Seth Doty

That chapter as a whole deals with Gods judgment on the nation of Israel for their rejection of his ways and ultimately the rejection of Christ. It also contains prophetic reference to Christs betrayal by Judas for thirty pieces of silver and how that money would be "cast" to the potter. This was fulfilled when Judas threw down the money in the temple, and it was used to buy the potters field. The specific verses you mention are making poetic reference to the eventual destruction of the nation of Israel, with the cedars of lebanon, the oaks of bashan, the young lions and the shepherds all being pictures of the political and religious powers of the day. Similar wording is found elsewhere in the scriptures.

Church Covenants are neither biblical nor unbiblical. They are just one of a number of ways to assist in making sure everyone is at least roughly on the same page. Given that church membership is voluntary not compulsory, given that covenants are commonplace in scripture, and given that it is not uncommon for people to enter a church with ulterior motives a church covenant can be one tool to make subversion of a congregation a bit more difficult.

Welcome to the board lynn, I see you made it.

This is probably going to backfire on the network. The media has been pushing hard for homosexuality to be completely accepted as "normal" and to frame all those who disagree as "bad" people and bigots some time. While they have made significant strides toward shifting public opinion to match their point of view they are not all together there yet. They are overreaching on this one as the biblical point of view on homosexuality that he expressed is not yet as widely rejected and despised as they wish it would be. There are still a lot of even completely secular people who find it disgusting and morally objectionable even though they may not have the nerve to say so publicly.

Your experience has been different then mine. Most of the ones I have run across have been between somewhat and quite knowledgeable of the bible. They knew what it said and either ignored it or intentionally misrepresent and misinterpret it to fit their choices. Other than in the media I don't see a great deal of that anyway. Secondly, just about any homosexual at a pro-homosexual rally is proud of it and likely to be extremely unreceptive to the truth no matter how it is presented. They are there to make sure their wickedness is shoved in the face of everyone else. The vast majority at such a event are very solidly in the Romans 1:24-32 category. If you talk to them at all, no matter how politely, you will generally see that very quickly. There comes a point where people get so messed up and so evil that it really doesn't matter how you present the truth. A reprobate mind is unreachable by anyone or anything. Lot didn't have much success with the "nice guy" approach while living in sodom. Of course it is possible for a homosexual to repent and be saved, however it is a very infrequent occurrence because most do seem to have a reprobate mind.

I see what your saying here to be an ever increasing refrain among professing Christians and very honestly I don't like it one bit. I think it is either a intentional or unintentional effort to bring the Christian world view a little "closer" to the modern acceptance of homosexuality in the western world. Yes, it is indeed quite true that any sin will send someone who has not trusted in Christ to hell but some sins are indeed "worse" than others and are frequently indicative of a exceptionally deep level of depravity. God overthrew Sodom & Gomorrah to make an example of them when that sort of sin was extremely widespread. The nation of Israel almost wiped out one of their own tribes, the tribe of Benjamin, at one point for the same level of depravity when it existed on a broad scale in that tribe. Homosexuality is a extremely serious, extremely depraved and wicked sort of sin. It is one of the sins, along with murder, that in biblical history hastens the filling up of Gods cup of wrath and brings national judgment when it is widely practiced and accepted. It isn't exactly a ho, hum, you went 10 miles an hour over the speed limit and that is wrong but we are all sinners and nobody is perfect sort of thing. I relatively recently heard a preacher at a large "progressive" rock and roll(IMHO) type church in the greenville sc area preach on the subject of homosexuality. To his credit, at least he did say flat out that it was wrong. What definitely was not to his credit though was the timid, apologetic way in which he said it. He then proceeded to spend twice as much time preaching against "homophobia" and did that with much more enthusiasm and strong words. All he was doing was reflecting cultural pressure. I find it funny in a way that when you break down the term "homophobia" it literally means the fear of man, and that is exactly what bowing to cultural pressure is, the fear of men and what they will say. Of course when the term is used in our culture it is applied to those who actually are not afraid of man and are not embarrassed to say that "men with men working that which is unseemly" as scripture puts it, is a immoral, vile and utterly repulsive activity. I guess I am saying don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. More and more Christians are getting to where they are afraid to call a spade a spade in this area and try to sugar coat it. Some things can't and shouldn't be sugar coated. This is one of those areas where the modern western world is going to hate bible believing Christians for what they stand for. It is not avoidable, it just goes with the territory. We just need to accept that is the way it is, deal with it, and go from there.

I think it is balony.

Your loosing the youth with or without "hymnal only". The only question is what are you loosing them to? My suspicion is that many conservative churches are essentially like the Church at Sardis and loose the youth in part for that reason, however, what they loose them to tends to be either the world outright or Laodicean like churches. If A Sardis like church is loosing its youth to the world and Laodicean like churches the answer is not become more like the world and Laodicean like Churches, the answer is get right with God, get real, and be something worth having and being rather than being just a empty talking shell. Converting from the church of sardis to the the church of laodicea does no one any good, it just trades one set of problems for another. That is why so often there is a progression in youth that start out in a conservative church, move to a more liberal church, then end up quitting on God and churches all together. They see dead liberalism isn't really any better than dead conservatism and just get to where they don't see anything worth having at all.

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. 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.

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. 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?

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).

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.

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.