Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Seth Doty

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Seth Doty

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. If you fry it or put enough barbecue sauce on it almost anything can taste good. Including snakes I suppose.
  7. Unless I am mistaken you have to sign up to get those e-mails. Since that is the case the only people that get the "warnings" are those who have at least some interest in what cloud has to say at least some of the time. It is just a person giving his opinion and you may or may not agree with him on any particular issue. How many people do or do not value his opinion or listen to him has nothing to do with anything strictly speaking. I get the impression your biggest problem with it is that cloud has a fairly wide audience and therefore you seem to think he should be more careful about expressing his opinions. To me though these kind of things are just his opinions which people can take or leave as they see fit.
  8. You know I think we probably agree 98% of the time but I just don't see that. That kind of thinking is one of the things that eventually can lead to pastors going astray. If they are only exposed to people that either say they are wonderful or horrible it can become a temptation to believe the people who say they are wonderful and ignore all criticism. I have seen pastors like that and I am sure you have too. If someone says they consider so and so to still be a good pastor but think they have a fault in a given area what is the great harm in that? We say and believe pastors are just men and fallible so what is the problem with publicly naming names and saying you think so and so is wrong in a given area? You may or may not agree on a particular issue but why is it necessary to sweep all disagreements under the rug and publicly pretend that there is no disagreement until things get so bad they explode? This is not referring to this situation in particular as I do not and never have read the "sword of the Lord" nor do I really know that "crowd" and thus have no opinion one way or another. More of a general observation.
  9. Obviously she is a little upset because she feels like her husband was disrespected. Perfectly normal reaction. Your out of line and your accusations are foolish. Chill. :coffee2:
  10. I don't know why this should be a problem. If the man is willing to speak there than that is a public thing and if cloud or anyone else does or doesn't like that they are free to say so. It is that pastors call about whether or not to preach there, it is clouds call about whether or not to condemn it, and anyone can make their own call about whether or not such a thing matters to them. No big deal.
  11. No, doesn't sound particularly demonic to me. Sounds more like not enough information.
  12. I understand that to a point, but realistically people will justify just about anything they want to do in one way or another.
  13. Regardless of your opinion on the subject probably somewhere around 40-50%(though the % continues to shrink) of IFB's think it is either outright wrong or at the least inadvisable. Given that there is no disagreement at all about whether or not it is proper for a lady to wear a dress if it is making a mountain out of nothing then why would someone not defer in this area? Things that are truly "nothing" do not result in significant disagreements because one side or the other simply does not care and is willing to defer to the other. On this issue though deference is rarely shown because one side thinks it is wrong or at the least inadvisable and the other side views it as a convenience issue that they don't want to give up.
  14. Well if your as outspoken with your opinions on the subject at your church as you are on this forum it is little wonder he knows. Perhaps he merely means he does not count or generally see who gives what in the offerings. Many pastors try to avoid that for obvious reasons when possible. Makes it easier on them and on others as well.
  15. There are a whole lot of verses that could be used to prove that but 1st John 2:22-23 is as good a place to start as any.
  16. Good post. Concerning the OP God did not send his son to die for mankind in order to get glory. Christ DID die for the "happiness" of man. That is not humanism it is bible. John 3:16 should prove that as do many other scriptures. Now a Christian should care about God's glory and glorifying God but that is a product of loving God not the beginning and the end of all things. Look at how God reasons with sinners throughout the scriptures? How often does he say just "worship me because I am glorious and I deserve it and that settles it." Is that true? Of course, but God generally reasons with mankind by saying something along the lines of "if you obey my words it will go well with you, I will bless you and give you joy. If you don't you will be miserable and will suffer for it". Now if God says that it seems rather obvious that there is nothing wrong with that approach. The scriptures say the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and if a person hears and believes Gods warnings and promises it doesn't matter in the least how interested they are in Gods glory at that point and how much is just a genuine fear and understanding of what will happen if they don't. Now, if they truly believe and trust in God their heart will be changed and they will begin to care more and more about honoring and glorifying God as they grow and learn to love him more, but that doesn't change the fact that God loves mankind, and mankind meant enough to God that a holy God was willing to send his son to become sin for us in order to save us. That had everything to do with love and nothing to do with glory even though glory is one of the byproducts. The problem comes not when people come to God out of a fear of what will happen if they don't, but when they don't really come to God at all because they were not afraid ENOUGH to really turn to God. All that happened is they got a little scared and "trusted" God as a "just in case" sort of thing rather than out of a genuine and serious fear of the Lord. As a result they never do grow and they never do care about honoring God because it never was truly and seriously real to them. It was a "what if" situation to them, like when people can be scared or get tense when watching a war movie. That is a feeling, but not really the same feeling as actually hearing real bullets go by. In order to have their heart in a position to be saved a person must be hearing "real bullets" go by rather than just watching it in a movie metaphorically speaking.
  17. Of course I agree we should use discernment as much as possible when giving but I imagine that your mother will still get a reward for giving because her heart was right about it. I mean, in the NT when Jesus praised the widow for giving her two mites, all she had, who was that money most likely going to? Probably to a lot of the same wicked and undeserving priests/scribes that later supported the Crucifixion of Christ... Food for thought...
  18. No, God does not "need" to be worshiped, but he desires it. It is evident that that an eternal God who is from everlasting to everlasting cannot "need" anyone or anything else outside of himself. As for "whose benefit" worshiping God is for, it is beneficial both to God and to man and produces joy on both ends. As to why we are commanded to worship him it comes down to the fact that he is the only one worthy of worship. Also as we worship God in spirit and in truth in many ways we become more like him and that also produces joy on both ends. After all what did God say when he created man? He created man to be in his image and in his likeness right? Also what does the Holy Spirit try to do in the lives of believers after they turn to Christ? Conform them into Christs image right? I think that it is pretty safe to say that that is Gods goal for man. From this point on there frequently comes a major basic belief split depending if one has calvinist leanings or is apposed to that teaching. A Calvinist might say that God did this just because he felt like it, which in a sense is true, but Calvinists ultimately tend to feel that God does not really care about his creation he simply cares about himself. A Calvinist's logic is basically when you boil it all down that God's purposes, plans, and actions are frequently what we would call selfish, evil, and so forth if anyone else did them, but because God is God and the creator he can do those kind of things and they are actually good just because he has the right to do them. Now, someone like myself who strongly apposes that doctrine does not tend to believe that God has one basic set of rules he lives by and a totally different set of rules for everyone else. Obviously there are a handful of things that it is only right for God to do(such as receive worship) but those things tend to be because God is completely perfect, Holy, and worthy while we are not. By and large I believe the rules God gives us are who he is himself. They are his character. I do not believe God is REALLY the sort of being that would be considered overall to be selfish, twisted, and downright evil if he was anyone but God and that it is ok for him to do that and be that way simply because he is God. NO. That is a very wrong perspective of who God is, and it is why I feel Calvinism is either solid blasphemy or coming very close to it. It isn't about what God has a "right" to do, it is about who he IS. Who he IS determines what he does and who he IS is revealed in scripture. I believe God does not want us to be selfish because he is not selfish, I believe God wants us to speak the truth because he is truth, I believe he wants us to be kind because he is kind. He desires to conform us into his image and make us like him. God is light and in him is no darkness at all. There is a reason why the law written in a mans heart tells him that God as pictured by Calvinism would be evil and not worth serving, creator or not. Now of course God's ways are higher than man's ways and we may not always understand everything he does, but we can trust him because we know his character and we know he is good, and does not merely regard mankind as a plaything to be raised up or smashed at whim just because he "can". I know this wasn't about Calvinism per se but it was a question about who God is and why he does what he does and that question is right at the root of Calvinism vs. the biblical view of God.
  19. Possible evidence is found in the story Christ told of the rich man an Lazarus, as well as when Samuel came "up" from the earth to tell Saul he was going to die etc.
  20. I pretty much agree but you know, if life would have been eternal and if women only had one baby every thousand years the earth would have eventually been "overpopulated" just as surely as if a baby was born every two years. Doesn't really make a difference either way. That is the thing about eternity. Also you figure in the fact that the men(and presumably the women as well) were living to 7,8 or 9 hundred years of age prior to the flood, so even if they did only end up having one kid every ten years or so they could still easily end up having 50+ kids in their lifetime. Talk about greatly multiplying eves sorrow and conception. 50+ kids... :bleh:
  21. First it doesn't say the godly woman described is going to be saved "through" child bearing, it says "in" child bearing. I always understood that to be related to Genesis 3:16 where after the fall God told the woman: "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;". In other words I think God, through Paul, is saying that as a general rule of thumb he is going to be a little easier on a godly lady during the time of childbirth than on a woman who is not as godly, be that via an actual reduction of the difficulty of her childbirth process, or perhaps just more grace to deal with it.
  22. With the exception of the two witnesses, which are clearly raised mid trib, I consider your statement here to be rather tenuous and unprovable. The verses you reference don't prove it at all. Could it happen? Sure, but I don't think there is much if any scriptural evidence for it, and I can't see what the point of it would be anyway. If anything revelation 6:14 would seem to indicate against a further resurrection till the end of the trib. I think the key point is that Christ is the resurrection and the life and anyone who has believed on him will be part of the first resurrection when ever they are raised. No point in quibbling to much about a possible mid trib resurrection though as I can't see what doctrinal difference it would make and I don't expect to be here then anyway. :coolsmiley:
  23. This "first resurrection" is a universal resurrection of all believers up to and including the tribulation saints that were killed during that time. The "first resurrection" is in multiple parts though, it is not a single one time event. For example Christ himself was part of this "first resurrection". Christ was raised as the firstfruits of this "first resurrection", then then believers are raised at Christs pre-trib coming for believers in the air, and lastly those saved & killed during the great trib are resurrected just prior to the thousand year reign of Christ. "The rest of the dead" refers to the unbelievers who are not raised & judged till the great white throne judgement after the end of the the 1000 year reign of Christ on earth.
  24. I understand where your coming from but try not to let it get on your nerves too much. Stressing over it will not do you any good. It is what it is. I am sure you know the vast majority of IFB's do not see eye to eye with SFIC on this. :coolsmiley:
  • Create New...