Steve Schwenke

You have come on pretty strong, but you know, there are a lot of arguments made on this thread that you have completely ignored, and instead simply lumped everything you don't like into the "guilt by association" basket.  Then to top that off, you ASSUME that anyone who makes these arguments against your position are filled with pride.
 
There is far too much information out there that conclusively demonstrates that rock music in any form is not only harmful physically, psychologically, and emotionally, but more importantly spiritually for me to take any argument that says that "music" is "amoral" and merely a "personal preference."
The reason why so many Christians balk at this subject and throw up their hands in abject confusion regarding what is right and what is wrong is very simple: THEY REFUSE TO STUDY THE SUBJECT.  They merely pretend they have studied, and throw out their pet verse on that appears to favor their side, and then claim "victory" by labeling any dissenter as "legalistic" or "Pharasaical."
 
Any music that will be pleasing to the Lord will be contrary to the world, the flesh, and the devil.  It will be suitable to the character of God, which demands holiness.  The very idea that a Holy, righteous, sinless God would somehow take pleasure in music that is by its very nature rebellious, sinful, and carnal is absurd.
 
Too many people stop their study of music in Psalm 150, and then carry this idea to illogical extremes, but fail to take into account the demands of God's character.  They fail to consider that any music offered to God as a sacrifice (Heb. 13:15!) must meet the requirements of God's holiness.  That is, there should not be any admixture of the leaven of SELF, FLESH, or the WORLD in it. 
 
Good day to ya, mate!

I just preached on the subject of Hell on Aug. 25th.  I try to preach one full sermon on Hell every year.  Of course, I also reference it throughout my regular preaching and teaching.  It is a reality that all of us need to be conscious of.

Just read this with the family:
Lu 12:36 And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.
Lu 12:37 Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.
 
THis fits with the "at hand."  The Lord knows when He is going to return, but He did not reveal it to us and for very good reason.  If the Lord had said, "I am going to return in the year 2014" then the average person would not be AS motivated to serve the Lord faithfully, esp. those from the first century up until the early 1900's.  So the Lord hid that date, said "at hand" (which is accurate!) so that we ALL would be anxiously waiting for His return.  I return to the principle that the Lord wrote the book for ALL of us for ALL time!
 
In Christ,

Jordan,
You seem to be confusing the issue and missing the point.
The point I am making (and the source of the quotes from Dr. Ruckman) is not an anti-intellectual position, per se.  The point is that the "scholars" tell us that we simply cannot understand the depths of Scripture without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.   This is summarily false.  Many Greek and Hebrew "experts" hold to false doctrine.  Most miss important doctrinal points because they are so infatuated with the Greek and Hebrew "nuances" that they miss plain, OBvious things staring them right in the face.
So far as Dr. Ruckman's "advanced revelations" are concerned, the point again that these great intellectual "scholars" overlook the OBvious GREAT truth right in front of them to point out some irrelevant little "nuance" from the Greek or Hebrew.  these little "nuances" add ZERO to the Christian's daily walk with the Lord.
 
(BTW - the phrase "advanced revelation" is a tongue-in-cheek expression used to mock these bloated, egotistical "scholars.")
 
In addition, some of the "advanced revelation" in the KJV has to do with the specific wording of the KJV, the chapter and verse numbering, and the order of the books.  When you do a word study in the KJV you will find some amazing doctrinal points that you can not find in the Greek or Hebrew, because the Greek or Hebrew might use 3 or 4 words for that one English word. 
 
Again - missing the OBvious, overstating the insignificant.  There is not one major Bible truth these "scholars" have found that cannot be found in the English KJV without the aid of any Greek or Hebrew.  The Biblical phrase is "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel."
 
So what is Dr. Ruckman driving at when he makes these statements?  The "scholars" are a fraud, boasting about their intellectual abilities, and trying to get the Bible student to rely on education instead of the Holy Spirit.  NOBody that God called in the Bible talks like the "scholars" talk.  They believed what they HAD IN THEIR HANDS to be the infallible authority.  God called commercial fisherman and shepherds, and every once in a while, he would get an educated man.  He calls men from all walks of life REGARDLESS of how much formal education they have.  The right attitude toward the word of God is what is important - see Isa. 66:1-2.
 
I am not against education.  I am not against learning Greek and/or Hebrew.  In fact, these are required courses at Dr. Ruckman's school - and we don't even learn from the TR - we learn from the CT so that we can understand how to use the Critical Apparatus (Nestles or the UBS4).  We were taught this so that when we come across a Bible corrector, WE CAN CHECK THEM OUT, and ultimately prove them WRONG from their own sources (something I have done many times!)
 
Riplinger:  I think she has a lot of good ideas and material, but I also think she pushes some of her ideas a little bit too far.  Her book In Awe of Thy Word has 700 pages of historical background with some amazing material in it.  She is a linguist by trade, so some of her material on the linguistics of the KJV are insightful.  I simply do not believe all of the attacks on her scholarship and credentials.  The books I have read from her have been very interesting, insightful and helpful of my understanding of the issue.  GOOD FRUIT (Mt. 7).  I have not found anything that she has written to violate any portion of Scripture at all.
 
I would not believe all of the negative press on either one of these individuals.  Anyone who stands up for God's word will be viciously attacked and maligned.  Br. Cloud often is, though for different reasons that Ruckman or Riplinger are.  The bottom line is that all three of them take a strong stand for God's word, and they are hated and vilified for it.  The test Jesus Christ gave us for determing a true prophet from a false prophet is found in Matthew 7 - "by their fruits ye shall know them." 
Of course, there are some bad apples that associate themselves with Dr. Ruckman, but anyone with any sense could see that these bad apples are just that.  However, these bad apples may not be representative of the GOOD fruit Dr. Ruckman has produced.  He has seen countless souls saved in his many years in the ministry, countless backsliders reclaimed, and has trained many good men for the ministry who are still out in the ministry.  Some of these guys are averaging over one soul a day saved on their respective missionary fields.  They are good men who love the Lord, win souls, and pastor churches.  Dr. Ruckman's desire for the Christian is that they spend time in daily fellowship with the Lord and have rewards for their service at the Judgment Seat of Christ. 
 
If you really want to see the heart of Dr. Ruckman, then you should invest some time and money getting some of his preaching.  He does not preach on the KJV all the time - in fact, very rarely.  His preaching centers on salvation, service, judgment for saved and lost, and prophecy.   I would be happy to send you some samples if you want.  Just send me your mailing address in a PM. 
 
Again, this is why I say that 2 or 3 random quotes do not properly reflect the true nature of the ministry God has given Dr. Ruckman.  I sat under that ministry and saw it first hand for 4 years. 

I disagree.  For decades young preachers have gone off to Bible College or Seminary with their faith in the Bible they had grown up reading, studying, memorizing and preaching, only to have some stuffed shirt idiot tell them that their Bibles had mistakes in it, and that they had to learn Greek and Hebrew to know what the "originals" said, and that they would never understand the depths of Bible Doctrine without a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.  These same over-educated idiots miss OBVIOUS TRUTHS staring at them out of the pages of the KJV.   In the mean time, those students leave these schools with their faith in the Bible and the Holy Spirit destroyed, and they are now dependent on their EDUCATION instead of the HOLY SPIRIT.  
A.T. ROBertson was one of the outstanding NT Greek Scholars of the early 1900's.  He wrote the definitive NT Greek Grammar - over 1500 pages - about the size of a dictionary.  For all of his knowledge of the NT Greek language, he was a dunce when it came to Bible Doctrine.  So while these "scholars" tell these young preachers that a knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to have a proper knowledge of the Bible and Bible doctrine, the TRUTH is that having that knowledge is absolutely no guarantee that you will arrive at the truth.  
So, Dr. Ruckman's sarcastic jabs only EXPOSE THEIR LIES.  And he would know - he was still writing Greek and Hebrew verses from memory on the dry erase boards in class when I was in school - he was in his 70's then.  He knows as much about Greek and Hebrew as any "scholar" in the country....that is why they think he is so dangerous.  He can shred their arguments at the drop of a hat with the same knowledge and material they use.  
 
Conclusion? If all you had was a KJV, you would are better off than if you had any edition of any Greek NT available today.  The KJV has everything the Christian needs, and anyone who can read English can get the same information without having to go to Dr. Smellfungus to tell where it is all wrong.

Jordan,
Where was God's perfectly preserved text prior to 1611?
Everywhere. 
The Russians had their own Bible from the correct text in the 1500's, as did most of the European languages.  That is why the Title Page on the KJV says "with the former translations diligently compared."  The KJV translators checked their work with other current vernacular translations, the Hebrew and Greek texts (rejecting what is now know as the CT), and other ancient translations.  There work was thorough in every sense of the word, unlike the modern slop that is coming out.  The Bibles in European languages at that time were the correct Bibles. 
 
Today, the CT has ruined the translation process.  Most languages has traded in their TR translation in for the CT translation to the extent that it is difficult to find a good translation in many parts of the world simply because nOBody prints the correct version anymore.  But still, the important thing for those people in that situation is their ATTITUDE toward the word of God.   The attitude of the "scholars" is that they think they know more than God, and it is their duty to tell everyone where the Bible is "wrong."  The attitude of the believer is to believe WHAT HE HAS IN HIS HANDS, and trust that the Lord will bless it.  And God will bless them on an individual basis for their faith, even if their Bible is wrong in some places.  Their growth will be stunted to some degree or another, but God is still able to overcome that.  A good missionary will seek to put the right Bible in their hands if at all possible, even if it means producing a new translation from the correct text. 
 
Why English?  It is the universal language of the day.  We send people all over the world to teach English.  It is the dominant language used universally.  In the OT times, if you wanted a copy of the TRUE Scriptures, it was in Hebrew.  Today, it is in English. 

Pastor Markle,
Thank you for taking time to respond to my question.  I do not wish to belabor the point on this question.  I will simply say, with all due respect, that I disagree with you on this point, based on my earlier question.  If the Lord Himself grants that under the circumstances of adultery (Matthew 19) or desertion (I Cor. 7) divorce is acceptable, though not the original intent, nor the ideal situation, that therefore remarriage would be acceptable (though again, not ideal.)  The original reason given for marriage all the way back in the garden of Eden was that "it is not good for man to be alone."  I believe this statement is still operable.  It would be cruel indeed to condemn a man or woman to live a single life because of someone else's sin!  Sure, SOME could do it, but Jesus Christ Himself and Paul both admit that these individuals are RARE.  It should not be forced upon them!  God created us to be together, and to compliment each other and help each other through the Scriptural institution of marriage.  One person's sin should not deny the innocent party's ability to enjoy what God ordained.
That's how I see it.
Again, thank you, and may the Lord's blessings be upon your family and ministry!
 

Brother "Wretched,"
Yet earlier in the very same context, with all of the "command" authority of our Lord, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 states the following -- "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."
So then, do these verses, in the very same context of 1 Corinthians 7, grant the option of remarriage after a divorce?  If they do not, then do they stand in contradiction to the teaching of 1 Corinthians 7:27-28?  Or, is there some other way to be "loosed from a wife" other than through divorce, about which 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 might be speaking?
As such, I would contend that your so-called "clarity" through 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 requires a consideration from the WHOLE context of 1 Corinthians 7.
_____________________________________________
 
Brother Schwenke,
First, I wish to thank you for the compliment of your "high" respect.
Even so, as I have the opportunity of adequate time, I shall provide my response.  However, this response will require a bit more than a "quick" posting.  Thus I will need more sufficient time to develop a more thorough posting.  I thank you in advance for your patience in this matter.

Pastor Markle,
If our Lord Jesus Christ grants that it is permissible (though not desirable) to divorce in the case of unrepentant adultery, then how could it possibly be a sin to remarry under that circumstance?  This conclusion does not seem to follow.  A divorce is the END of a marriage!  And if God Himself recognizes adultery as a legitimate end of marriage, then how could remarrying someone be constituted as adultery?
The act of adultery is in fact a dis-annulment of the marriage.  The marriage relationship itself has been broken and violated.  The hope would be that the offending party would repent, and that the marriage would resume.  While the marriage may be still legally binding, the moral, ethical, and physical aspects of the marriage cease at the point of adultery.  The fact is that the marriage has already ended in all practical aspects although not legally.  Again, we would hope for restitution, repentance, and restoration.  
Now, if Jesus Christ said that under the circumstance of adultery that divorce was permissible, then a remarriage by the innocent party would then ALSO be permissible.  It seems to me that the matter is clearly stated in the gospel narratives on the subject.  
As I highly respect you, I look forward to your response.

Pastor Markle,
If our Lord Jesus Christ grants that it is permissible (though not desirable) to divorce in the case of unrepentant adultery, then how could it possibly be a sin to remarry under that circumstance?  This conclusion does not seem to follow.  A divorce is the END of a marriage!  And if God Himself recognizes adultery as a legitimate end of marriage, then how could remarrying someone be constituted as adultery?
The act of adultery is in fact a dis-annulment of the marriage.  The marriage relationship itself has been broken and violated.  The hope would be that the offending party would repent, and that the marriage would resume.  While the marriage may be still legally binding, the moral, ethical, and physical aspects of the marriage cease at the point of adultery.  The fact is that the marriage has already ended in all practical aspects although not legally.  Again, we would hope for restitution, repentance, and restoration.  
Now, if Jesus Christ said that under the circumstance of adultery that divorce was permissible, then a remarriage by the innocent party would then ALSO be permissible.  It seems to me that the matter is clearly stated in the gospel narratives on the subject.  
As I highly respect you, I look forward to your response.

I see the same problems, Mike.  I believe one of the reasons we have this problem is because the "big shots" have glamorized "the ministry" to the point where young men don't want to go out into some relatively unknown place, put their heads down, and work.  The ministry IS work.  They want to be another "big shot." 
Regarding your questions on "calling."  I believe God does give a certain specific call in most cases.  You would have to be crazy to want to be in the ministry for any other reason.  A person simply cannot be effective in teh ministry without a definite calling.  There are too many reasons to not want to do it - at least to do the job properly and scripturally.  I believe this is the reason there are so many hirelings today.  They have no calling.  Without a definite call from God to the ministry, it is nothing more than a vocation.  They have no sense of purpose and no passion for the Lord.  
I believe there is also a definite call to the place God puts you.  I have no reason to be in the Panhandle of Texas.  I am from Minnesota.  But when the Lord sent me here, I immediately fell in love with this region, and these people.  Why?  It makes no sense.  All I know is that God called me here, sent me here, and this is where I KNOW God wants me to be.  I can't explain why.  I just know it.  What else could this be but a definite call from teh Lord for me to minister here?
Unfortunately, because the calling of God to the ministry, and to a location, is quite subjective, it is easy to counterfeit.  ANYONE can make the claim.  But to those who are truly called, the hirelings are easy to spot.  The question I always ask myself is this, "Would that man stay here if he half of his church walked out, along with his paycheck?"  
Good questions.  Things I have pondered deeply for a long time!
In Christ,

I have mentioned exceptions several times. Those who truly lose all of their worldly life to follow Christ ARE true disciples and do put their faith in God. They go out and start new churches or take on dying ones and go to hard places out of faith and not full financial backing. God takes no pity on the hirelings. Again I am referring only to IFB.

I see the same problems, Mike.  I believe one of the reasons we have this problem is because the "big shots" have glamorized "the ministry" to the point where young men don't want to go out into some relatively unknown place, put their heads down, and work.  The ministry IS work.  They want to be another "big shot." 
Regarding your questions on "calling."  I believe God does give a certain specific call in most cases.  You would have to be crazy to want to be in the ministry for any other reason.  A person simply cannot be effective in teh ministry without a definite calling.  There are too many reasons to not want to do it - at least to do the job properly and scripturally.  I believe this is the reason there are so many hirelings today.  They have no calling.  Without a definite call from God to the ministry, it is nothing more than a vocation.  They have no sense of purpose and no passion for the Lord.  
I believe there is also a definite call to the place God puts you.  I have no reason to be in the Panhandle of Texas.  I am from Minnesota.  But when the Lord sent me here, I immediately fell in love with this region, and these people.  Why?  It makes no sense.  All I know is that God called me here, sent me here, and this is where I KNOW God wants me to be.  I can't explain why.  I just know it.  What else could this be but a definite call from teh Lord for me to minister here?
Unfortunately, because the calling of God to the ministry, and to a location, is quite subjective, it is easy to counterfeit.  ANYONE can make the claim.  But to those who are truly called, the hirelings are easy to spot.  The question I always ask myself is this, "Would that man stay here if he half of his church walked out, along with his paycheck?"  
Good questions.  Things I have pondered deeply for a long time!
In Christ,

Just for edification, this is how I became the pastor where I am now, my only real pastorate.
  I was a member of a small IFB church in Reno, NV. There were a few men who were 'called' to be pastors, including myself. The church I am at now contacted the pastor, asking if they could supply some men to stand in for the pastor for morning services, due to the pastor's failing health; I was one of them asked, along with a man who was one who helped found it, and a couple other men. So we worked in rotation. Eventually one fell out due to his daughter's health, andother who felt called to a nursing home ministry, and their rotations were handed to me. Soon the other man, who had helped found the church asked me to take his rotation as well, and soon I was the only one going every week, about an hour away each way.
About this time, one of the men of the church took me over to the church parsonage to show it to me and extoll what a nice place it would be for whoever became the new pastor-this was the first I realized they were actually looking for a new pastor to take over. The former pastor had begun his preaching in his 70's and now, in his 80's and following being chased off his roof by wasps, could no longer do it. So, taking this short visit as a hint, I spoke to my pastor and asked him what he thought, and he said that he would recommend me to them. After this I was asked to come and allow the church to vote on me, having heard me and watched me for about 5 months at this point, also doing Sunday School. I was voted on 100% and became the pastor-I was ordained a year later, my pastor and his deacons, and the current/former pastor and his trustess laid hands on me, after some turmoil, but that's another story.
I have heard that some churches will spend a couple hours publicly grilling a prospective pastor about all his theology, his knowledge and beliefs, and such-I guess that's between that church and the Lord to decide. IN my case, they had had months to hear me and know what I taught and believed.
 

Brother Ken,
I myself am a pastor; therefore, I certainly understand the sentiment of your above statement.  (Some days I feel "sorry" for me too.)
However, I would ask that you might balance that sentiment with the following truth from 1 Timothy 3:1 -- "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of bishop, he desireth a good work."
Pastoring may indeed be "a tough life," but it is also "A GOOD WORK!!!"  (Indeed, some days I need a reminder of this.)

So let's consider another aspect of this subject, in relation to another subject that has come up recently in the OB: calling. The discussion has been, does God "call" and equip pastors, or do men CHOOSE to be pastors and God honors that and subsequently equip them for that work? And with that thought in mind, which has gotten me thinking, what about the call of a mission field? How many fields that a man is 'called' to, are they actually 'called' to? Or are they called at all? If a man 'chooses' to be a missionary, does he then 'choose' the field he will minister to?
I admit to often wondering why you see so many missionaries to places where so many others already are ministering? And so few going to relatively untouched places?  In my own area, we have an area called feather River, a canyon that stretches about 140 miles. In that, there are two primary towns, Quincy and Portola, and neither has an IFB church. And along the river, there are many tiny, I guess settlements, for lack of a better term, where there may be a few dozen people. And no kind of spiritual offerings in those places. Had I opportunity and money I have considered a circuit riding preacher ministry down that way, but then my own little church would lose me, because it would surely be a full-time ministry in itself. Also, better for a younger man or couple with the strength and endurance. But no one seems 'called' to those, but Hawaii? Sure.I count 15, at least in Hawaii already. Lots of places with zip, zero, nada.

Mike
Great question.
I think part of the answer lies in the decline of the USA in spiritual matters.  Our Independent Baptist churches are shrinking, and the KJV IFB churches are even smaller.  Furthermore, what we perceived to be "large" churches and a "big movement" within our IFB churches, in the greater context of all of Christianity, and all of the USA, our movement was minor - at best.
What I am getting at is this - our Nation is falling, in part because we did not do a very good job.  On top of that, we got complacent in our mission.  Our large metro areas are really suffering spiritually, and are in dire need of real Bible Believing churches.  
Here are my thoughts on this issue.
I would support the idea of Home Missions, but I would be very careful in how I would implement the support.
1.  Is there a definite need in the area?  We recently had a missionary come off the field, and decided that God had called him to start a church in Amarillo, TX.  I have a hard time believing it.  In Amarillo, population 200,000, we already have 8 Bible Believing IFB churches - why exactly do we need another one, when there are small towns all across the Panhandle of Texas with NO Bible Believing churches???  
2.  In keeping with the Biblical model of missions, I would expect that a Home Missionary would go to a major population center, build a church, and send out others to the less populated regions in his "Judea."  In my paradigm, it is my belief that our 8 churches in the Amarillo area should be training men to go out into these small towns and get some churches started.  Just as i would expect a foreign missionary to go to a population center, start a church train the nationals, then send them out to their own people, so I would expect a home missionary to do the same thing.
3.  My support would be limited.  I would put a definite time limit on any financial support.  We would expect the church to grow to the point where they would be able to adequately support him.  I know first hand how difficult it is to work a job and pastor a church and raise a family.  I don't have a problem supporting home missions TEMPORARILY to give the guy an opportunity to at least get the church "off the ground."  
4.  I would really grill the person to make sure of his calling.  Here is why.  There are too many phonies out there begging for money.  It makes me sick.  I get fliers, letters, and phone calls all the time for all kinds of things.  I figure, if God wants them to have their building, or whatever else they are begging for, God will do it without me.  It is THEIR church.  Just as George Mueller prayed and God supplied, and many other missionaries and preachers prayed and God supplied, so God can supply the needs of these beggars!  Whatever happened to us living by faith, trusting God to supply our needs, and being content with what God gives us???
I have the same problem you have Mike.  I have seen how God has taken care of our little church here, and the struggles we face, and then get flabbergasted at the audacity of some of these charlatans.  I get even more incredulous that they get support!  Unbelievable!  While we labor away unnoticed, without begging, and we are happy to be in the Lord's service without the limelight, attention, accolades, or anything else!  
Little is much when God is in it!
In Christ,

Mike
Great question.
I think part of the answer lies in the decline of the USA in spiritual matters.  Our Independent Baptist churches are shrinking, and the KJV IFB churches are even smaller.  Furthermore, what we perceived to be "large" churches and a "big movement" within our IFB churches, in the greater context of all of Christianity, and all of the USA, our movement was minor - at best.
What I am getting at is this - our Nation is falling, in part because we did not do a very good job.  On top of that, we got complacent in our mission.  Our large metro areas are really suffering spiritually, and are in dire need of real Bible Believing churches.  
Here are my thoughts on this issue.
I would support the idea of Home Missions, but I would be very careful in how I would implement the support.
1.  Is there a definite need in the area?  We recently had a missionary come off the field, and decided that God had called him to start a church in Amarillo, TX.  I have a hard time believing it.  In Amarillo, population 200,000, we already have 8 Bible Believing IFB churches - why exactly do we need another one, when there are small towns all across the Panhandle of Texas with NO Bible Believing churches???  
2.  In keeping with the Biblical model of missions, I would expect that a Home Missionary would go to a major population center, build a church, and send out others to the less populated regions in his "Judea."  In my paradigm, it is my belief that our 8 churches in the Amarillo area should be training men to go out into these small towns and get some churches started.  Just as i would expect a foreign missionary to go to a population center, start a church train the nationals, then send them out to their own people, so I would expect a home missionary to do the same thing.
3.  My support would be limited.  I would put a definite time limit on any financial support.  We would expect the church to grow to the point where they would be able to adequately support him.  I know first hand how difficult it is to work a job and pastor a church and raise a family.  I don't have a problem supporting home missions TEMPORARILY to give the guy an opportunity to at least get the church "off the ground."  
4.  I would really grill the person to make sure of his calling.  Here is why.  There are too many phonies out there begging for money.  It makes me sick.  I get fliers, letters, and phone calls all the time for all kinds of things.  I figure, if God wants them to have their building, or whatever else they are begging for, God will do it without me.  It is THEIR church.  Just as George Mueller prayed and God supplied, and many other missionaries and preachers prayed and God supplied, so God can supply the needs of these beggars!  Whatever happened to us living by faith, trusting God to supply our needs, and being content with what God gives us???
I have the same problem you have Mike.  I have seen how God has taken care of our little church here, and the struggles we face, and then get flabbergasted at the audacity of some of these charlatans.  I get even more incredulous that they get support!  Unbelievable!  While we labor away unnoticed, without begging, and we are happy to be in the Lord's service without the limelight, attention, accolades, or anything else!  
Little is much when God is in it!
In Christ,

Being divorced and remarried, I will speak on this somewhat.
  My divorce, and my (current) wife's divorce, were both under these circumstances: We were both saved people, married to unsaved people, and the unsaved left. According to scripture, if a unbeliving dpeart, let them depart, the believer is not under bondage to them. Also, both spouses committed fornication against us. That tells me, if I am not bound to an unbeliever who has willingly abandoned me, I am free to marry. So my wife and I remarried, like Kent Hovind, after a good amount of counselling. Also I do not subscribe to the idea that being the husband of one wife means only having been married once-the language would be more appropriate to one with multiple wives, which, depsite what some may insist, was still quite common in that day when it was written. It would have been much easier and clearer if Paul meant a pastor must never be divorced, if he had just written that. Clearly when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well, He didn't believe she had five husbands, but HAD HAD five husbands, all past-tense, not currently with five husbands. So as a pastor, I believe that if the divorce falls within the correct boundaries, he can both divorce and remarry.
I think one big issue here is that, when dealing with the subject, many assume that being divorced makes one, ipso-facto, "pro-divorce," but I would say, not in the least. If anything I am more against divorce than I was before, because having endured the pain and suffering of being left, watching the one I love run to the arms of another man, I hate divorce. But I know it occurs and I know the Lord of course recognizes it and as such, gave reasons for it. Of course, marriage is very imprtant as well, because it represents the relationship between Christ and His church. I use the singular word here because Jesus has one wife, made up of all born-again believers, just as we should have one wife. But human marriage is a weak and beggarly picture of a perfect relationship, so as flawed humans we fail sometimes, and just as God gave sacrifices for those who broke His laws in the OT, so He gave us exceptions for those who are divorced and it isn't of their doing.
As for Kent Hovind's remarriage, I would say it falls outside of God's word on the subject, from what I underdstand, but I will leave that to be between himself and the Lord. God can forgive everything, it is all under the blood. If God can forgive and put away David's sin and bless the tainted marriage of David and Bathsheba and use that line to bring about the Messiah, God can surely forgive kent Hovind and bless their marriage and do mighty things through him. I will probably not endorse any new stuff he does, at least for now, but I will be keeping an eye on the ministry and continue to use his old work.   

Ookay... and after that word from our new Calvinist troll, we are getting back on topic. O.o

I must be very bad at communicating, or some here are bad at reading, or maybe there are some bad biases, or maybe it is my "tone of voice."  I don't know.
 
If you go back and read my previous post carefully, I said that a Creation Ministry such as the OLD Institute for Creation Research (ICR) when Henry Morris was alive was a good ministry, because it was primarily EDUCATIONAL.  Yes, they sold books, and made money on it.  BUT THAT IS ALL THEY DID.  Duane Gish had many debates across the country with leading evolutionists, and they had a monthly magazine.
 
The difference between the OLD ICR and Ken Ham, as well as the reorganized ICR under John Morris, is that they are MONEY MAKING MACHINES, that provide nice, comfortable careers for "Christians" who don't want to preach on the street, start churches, or go to a foreign mission field.  All funded by Christians who are impressed with a professional presentation.
Henry Morris had a burden and vision to equip the pastor and lay-Christian alike.  I can support that to some degree, understanding that they are a para-church ministry. 
 
Books?  Great.  Helpful.  Videos?  Sure thing.  Spot on.
But Henry Morris was not money hungry like Ken Ham and John Morris are. 
A Creation Museum?  Really?   A little bit over the top, IMO.  Unnecessary.  A huge expense that Christians could be investing more wisely. 
 
Finally, it is not necessary for us to refute every heresy and goofy teaching out there.  All we need to do is present the gospel of Christ. 
 
I Peter 3: 15 "...and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."
 
See?
We don't have to answer all their goofy heresies.  We do need to tell them why we believe what we believe. 
When the atheists and evolutionists come after me, I give them a couple of scientific nuggets to refute their lunacy, but the reality is, they need to hear the GOSPEL, not a refutation of evolution.  Romans 10:17 is appropriate here.  (Of course, I like to hit them with Psalm 14:1)
 
As far as our congregations are concerned, having Creation Seminars from time to time could be profitable and edifying.  I don't have a prOBlem with that at all.  But let's keep the costs down, please, so that we can invest more in missions, tracts, Bibles, and church planting.

Here is how I see it.
Br. Cloud's ministry is to warn people of the danger of compromise by associating themselves with the wrong crowd.  In my opinion, most of the time he is right.  The dangers are great, and there are too many pastors who are either ignorant of the danger they are exposing their congregations to, or too busy trying to work a jOB to stay on top of things.  Thus, Br. Cloud provides an excellent service to all of us, even if he is off base from time to time (WHO ISn't???)
 
Regarding Ken Ham and other Creation Ministries:
Is there really a need for all of this?  I, for one, do not think so.  The pastor of the local assembly has the responsibility to teach "the whole counsel of God."  He should educate himself well enough from sound sources to instruct his people.  I could understand Ken Ham's ministry if it were modeled more closely after the old ICR under Henry Morris.  Their main emphasis was simply to help educate God's people.  John Morris (Henry's son) has simply made it into the same thing as Ken Ham's "ministy" - a money making machine for suckers.  I think about this "museum" and all of this "research" and I begin to think about how much MONEY that costs, and how much BETTER we could use that money to send missionaries around the world to fulfill the great commission - which is preaching the gospel, seeing people saved, and establishing local churches.  These missionaries should have ample training on creation through their local church and Bible training.  So to me, the "need" for a ministry like Ken Ham's should be moot if WE DID OUR JOB.  
 
I have argued with the evolutionists and atheists before.  It does not matter what kind of scientific evidence is put forth.  They will not believe it.  They find ways around it.  The bottom line, they will either receive the TRUTH by FAITH, or they will believe their own LIE by FAITH.  It really is that simple.
 
Bottom line:  Ken Ham's "ministry" is simply NOT NEEDED, and that money could be spent in much better ways.
 
Is Br. Cloud right to "attack" Ken Ham?  I view it more as a warning - if you choose to associate with Ken Ham, and use his materials, just understand where he is coming from, and who he associates with. 
 
In Christ,

I must be very bad at communicating, or some here are bad at reading, or maybe there are some bad biases, or maybe it is my "tone of voice."  I don't know.
 
If you go back and read my previous post carefully, I said that a Creation Ministry such as the OLD Institute for Creation Research (ICR) when Henry Morris was alive was a good ministry, because it was primarily EDUCATIONAL.  Yes, they sold books, and made money on it.  BUT THAT IS ALL THEY DID.  Duane Gish had many debates across the country with leading evolutionists, and they had a monthly magazine.
 
The difference between the OLD ICR and Ken Ham, as well as the reorganized ICR under John Morris, is that they are MONEY MAKING MACHINES, that provide nice, comfortable careers for "Christians" who don't want to preach on the street, start churches, or go to a foreign mission field.  All funded by Christians who are impressed with a professional presentation.
Henry Morris had a burden and vision to equip the pastor and lay-Christian alike.  I can support that to some degree, understanding that they are a para-church ministry. 
 
Books?  Great.  Helpful.  Videos?  Sure thing.  Spot on.
But Henry Morris was not money hungry like Ken Ham and John Morris are. 
A Creation Museum?  Really?   A little bit over the top, IMO.  Unnecessary.  A huge expense that Christians could be investing more wisely. 
 
Finally, it is not necessary for us to refute every heresy and goofy teaching out there.  All we need to do is present the gospel of Christ. 
 
I Peter 3: 15 "...and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."
 
See?
We don't have to answer all their goofy heresies.  We do need to tell them why we believe what we believe. 
When the atheists and evolutionists come after me, I give them a couple of scientific nuggets to refute their lunacy, but the reality is, they need to hear the GOSPEL, not a refutation of evolution.  Romans 10:17 is appropriate here.  (Of course, I like to hit them with Psalm 14:1)
 
As far as our congregations are concerned, having Creation Seminars from time to time could be profitable and edifying.  I don't have a prOBlem with that at all.  But let's keep the costs down, please, so that we can invest more in missions, tracts, Bibles, and church planting.

Thank you GP for providing the Scriptures to reveal your line of thinking.  
I disagree with your conclusions.  
 

Actually my remark was based in this statement that you made earlier in this thread:
Compared to:
But you already said you have "years worth of studying", why can you not simply present some of those "years worth of study" which you have constantly failed to present?
 
It is this contradiction of your own statements that led to my remark "...such as it may be", for it is apparently both a new study and yet "years of study".
What form will it take, and what sort of basis has it? We will see eventually (maybe). Whatever form it takes, or "such as it may be".