Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

Where do we draw the line for IFB?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

No worries.  I am not familiar with Ruckman, and did not realize it was such an issue.

I had never heard of him until I joined OB. There were a couple "Ruckmanites" here when I first joined, but then some more radical Ruckmanites showed up and stirred the pot until it made a big mess and finally most or all of them were banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've not noticed a "Calvinist" currently posting on this forum say that salvation comes by a means other than by grace through faith. So there is agreement there. The difference at the moment seems to be whether one believes God specifically called to them to be saved by grace through faith or they believe on their own they accepted salvation by grace through faith.

 

They believe that God keeps offering grace, so much grace, that eventually all of His elect will accept Jesus as Savior. In other words they believe God forces salvation on His elect. God, nor Jesus. forces them self on no one, its whosoever will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

They believe that God keeps offering grace, so much grace, that eventually all of His elect will accept Jesus as Savior. In other words they believe God forces salvation on His elect. God, nor Jesus. forces them self on no one, its whosoever will.

Some do indeed believe this, but not all. What do the ones posting here now believe in this area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Okay, I hate to be the heavy in this, but this thread is not pro- or anti-Ruckman.  The conversation that has been going on for several pages is not inline with the OP...For those who wish to continue the discussion, please create another thread.  If you don't want to create another thread, that's fine.  But pro or anti Ruckman talk stops in this one...Thank you.

 

(and, Song - you can't tell someone they can't contribute to a thread...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

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.

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

 

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?

Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. 

 

Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. 

 

Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic. 

 

I have a question for you, but I don't want to hijack this any longer. Mind continuing this in the Biblical issues forum under 'Preservation & Inspiration'?  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Once again, this simply is not his or my position. You have yet to substantiate these claims but keep repeating them over and over. Yes I do identify as a Ruckmanite in order to remove it as a pejoritive insult from people who oppose the absolute perfection of the AV. Let me make my position on the Bible very clear: I believe the Authorized King James Bible is the perfect, preserved word of God. It is superior to all other texts and is therefore able to correct them all. I do not believe that the Bible was somehow "lost" and was therefore re-inspired by the AV translators. I don't know of anybody who does believe that. 

Where did God promise to preserve his word in the original languages only? By God's seal of approval I mean his clear and unmistakable usage of the AV above all other competing texts. It is also evident that since the advent of the modern-version movement there has been a near universal apostasy in the English speaking world. One needs look only at the sorry state of "Christianity" in America today to see the fruit of rejecting the God-honored text that came out of the protestant reformation. 

 

Look, if you don't like Dr. Ruckman that's fine. We all have preachers we favor or don't enjoy much. That being said, it is wrong of you to mischaracterize his position and label it as "heresy". If believing the Bible that God has provided me as the perfect word of God is heresy, you can count me as a heretic. 

rm, please read post 141 & 143.  Thank you.  And then go here:    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Okay, I hate to be the heavy in this, but this thread is not pro- or anti-Ruckman.  The conversation that has been going on for several pages is not inline with the OP...For those who wish to continue the discussion, please create another thread.  If you don't want to create another thread, that's fine.  But pro or anti Ruckman talk stops in this one...Thank you.

 

(and, Song - you can't tell someone they can't contribute to a thread...)

This wasn't about pro or anti Ruckman. It was about slandering a man.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Members

I would like for this to be a civil discussion. The problem is that an IFB can mean many sort of things. For example, this website is and mostly IFB, but some say we are too IFB while other state we are not IFB enough. Where in your mind should Online Baptist/We draw the line for IFB?

​I do think a little different than some on OB, in which one thing I find to be hard to explain on OB -  the Bible I use.

In my opinion, as I do not use 'perversions' in my preaching and teaching, the explanation of 'what' I believe can be best explained

in the text I use, but the rules here keep me from clearly saying where I get my 'thinking'. I have been trying to 'smooth-over' the words

I use, to try and show in my own words, what I believe. There are times when members here say things that are not in the KJV text, yet they 'get'

a certain meaning from the text which mine says in it's text. So I would like to see the rule about 'KJV only' changed to 'KJV and previous

English versions of the 'proper' line of Bibles, such as Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, Bishops, and Geneva Bibles'. I believe it would deepen

our understanding of the text, and reveal some interesting discussions on real 'biblical' teachings. I will still be here whether or not that happens.

I know some will say it brings confusion into the realm, but I disagree, it will solidify what we truly believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sometimes I feel that non IFB saints, and Calvinists, and, A-millenialists, post their views on OLB just to antaganize us and get converts  to their agenda. They do not really want an honest discussion. We need a solid Statement of Faith. One of the reasons why some of the discussions degenerate into rancor, ill-feeling and dislike is that some folks that are in the forums are not true IFB and they do not want to be. They are leavening OLB with there non-biblical beliefs.

Also, I do think that you should consider someone joining OLB to state there church name. If they are not near a local IFB church than they need to give the name of the previous IFB church they sere a member of.

 

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...