Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

PastorMatt

Where do we draw the line for IFB?

Recommended Posts

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 :)

You are exactly right although from what I've heard he is a very kind and gracious man in person. I've have written him on a few occasions and received a response each time and he has been very kind to me. Also, he recommends much material of those hate his guts when you would never find this the other way around. So he is more gracious in that matter. 

 

Ruckman has admitted his harshness and his reason for it (i.e. people tend to listen to those who are harsher in their approach rather than those who are more gentle). He also doesn't recommend to his students that they adopt his methods saying that even though he may have gotten away with it (i.e. his ministry has produced a lot of fruit) they may not get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you consider it 'a lot of fruit' when people avoid any reference to or association with a man because of his reputation for unScriptural harshness and crudeness?

Not any more than those who defend the fruit of pastors who have raped teenagers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

You need to leave that off, you do not have the ability to read my heart so that you can know how I feel about my self, only God can do that. Besides that's a personal attack & they should not be allowed.

 

Besides you should never tell any member where they can or cannot or should not  post. Every member of this forum including you & myself are free to post under any topic we have access to.

 

If you have a complaint about my post under this topic PM  Bro. Matt. Other wise keep it to your self.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 
 
I am sure plenty of quotes could be found where ruckman says essentially that. He will not say that the originals "lost inspiration" but he will say that nobody has the "originals" today. Of course in so doing he is playing a verbal game because when it suits his purposes he defines the "originals" as only the very first copies actually penned by the writers of the scriptures(which no one claims to have), where as just about everybody else defines the "originals" as the faithful copies of those first copies in the same languages with the same words that were given by God. Ruckman doesn't believe that the "originals" exist, in the sense of faithful copies in the same languages with the exact same words originally penned. He thinks everything currently in existence other than the KJV is corrupted to one degree or another. When someone tries to pin him down on that though he will say something along the lines of the "originals don't exist" by switching what is meant by "originals"  and defining "originals" very narrowly as only the copies penned by the first writers of scripture which of course is not what anyone else means by it. A strawman. From past experience I doubt you or any of his other supporters will be swayed though. 

The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)


We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I am sure plenty of quotes could be found where ruckman says essentially that. 

Could you provide them? Your claim that he believes the Bible lost inspiration still remains unsubstantiated.

 

 

He will not say that the originals "lost inspiration" but he will say that nobody has the "originals" today. Of course in so doing he is playing a verbal game because when it suits his purposes he defines the "originals" as only the very first copies actually penned by the writers of the scriptures(which no one claims to have), where as just about everybody else defines the "originals" as the faithful copies of those first copies in the same languages with the same words that were given by God. Ruckman doesn't believe that the "originals" exist, in the sense of faithful copies in the same languages with the exact same words originally penned. He thinks everything currently in existence other than the KJV is corrupted to one degree or another. When someone tries to pin him down on that though he will say something along the lines of the "originals don't exist" by switching what is meant by "originals"  and defining "originals" very narrowly as only the copies penned by the first writers of scripture which of course is not what anyone else means by it. A strawman. From past experience I doubt you or any of his other supporters will be swayed though

Nobody does have the originals today. We can either attempt to hazard a guess at what the originals said by examining the extant manuscripts or we can trust the text God has placed his providential seal of approval on, the English text of 1611.

 

 

The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)


We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii).

I agree with both statements. Neither state that the Bible ever lost inspiration. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you provide them? Your claim that he believes the Bible lost inspiration still remains unsubstantiated.

 

I agree with both statements. Neither state that the Bible ever lost inspiration. 

I am not surprised you agree. You said you were a ruckmanite when you joined the board recently I recall. Further I said that he claims the KJV was re-inspired which he does, and that he believes that the original(original being used in the sense here that everyone but ruckman and ruckmanites typically use it in) greek and hebrew are corrupted which he does, and that he believes the KJV contains advanced revelation not found in the greek or hebrew which he does. Please stick to what I actually said rather than attempting to re-define it as a statement that "the bible lost inspiration". You and I both know that that isn't his position, his position is more along the general lines that the bible itself was "lost" or corrupted I suppose at some undefined point prior to 1611, and that it was "re-given" and "purified" in 1611 and that the KJV is now the only completely reliable bible today in any language.

 

 

 

 

Nobody does have the originals today. We can either attempt to hazard a guess at what the originals said by examining the extant manuscripts or we can trust the text God has placed his providential seal of approval on, the English text of 1611.

 

You know, this is such a pitiful argument. God has set his seal of "approval" on the the "english text of 1611" On what grounds? This mythical "seal of approval" is somehow solid proof of something while faith that God has kept his promise to continually preserve his word as he promised in the scriptures is "hazarding a guess" at what the originals(narrowly defined) said? 

 

What defines "seal of approval" anyway? Is it something solid enough that you are brave enough to base everything you know about God on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that you both agree that the KJV is the inspired Word of God.  Why argue over what some other person said?

 

Right now we have many Calvinist and other heretics infecting this forum with heretical teachings and they have us squabbling like school kids over points that we actually agree with.  This may not be a popular message but  there will always be people in a movement that we don't agree with, and chances are we are the only ones who will change our own minds, it is a simple fact of being human.  Some like Ruckman, some like Cloud, some dislike one or both.  Does not make the other person wrong.  

 

Let us join in fellowship and battle false doctrine, not each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that you both agree that the KJV is the inspired Word of God.  Why argue over what some other person said?

 

Right now we have many Calvinist and other heretics infecting this forum with heretical teachings and they have us squabbling like school kids over points that we actually agree with.  This may not be a popular message but  there will always be people in a movement that we don't agree with, and chances are we are the only ones who will change our own minds, it is a simple fact of being human.  Some like Ruckman, some like Cloud, some dislike one or both.  Does not make the other person wrong.  

 

Let us join in fellowship and battle false doctrine, not each other.

I've not noticed a "Calvinist" currently posting on this forum say that salvation comes by a means other than by grace through faith. So there is agreement there. The difference at the moment seems to be whether one believes God specifically called to them to be saved by grace through faith or they believe on their own they accepted salvation by grace through faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that you both agree that the KJV is the inspired Word of God.  Why argue over what some other person said?
 
Right now we have many Calvinist and other heretics infecting this forum with heretical teachings and they have us squabbling like school kids over points that we actually agree with.  This may not be a popular message but  there will always be people in a movement that we don't agree with, and chances are we are the only ones who will change our own minds, it is a simple fact of being human.  Some like Ruckman, some like Cloud, some dislike one or both.  Does not make the other person wrong.  
 
Let us join in fellowship and battle false doctrine, not each other.

 
Ruckmanism is not my friend to put it mildly. It is heresy. I put it in the same category as Calvinism and numerous other destructive false doctrines. The doctrinal statement for the IFB board was specifically crafted so that ruckmanites, and a few other groups, if they were honest, would not join the IFB board. I should know, I wrote it. :bonk: For the most part it has worked pretty well but since it is a honor based system if they ignore the fairly short doctrinal statement they are supposed acknowledge that they agree to before joining the IFB board then that can't be helped. We have had quite a few closet ruckmanites(IMHO) join in the last year or so and while I am not one to go on a "witch hunt" when they openly endorse it that turns it into a different situation.
 
rmstcb1611 has specifically stated that he agrees with these statements by peter ruckman:

"The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)"

“We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii).

 

 
Those directly contradict this section of the doctrinal statement which he agreed to in order to join the IFB section of the board.
 
"We believe that the revelation of scripture was completed with the book of Revelation. Online baptist holds that the King James Bible is Gods preserved word for the English speaking peoples and does not permit using other versions on the forum. We reject the teaching of the double inspiration of the KJV and hold that the KJV retains the original divine inspiration of the scriptures through faithful translation and Gods divine preservation rather than being re-inspired in the English language in 1611."
 
If I were still a mod I would probably remove him from the IFB board at least for openly being in violation of the terms for joining it, but of course that is up to the current mods. Regardless I do appreciate he has not(so far anyway) resorted to the normal vitriolic approach the average ruckmanite joining this board typically  employs.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries.  I am not familiar with Ruckman, and did not realize it was such an issue.

I had never heard of him until I joined OB. There were a couple "Ruckmanites" here when I first joined, but then some more radical Ruckmanites showed up and stirred the pot until it made a big mess and finally most or all of them were banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not noticed a "Calvinist" currently posting on this forum say that salvation comes by a means other than by grace through faith. So there is agreement there. The difference at the moment seems to be whether one believes God specifically called to them to be saved by grace through faith or they believe on their own they accepted salvation by grace through faith.

 

They believe that God keeps offering grace, so much grace, that eventually all of His elect will accept Jesus as Savior. In other words they believe God forces salvation on His elect. God, nor Jesus. forces them self on no one, its whosoever will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They believe that God keeps offering grace, so much grace, that eventually all of His elect will accept Jesus as Savior. In other words they believe God forces salvation on His elect. God, nor Jesus. forces them self on no one, its whosoever will.

Some do indeed believe this, but not all. What do the ones posting here now believe in this area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I hate to be the heavy in this, but this thread is not pro- or anti-Ruckman.  The conversation that has been going on for several pages is not inline with the OP...For those who wish to continue the discussion, please create another thread.  If you don't want to create another thread, that's fine.  But pro or anti Ruckman talk stops in this one...Thank you.

 

(and, Song - you can't tell someone they can't contribute to a thread...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not surprised you agree. You said you were a ruckmanite when you joined the board recently I recall. Further I said that he claims the KJV was re-inspired which he does, and that he believes that the original(original being used in the sense here that everyone but ruckman and ruckmanites typically use it in) greek and hebrew are corrupted which he does, and that he believes the KJV contains advanced revelation not found in the greek or hebrew which he does. Please stick to what I actually said rather than attempting to re-define it as a statement that "the bible lost inspiration". You and I both know that that isn't his position, his position is more along the general lines that the bible itself was "lost" or corrupted I suppose at some undefined point prior to 1611, and that it was "re-given" and "purified" in 1611 and that the KJV is now the only completely reliable bible today in any language.

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

 

You know, this is such a pitiful argument. God has set his seal of "approval" on the the "english text of 1611" On what grounds? This mythical "seal of approval" is somehow solid proof of something while faith that God has kept his promise to continually preserve his word as he promised in the scriptures is "hazarding a guess" at what the originals(narrowly defined) said? 

 

What defines "seal of approval" anyway? Is it something solid enough that you are brave enough to base everything you know about God on it?

Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. 

 

Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. 

 

Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic. 

 

I have a question for you, but I don't want to hijack this any longer. Mind continuing this in the Biblical issues forum under 'Preservation & Inspiration'?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. 

 

Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic. 

rm, please read post 141 & 143.  Thank you.  And then go here:    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I hate to be the heavy in this, but this thread is not pro- or anti-Ruckman.  The conversation that has been going on for several pages is not inline with the OP...For those who wish to continue the discussion, please create another thread.  If you don't want to create another thread, that's fine.  But pro or anti Ruckman talk stops in this one...Thank you.

 

(and, Song - you can't tell someone they can't contribute to a thread...)

This wasn't about pro or anti Ruckman. It was about slandering a man.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like for this to be a civil discussion. The problem is that an IFB can mean many sort of things. For example, this website is and mostly IFB, but some say we are too IFB while other state we are not IFB enough. Where in your mind should Online Baptist/We draw the line for IFB?

​I do think a little different than some on OB, in which one thing I find to be hard to explain on OB -  the Bible I use.

In my opinion, as I do not use 'perversions' in my preaching and teaching, the explanation of 'what' I believe can be best explained

in the text I use, but the rules here keep me from clearly saying where I get my 'thinking'. I have been trying to 'smooth-over' the words

I use, to try and show in my own words, what I believe. There are times when members here say things that are not in the KJV text, yet they 'get'

a certain meaning from the text which mine says in it's text. So I would like to see the rule about 'KJV only' changed to 'KJV and previous

English versions of the 'proper' line of Bibles, such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Bishops, and Geneva Bibles'. I believe it would deepen

our understanding of the text, and reveal some interesting discussions on real 'biblical' teachings. I will still be here whether or not that happens.

I know some will say it brings confusion into the realm, but I disagree, it will solidify what we truly believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometimes I feel that non IFB saints, and Calvinists, and, A-millenialists, post their views on OLB just to antaganize us and get converts  to their agenda. They do not really want an honest discussion. We need a solid Statement of Faith. One of the reasons why some of the discussions degenerate into rancor, ill-feeling and dislike is that some folks that are in the forums are not true IFB and they do not want to be. They are leavening OLB with there non-biblical beliefs.

Also, I do think that you should consider someone joining OLB to state there church name. If they are not near a local IFB church than they need to give the name of the previous IFB church they sere a member of.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

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...