Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Pastor Says Demons Inspired My Warnings Against West Coast


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Page 95, last paragraph, The Right Path, Paul Chappell. You say, "Well, Brother Chappell, did you exegete the Scriptures to her and help her to understand the evils of gambling?" No, I prayed that she would keep on winning, because we were trying to buy property and build a church.

Yes, praying for blood money, thinking about building a church with blood money. Nope, cannot recommend him to anyone. Winning would be the worse thing, that would hook this woman on gambling even more. His mind was on money, coveting money, and he did not care how he got it.


Paul Chappell's willingness to take money from any and all sources has been a matter of public record for some time now; back in 2003 he accepted a grant from the ecumenical Louisville Institute.

http://www.louisville-institute.org/Grants/ggrantpast.aspx?id=6&year=2003

The Louisville Institute's mission statement is found at the link below. In a nutshell, they bring together leaders of American churches of every stripe (Protestant, Catholic, etc.) in order to come up with a vision for the future of Christianity in America. An interesting project for an IFB pastor to be taking part in (and accepting money from).

http://www.louisville-institute.org/About/purpose.aspx


There are many other churches in very close fellowship with Lancaster Baptist, and with Lancaster being the biggest player in this group, the others are likely to follow its lead. I am personally acquainted with one fairly large IFB church (about 500-600 members) that, like Lancaster, is now adopting "conservative" versions of popular CCM songs. I haven't read all of David Cloud's material regarding this as I'm already familiar with the situation, but this is probably one reason why he didn't approach Chappell personally; the issue affects more than just Chappell's home church. Edited by SoCal Baptist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



That's the first I've heard of that. Can you provide a source?


I am surprised you haven't heard that sort of thing, it is one of the main pillars of "ruckmanism". His own writings make his position rather clear. One of the most common questions ruckmanites tend to "ask" is "where was the word of God before 1611?". They ask this because they believe the pure word of God was lost and unknowable at some indefinite time prior to 1611 and then it was re-inspired in the english KJV at that point. Their belief that the pure word of God was corrupted, lost, and then re-inspired is key to their insistence that the bibles of other languages should be translated from the KJV into a given language rather than from greek and hebrew and is the reason for their general contempt for any scriptures in those languages. That is because they believe "only" the english KJV is the perfect pure word of God. That would differ from a more "typical" none ruckmanite KJVO IFB that would hold that the KJV is the preserved word of God for the english speaking peoples and nothing more. Not Gods new standard for the world circa 1611, but Gods old standard translated into english.

Here are just a couple quotes from his writings, I am sure if you looked you could find much more as he is always saying this sort of thing in one way or another. I have heard him say such things on his tapes myself and a quick internet search turns up many quotes like these with their sources if you care to check those out.


"The AV 1611 is far superior to any manuscript extant, and on occasion it would be superior to the original manuscripts if they could be produced."( Ruckman, Peter. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians Commentary. 1973, 1980, p. 162)

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118)

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“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)

There is a very good reason he is considered a blatant heretic by many and not IFB at all. If you want to discuss it further feel free to pm me as I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of ruckman and will only make this one post on the subject on this thread. Edited by Seth-Doty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



I am surprised you haven't heard that sort of thing, it is one of the main pillars of "ruckmanism". His own writings make his position rather clear. One of the most common questions ruckmanites tend to "ask" is "where was the word of God before 1611?". They ask this because they believe the pure word of God was lost and unknowable at some indefinite time prior to 1611 and then it was re-inspired in the english KJV at that point. Their belief that the pure word of God was corrupted, lost, and then re-inspired is key to their insistence that the bibles of other languages should be translated from the KJV into a given language rather than from greek and hebrew and is the reason for their general contempt for any scriptures in those languages. That is because they believe "only" the english KJV is the perfect pure word of God. That would differ from a more "typical" none ruckmanite KJVO IFB that would hold that the KJV is the preserved word of God for the english speaking peoples and nothing more. Not Gods new standard for the world circa 1611, but Gods old standard translated into english.

Here are just a couple quotes from his writings, I am sure if you looked you could find much more as he is always saying this sort of thing in one way or another. I have heard him say such things on his tapes myself and a quick internet search turns up many quotes like these with their sources if you care to check those out.


"The AV 1611 is far superior to any manuscript extant, and on occasion it would be superior to the original manuscripts if they could be produced."( Ruckman, Peter. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians Commentary. 1973, 1980, p. 162)

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118)

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“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)

There is a very good reason he is considered a blatant heretic by many and not IFB at all. If you want to discuss it further feel free to pm me as I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of ruckman and will only make this one post on the subject on this thread.


Seth,

That is all good and well; but it doesn't really matter if an individual is as crazy as a loon or a blatant heretic as long as they are 100% KJV and defend it to their death. If they do that, they must be alright and blessed of God! :icon_rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



I am surprised you haven't heard that sort of thing, it is one of the main pillars of "ruckmanism". His own writings make his position rather clear. One of the most common questions ruckmanites tend to "ask" is "where was the word of God before 1611?". They ask this because they believe the pure word of God was lost and unknowable at some indefinite time prior to 1611 and then it was re-inspired in the english KJV at that point. Their belief that the pure word of God was corrupted, lost, and then re-inspired is key to their insistence that the bibles of other languages should be translated from the KJV into a given language rather than from greek and hebrew and is the reason for their general contempt for any scriptures in those languages. That is because they believe "only" the english KJV is the perfect pure word of God. That would differ from a more "typical" none ruckmanite KJVO IFB that would hold that the KJV is the preserved word of God for the english speaking peoples and nothing more. Not Gods new standard for the world circa 1611, but Gods old standard translated into english.

Here are just a couple quotes from his writings, I am sure if you looked you could find much more as he is always saying this sort of thing in one way or another. I have heard him say such things on his tapes myself and a quick internet search turns up many quotes like these with their sources if you care to check those out.


"The AV 1611 is far superior to any manuscript extant, and on occasion it would be superior to the original manuscripts if they could be produced."( Ruckman, Peter. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians Commentary. 1973, 1980, p. 162)

“The A.V. 1611 reading, here, is superior to any Greek text” (Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence, Pensacola Bible Press, 1970, p. 118)

“Mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation!” (Ruckman, Manuscript Evidence, p. 126).

“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)

There is a very good reason he is considered a blatant heretic by many and not IFB at all. If you want to discuss it further feel free to pm me as I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of ruckman and will only make this one post on the subject on this thread.


I'd be happy to discuss it further, privately. You said this publically however, so I'll respond to it publically.

Thanks for the sources; I think I better understand where you're coming from on this. I'm wondering though, how in the world does this make him a heretic, even if he is wrong? Being erronous and being a heretic are two completely different things, you know. No two believers believe the same things, so does that make the one who is wrong a heretic? Also, I highly doubt that anyone has all their ducks in a row, so does that make us all heretics? On salvation, baptism, the church, Baptist distinctives, the two natures, eschatology, the Godhead, the Holy Spirit, apostolic gifts, and a host of other things you probably agree with him on. So because YOU differ with him on the Bible issue - he's a heretic?

By the way, when the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text disagree with the King James Version - who do you correct?

The words in italics are not in the extant manuscripts, they were added by the KJV translators. Who do you pick, the KJV or not?


1. II Sam. 21:19, "And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

In other words, did David kill Goliath or did Elhanan do it? The MT says Elhanan did it, and so do many of the new versions, but the King James says that David did. Pick one.


2. I Cor. 14:4, "He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

The TR doesn't have the word unknown in the text. In fact, every time the phrase "unknown tongue(s)" occurs in this chapter - it's not in the TR. The KJV has inserted the words and It COMPLETLY changes the meaning of the chapter. You have to pick one, you can't have both, either the TR or the KJV.


3. I John 2:23, "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Half the verse is in italics - not in the original lanuages, not in the TR, but it's right there in the King James Bible. The KJV translators got that second half of the verse from the Vaticanus! You have to decide if you're going to with the TR or the KJV. Which do you correct?


4. Let me tell you which one PAUL would choose:

Deut 25:4: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

"The corn" is not in the Old Testament MT, but Paul wrote it in the New Testament when he quoted that OT verse. HE ADDED "the corn" as it is NOT in italics in the New Testament:

I Cor. 9:9, "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?"

Paul sides with the italics of the King James Version in Deuteronomy 25:4, against that of the extant MT.

I don't know anyone who says the KJV is "more the word of God" than the originals, but what we have today in Enlgish is better than we have today in the original languages. The originals do not exsist, only copies of copies of copies of them, and they disagree from each other.

Considering the KJV wasn't translated exclusively from the TR or the MT, is it erroneous? You can't pick both, brother, unless you stick your head in the sand about the facts. I'm not an expert on Manuscript Evidence, but I'm honest when I say I'm a King James man, I don't correct it - ever - and I never will. Where the KJV disagrees with the over 5,000 manuscripts different manuscripts, I go with the KJV. If the KJV is the perfect word of God, then THAT is what I translate from (which I have done) when going to another language.

And I won't call you a heretic if you don't agree. Edited by Rick Schworer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

When it comes right down to it, we either believe the KJB is the perfect Word of God in English, or we don't.

If the KJB is the perfect Word of God in English then this is true because God caused it to be so; whether by means we know or can know or are unable to know.

If the KJB is perfect, then any other Bible or manuscript that differs from the KJB must by definition be imperfect.

For myself, I believe the KJB is the perfect Word of God in English because the Lord Himself led me to specifically use the KJB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...