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. 

 

Quote

 

What is meant by "he had faith to be healed"?

How did Paul perceive this man had faith to be healed?

Is there any particular significance to the fact Paul spoke with a loud voice (Stand upright on thy feet.)?

What application can we draw from this passage for today?

 

Often times God chooses not to work powerfully in the absence of powerful faith.  Matthew 13:58, Matthew 17:20, Mark 9: 23-24, luke 8:50 etc. 

If this man had not believed the word that Paul was preaching it seem highly doubtful that the Lord would have moved Paul to heal him.

Paul may have perceived the mans faith to be healed in much the same way as any of us perceive things. The mans body language may well have made it evident that he believed. However, it is certainly also possible that the Holy Spirit guided Paul in this area and caused him to perceive something outside of what a ordinary individual would. Not unlike Christ perceiving when the woman with the issue of blood touched him(luke 8:46) or Paul himself perceiving that there was going to be a serious problem with the ship(Acts 27:10) that was later wrecked, evidently before God actually said anything to him about it. 

 

The primary reason for speaking with a loud voice was so that those nearby would be certain to hear and understand what was going on. John 11:41-43, Acts 7:60, Acts 16:28, etc.

I believe one of the modern day applications to draw from this example is that while there is a time to do things quietly and without fanfare, there are also times when it is appropriate for things to be done in a very public and open manner for all to see and hear. 

 

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.  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.   

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).

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. 

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

 

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

If you fry it or put enough barbecue sauce on it almost anything can taste good. Including snakes I suppose.

So is it wrong if I read some of their works?... Well his book (Max Lucado) fearless taught me a lot about trusting GOD. And MacArthur'sTHE TRUTH WAR taught me about the wrong teachings like something about the Nicolatians... etc.

Oh and about Joyce Meyer I really don't agree that women can preach and lead the church. Even if I am a woman. Jesus, wants men to lead and I follow that. And also that's why GOD created men first... and then women the next!

It isn't necessarily "wrong" but you should be careful. If you read after people with some unbiblical doctrines they can influence you in those areas sometimes without you even realizing it.

Of the ones listed I like the rock of ages study bible. It is pretty solid. I have used one for several years and only found a few things I didn't agree with and those were not all that bad.

I can't see how emailing thousands of pastors and "warning" about other pastors that you personally disagree with can be quite what God had in mind.

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.

There is NO reason for anybody to publicly post an Independent Fundamental Baptist Pastor's name in a negative light, especially when they will admit the man is a "good Pastor" and has a "good church".

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.

All due respect ma'am, I think you're out of line yourself. The way you word your posts and the fact that you're a Moderator up here, I'd probably be safe in saying that you run your husband/house too. Get off the computer and back in your place. I'm done here. Good night all.

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:

He maintained that he was right in publicly mentioning a good man's name from the pulpit. He even went so far as to say that he realizes the man is a good pastor and pastors a good church, but because he preached at the Sword Conference, he deserved to have his name publicly mentioned in his warning.

Can someone show me Scripture to show Cloud is not stepping out of bounds, here? I don't think so.... I think he needs to be careful before God starts sticking up for some of His Pastors.

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.

Glad to see you back too.

http://www.foxnews.c...?intcmp=related

Strange, aggressive spiders attacking Indian town. Sounds demonic to me....what do you think?

No, doesn't sound particularly demonic to me. Sounds more like not enough information.

But you have to realize, the teenagers do! I know people who justify listening to CCM because they heard the song sung by someone else (that person could have not even known where it came from, and sang it innocently!)

I understand that to a point, but realistically people will justify just about anything they want to do in one way or another.

Someone please give me a verse where the bible, Paul, Jesus or even God says that "PANTS" are forbidden to woman. I am looking for the word "pants" here. And if we go on the fact that it actually means that they must not dress as men, then forbid them T-shirts, socks, boots, sandles, sneakers, button up shirts and anything else that is similar to what we wear! Just another case of making mountains out of dung heaps!

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.

The pastor preached on tithing.

Now, he knows my wife and I don't tithe. We do not believe it is a New Testament teaching for Christians. The Apostles never taught it in any of their epistles.

Now, mind you it is not that he preached on tithing that upset us, he has preached on tithing in the past. What upset us is an out and out lie he told in his pulpit.

He told the congregation that he does not know who tithes and who does not.

The fact is, he knows my wife and I don't tithe. He has cornered me in the past and told me we need to start tithing. So his statement that he doesn't know who tithes and who does not was an out and out lie.

Truth be known, no one in the Church tithes... even when they put 10% of their money in one of those white and green "Tithes" envelopes, so the whole sermon was built upon a lie.

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.

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.

WHY did I come to Jesus? Because I decided one day, "you know, God is so great, I think I will do the right thing and start giving him glory...."??? No sir.

I realized I was a sinner,
I realized I was headed for Hell and deserving it.
I realized God was righteous and right for sending me there.
What is so righteous about God?
Love

Nobody can come to the true and living God until they see their own need. The blind man came because he was in darkness and needed light, the leper came because he was dirty and vile and needed to be clean, the lame came because they needed to be made whole. The only and I repeat only way that a man will ever love God is when that man realizes that God first loved!
God needs nothing...what He "wants" is to give God is all about giving, not taking. Compared to His giving , we are all unthankful beggars! No sir, I came to God with entirely selfish motives......I was blind, filthy and dead, and needed life. I came as a beggar, and a helpless child. selfish to the core and I admit it!! You know why God's glory is so far more glorious than anything we could imagine? Because His glory comes out of his boundless unfathomable, unchangeable love. We love him because he first loved us, the Bible says. I didn't come to God to do him any favors, including giving him some type of glory.
You want to know what God's glory is all about? When the Mighty King of Glory comes in, and fills your heart with his sweet presence, you will love Him and glorify Him. If you looked on His loving face, your physical body could not handle it.

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.

That was a message that I could never get through to my Mother. She'd faithfully send in her $5-$10, because that was all she couldn't actually afford to mail each week. When I tried to get her to look at their fancy clothes, lavish homes, private jets, etc. here's her reply. Something along these lines..... "It doesn't matter. If only a little bit of what I send in goes to do the Lord's work, that's what counts". She never did *see* that her dollars would have been better spent for the Lord by giving locally.

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...

God's need to be worshiped? This is a question I have been pondering for some time now and would appreciate some outside input (with scripture). Why must we worship God? Does He "need" it? Whose benefit is it for, His or ours? We are commanded to worship Him, but why?

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.