Bible lost inspiration and was therefore reinspired in 1611?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a great quantity of information available in ruckmans own writings that demonstrates that what I said is true. It really isn't debatable. The reason it matters is because it is basing a foundation doctrine(the authority of the word of God) on a false premise. Do that and you create something that is not the truth, is not of God, and thus is bound to be used of the devil for his purposes. I believe that has happened and is happening every day. Ruckmanites causing trouble on this board over some of the very things I mentioned was one of the main reasons the IFB forums were created here several years ago. Many of the board members got sick and tired of arguing with Ruckmanites on the one hand, and Calvinists, Catholics and neo-evangelicals on the other. Waste of time at least 95% of the time. 

Brother, you are still dead wrong on this. I have a sneaking suspicion that you have never read his material yourself. You are either quoting his words second hand or you are nit picking quotes from his writings to prove your argument. I've read his writings on the KJV. Almost all of them. And I still read his bulletin when I get the chance. So it is debatable because I know what he teaches. Dr. Ruckman, for all his faults and strange doctrines, has never taught that the words of God were lost then reinspired again in the KJV. You better get that straight or you are doing nothing but slandering the man.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seth told you in a way where to find it, he stated its in Mr. Ruckman's own writing. You can search the net, & you can even go to his very own web site, & find out the truth about this man. And if your really interested you will check him out thoroughly before standing up for him. And Seth was not slandering him, he is telling the truth, & he is just trying to help you. Sad many that you try to help slaps you in the face.

 

Plus you can search this forum. Many parts of his writing has been posted on here to prove what he teaches. And there's been several links to audio sermons posted so others could hear his teachings in person right from his mouth.

 

Of course, some of you have not been here long enough for me to know your beliefs, it may be you will agree with him, but before doing so one sure needs to know what they're standing for 1st.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seth told you in a way where to find it, he stated its in Mr. Ruckman's own writing. You can search the net, & you can even go to his very own web site, & find out the truth about this man. And if your really interested you will check him out thoroughly before standing up for him. And Seth was not slandering him, he is telling the truth, & he is just trying to help you. Sad many that you try to help slaps you in the face.

 

Plus you can search this forum. Many parts of his writing has been posted on here to prove what he teaches. And there's been several links to audio sermons posted so others could hear his teachings in person right from his mouth.

 

Of course, some of you have not been here long enough for me to know your beliefs, it may be you will agree with him, but before doing so one sure needs to know what they're standing for 1st.

I have read the majority of Ruckman's (quite voluminous) writings and never once have I seen him say that the Bible lost inspiration. I have a pretty good grasp on Dr. Ruckman's teachings and beliefs. Do you have any quote or reference proving the accusation that he teaches the Bible lost its inspiration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From David Cloud's book "What About Ruckman?" pg.10-11

 

The KJV Is Given by Inspiration

 

In The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272, Ruckman claims: “The King James Bible was given by inspiration of God.’”

 

This is to confuse inspiration--which is a process whereby the Scriptures were given through holy men of old--with preservation, which is the process whereby God has kept the Scriptures since their original inspiration.  2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the giving of the Scripture.

 

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

 

The process of inspiration is further described in 2 Peter 1:20-21:

 

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

 

These passages do not describe the copying of Scripture texts or the making of translations.  It is the doctrine of preservation that guarantees that the God would watch over the divinely-inspired Scripture to preserve it for future generations (Psa. 12:6-7; 100:5; Mat. 5:18; 24:35; etc.). This is the process whereby God preserved the Scripture in the Hebrew and Greek texts and in accurately translated versions.

Edited by LindaR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AV text is scripture and is therefore given by inspiration. ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration. The verse is certainly not referring to original manuscripts only.

It does not follow that Ruckman believes the Bible lost inspiration at any point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seth told you in a way where to find it, he stated its in Mr. Ruckman's own writing. You can search the net, & you can even go to his very own web site, & find out the truth about this man. And if your really interested you will check him out thoroughly before standing up for him. And Seth was not slandering him, he is telling the truth, & he is just trying to help you. Sad many that you try to help slaps you in the face.

 

Plus you can search this forum. Many parts of his writing has been posted on here to prove what he teaches. And there's been several links to audio sermons posted so others could hear his teachings in person right from his mouth.

 

Of course, some of you have not been here long enough for me to know your beliefs, it may be you will agree with him, but before doing so one sure needs to know what they're standing for 1st.

Jerry, you really don't need to jump in this. I realize you think of yourself as the school marm in this form that has to keep the chicks in line but read Ruckman's books on the KJV issue and I know what he teaches concerning the KJV issue. I don't need to search the web for second hand opinions of misquotes of people who hate his guts.  Ruckman has never taught that the words of God were lost and then reinspired in the KJV. Never!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From David Cloud's book "What About Ruckman?" pg.10-11

 

The KJV Is Given by Inspiration

 

In The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272, Ruckman claims: “The King James Bible was given by inspiration of God.’”

 

This is to confuse inspiration--which is a process whereby the Scriptures were given through holy men of old--with preservation, which is the process whereby God has kept the Scriptures since their original inspiration.  2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the giving of the Scripture.

 

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

 

The process of inspiration is further described in 2 Peter 1:20-21:

 

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

 

These passages do not describe the copying of Scripture texts or the making of translations.  It is the doctrine of preservation that guarantees that the God would watch over the divinely-inspired Scripture to preserve it for future generations (Psa. 12:6-7; 100:5; Mat. 5:18; 24:35; etc.). This is the process whereby God preserved the Scripture in the Hebrew and Greek texts and in accurately translated versions.

Again, you are reading what David Cloud has to say about him. I've read Ruckman's books himself and David Cloud, like he has done with many other believers, is lying. No where is Cloud's quote does it say that the words of God were lost and then reinspired in the KJV

You also better take a closer read at II Timothy 3:16 because the inspired word of God Paul mentions there are copies of the originals.

 

If the KJV is the inspired scripture then it is given by inspiration according to II Timothy 3:16 since all is given by inspiration of God. And please don't say only the originals were given by inspiration because the scripture that Timothy new since a child were not the originals, only the original languages.

 

The heart of the matter is that you believe in inspired "languages". You believe that the word of God could only be inspired in a certain language, i.e. Hebrew and Greek, because the passage in II Tim. 3:16 is not speaking of originals but rather copies. The inspired scripture that Timothy had were not the originals but copies. Therefore, the argument can't be whether God's inspired word can be found in copies because the passage clearly teaches they can be. The problem is whether once the language gets outside of Hebrew and Greek does somehow these copies lose inspiration. You say they are preserved copies of the inspired scripture but that still leaves room open for errors in translation. Unless, of course, if the translators were translating under inspiration.

 

By the way, II Peter 1:20,21 says nothing about written words ("holy men of God SPAKE") and in of itself doesn't guarantee that the written words of God we have today are without error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The KJB is the Word of God.

Exactly, John. What does it matter whether you say it was preserved or inspired when at the end of the day there is no difference and believing one way or the other doesn't effect a person's faith in it? I don't understand the division over this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AV text is scripture and is therefore given by inspiration. ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration. The verse is certainly not referring to original manuscripts only.

It does not follow that Ruckman believes the Bible lost inspiration at any point.

Brother, I don't believe people have a correct understanding of what "inspiration" means. They equate it with "revelation" when they are not the same. So if you say that the KJV translators were inspired (Job 32:8) than you are suggesting that they are receiving a new revelation which is not true nor what we claim. Preservation can not occur without inspiration.

 

For some strange reason most believers today think that inspiration could only have occurred in a dead language nobody speaks or reads anymore. Yet, not one verse can be supplied to support this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my disagreements about several of things Ruckman teaches, but giving the man the benefit of the doubt, this is an issue I have corresponded with him about as well as spoke with him personally about twice. Much of the misunderstanding about Ruckman's position on this is based on his crude sense of humor and pejorative attacks on his critics. When Ruckman says that "the KJV corrects the Greek" this is his satirical way of correcting the scholars who think that only a Greek and Hebrew scholar can properly interpret the Bible. 

 

When he refers to "advanced revelations" he is making fun of the scholars for not noticing something in English that you won't find by digging through the "original Greek".

 

Do I think it's misleading to others who are not familiar with him? I would have to say I disagree with his tactics, but that's just the way he is, and as unfortunate as his attitude is, he's dead on about the KJV. For goodness sake the PBI teaches Greek and Hebrew as well as manuscript evidence and history so he's not against everything Greek or Hebrew.

 

I admit that reading Ruckman takes a lot (A LOT) of getting used to. There are things he teaches like peccability of Christ which some of YOU actually agree with that are opposed to Ruckman, and I think are way off the mark and a few other strange teachings. But for the most part, he's one of the smartest expositors I've ever read even though I wish he would tone it down. But, as much as I loathe his approach, I think God used him IN SPITE OF his harsh approach. Could the KJV issue have been more successful without him? Who knows, maybe; but his attitude was so obnoxious that it forced people to look at the issue. That doesn't mean his method should be condoned and regrettably many people have followed his mannerisms, but it woke a lot of colleges and preachers up and some in the process of trying to prove him wrong simply because he offended them became KJVO-I was one of them :)

Edited by Dr James Ach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...