Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
         11
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

Where do we draw the line for IFB?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lady Administrators

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...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...