Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
      19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
      20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:
      8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

       28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

       29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

       30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

Where do we draw the line for IFB?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This topic needs reconsidering for people posting. Maybe only IFB church members only can post. If others have questions we already have the Questions forum or area for asking an IFB any question.

 

What about people, such as myself, who attend independent conservative KJV-only Baptist churches that don't necessarily advertise themselves as IFB? My views are very much in line with the fundamentals of the IFB churches and my pastor graduated from an IFB Bible college and says he is unapologetic standing for the fundamentals of the faith, but the church is not, specifically, IFB. There are a lot of people who attend churches that are independent, conservative, Bible preaching, and fundamentalist that don't specify themselves as an IFB church. Or they don't have one near where they live, so they attend the next best church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

After reading your posts so far you sound like a better Christian than me and they let me be on here.

 

I like your screen name by the way, sounds sincerely self-descript.

 

Thank you for the kind reassurance. I'm afraid I'm far from a great Christian. God nudges me back toward the straight and narrow every minute of every day. Many days I still feel like the newborn baby Christian 1 Peter 2:2 describes. I'm slowly cutting my "teeth on the meat", so to speak.

 

As far as my screen name is concerned, being a joyful helpmeet was not something that I came by naturally. I was unsaved, Pagan, and a radical feminist when I married my husband. The Holy Spirit got a hold of me and convicted me about being a helpmeet, being modest, and being a content keeper at home very quickly after I accepted Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You have a powerful testimony there also. I think they will all welcome you here no doubt. I think the problems that brought this whole thread about are more in the line of non-believer trolls that keep popping up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

What about people, such as myself, who attend independent conservative KJV-only Baptist churches that don't necessarily advertise themselves as IFB? My views are very much in line with the fundamentals of the IFB churches and my pastor graduated from an IFB Bible college and says he is unapologetic standing for the fundamentals of the faith, but the church is not, specifically, IFB. There are a lot of people who attend churches that are independent, conservative, Bible preaching, and fundamentalist that don't specify themselves as an IFB church. Or they don't have one near where they live, so they attend the next best church.

 

 

Could fundamental be substitute for the word I underlined & mean the same thing, I mean close to the same thing?

 

 independent conservative KJV-only Baptist church

 independent fundamental  KJV-only Baptist church

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thank you for the kind reassurance. I'm afraid I'm far from a great Christian. God nudges me back toward the straight and narrow every minute of every day. Many days I still feel like the newborn baby Christian 1 Peter 2:2 describes. I'm slowly cutting my "teeth on the meat", so to speak.

 

As far as my screen name is concerned, being a joyful helpmeet was not something that I came by naturally. I was unsaved, Pagan, and a radical feminist when I married my husband. The Holy Spirit got a hold of me and convicted me about being a helpmeet, being modest, and being a content keeper at home very quickly after I accepted Christ. 

 

Jimhelpmeet,

Your husband must be a real man to have married a radical feminist. HA. People willing to take a strong stand before becoming a Christian should be strong warriors for Jesus after conversion. Welcome aborad.

Edited by Eric Stahl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Could fundamental be substitute for the word I underlined & mean the same thing, I mean close to the same thing?

 

 independent conservative KJV-only Baptist church

 independent fundamental  KJV-only Baptist church

I think that would make a lot of sense. Our church is over a hundred years old and has been  KJV-only, conservative, completely autonomous church all these years. We support about six missionaries, and they are all IFB missionaries. 

 

Jimhelpmeet,

Your husband must be a real man to have married a radical feminist. HA. People willing to take a strong stand before becoming a Christian should be strong warriors for Jesus after conversion. Welcome aborad.

Thank you for the welcome. My husband told me he was patient with me, because he saw the real me, and not the person I was pretending to be. I certainly was not raised to be a radical feminist. My father is an ordained deacon, my mother was a homemaker. It wasn't until I was living out in the world that I became enthralled with all of the trappings of liberalism. It's truly evil stuff. Praise God for His grace and for my husband's unconditional patience.

Edited by JimsHelpmeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Wow, back in 1968, having first met in 67, while in the Air Force while home for Thanksgiving, & seeing each other only a very few times, if Linda saw the real me them, would she have said yes marrying me on May 18?

 

​My mother played the piano in our church for as long as she was able, her & grandmother drug me to church, did not give me a choice  if they had, I would not have gone. Yet, once drug there, when we returned home, I was always happy they drug me to church, leaving home for church unhappy, returning rejoicing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 have self identified as a "Ruckmanite" in the past in order to remove the phrase from the arsenal of somebody looking to discredit me. My position on the King James Bible is that it is the perfect word of God. It is what I refer to when I say "The Scriptures". I do not correct it with any text from any language. I do not remove any words I don't like or add any if I think something is missing. It is the text, for these last days, that God has placed his providential stamp of approval on via his usage of it in history. Therefore I hold it to be absolutely authoritative and able to correct anything that disagrees with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 have self identified as a "Ruckmanite" in the past in order to remove the phrase from the arsenal of somebody looking to discredit me. My position on the King James Bible is that it is the perfect word of God. It is what I refer to when I say "The Scriptures". I do not correct it with any text from any language. I do not remove any words I don't like or add any if I think something is missing. It is the text, for these last days, that God has placed his providential stamp of approval on via his usage of it in history. Therefore I hold it to be absolutely authoritative and able to correct anything that disagrees with it. 

It's just an argument over semantics IMO. If I believe the KJV is the inspired word of God then why is it wrong for me to say that it is so?

 

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.

Brother, you are way off on this. Perhaps you should look at his teachings more closely. He does not teach the word of God was lost. I've read just about everything he has written on the subject of the KJV and he doesn't even come close to teaching this. He teaches that the words of God went through a purification process of seven steps (Psalms 12:7) culminating in the AV 1611. He teaches that it was never bound.

 

I will grant you that he says that the KJV is superior to the originals but some of the reasons he gives for this statement are:

 

!) We no longer have the originals.

 

2) If we did they would be scraps in a museum and unattainable.

 

3) I you had a copy of them in one book (which the originals never were) you wouldn't be able to read them.

 

4) The originals had no punctuation, capitalization, verse and chapter divisions and would have been missing many words that were added to the KJV that make it more clearer.

 

5) They would be useless in soulwinning. Even if you went soulwinning among Greeks since they don't even speak koine Greek anymore.

 

6) English is the universal language and the language the originals were written in are a dead language. Therefore you can reach more people with the KJV making it superior.

 

7) The KJV has born more fruit than the originals.

 

These are a few reasons why he teaches the KJV is superior to the originals. You see, he speaking superior in the practical sense. Not that somehow the KJV is more inspired than the originals.

 

Also, your last statement is a complete contradiction to your original objection. You knock Ruckman for saying the KJV is inspired then you turn right around and say it is inspired.

 

Anyways, what does it matter? At the end of the day we both believe the KJV is without error so who cares what TERMINOLOGY is used to describe how it got there, whether inspiration or preservation? It nothing but unnecessary division.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It's just an argument over semantics IMO. If I believe the KJV is the inspired word of God then why is it wrong for me to say that it is so?

 

Brother, you are way off on this. Perhaps you should look at his teachings more closely. He does not teach the word of God was lost. I've read just about everything he has written on the subject of the KJV and he doesn't even come close to teaching this. He teaches that the words of God went through a purification process of seven steps (Psalms 12:7) culminating in the AV 1611. He teaches that it was never bound.

 

I will grant you that he says that the KJV is superior to the originals but some of the reasons he gives for this statement are:

 

!) We no longer have the originals.

 

2) If we did they would be scraps in a museum and unattainable.

 

3) I you had a copy of them in one book (which the originals never were) you wouldn't be able to read them.

 

4) The originals had no punctuation, capitalization, verse and chapter divisions and would have been missing many words that were added to the KJV that make it more clearer.

 

5) They would be useless in soulwinning. Even if you went soulwinning among Greeks since they don't even speak koine Greek anymore.

 

6) English is the universal language and the language the originals were written in are a dead language. Therefore you can reach more people with the KJV making it superior.

 

7) The KJV has born more fruit than the originals.

 

These are a few reasons why he teaches the KJV is superior to the originals. You see, he speaking superior in the practical sense. Not that somehow the KJV is more inspired than the originals.

 

Also, your last statement is a complete contradiction to your original objection. You knock Ruckman for saying the KJV is inspired then you turn right around and say it is inspired.

 

Anyways, what does it matter? At the end of the day we both believe the KJV is without error so who cares what TERMINOLOGY is used to describe how it got there, whether inspiration or preservation? It nothing but unnecessary division.

Right on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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. 

Could you please provide documented evidence showing that Dr. Ruckman teaches that the Bible lost inspiration and was therefore reinspired in 1611?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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. 

Brother, you are still dead wrong on this. I have a sneaking suspicion that you have never read his material yourself. You are either quoting his words second hand or you are nit picking quotes from his writings to prove your argument. I've read his writings on the KJV. Almost all of them. And I still read his bulletin when I get the chance. So it is debatable because I know what he teaches. Dr. Ruckman, for all his faults and strange doctrines, has never taught that the words of God were lost then reinspired again in the KJV. You better get that straight or you are doing nothing but slandering the man.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Seth told you in a way where to find it, he stated its in Mr. Ruckman's own writing. You can search the net, & you can even go to his very own web site, & find out the truth about this man. And if your really interested you will check him out thoroughly before standing up for him. And Seth was not slandering him, he is telling the truth, & he is just trying to help you. Sad many that you try to help slaps you in the face.

 

Plus you can search this forum. Many parts of his writing has been posted on here to prove what he teaches. And there's been several links to audio sermons posted so others could hear his teachings in person right from his mouth.

 

Of course, some of you have not been here long enough for me to know your beliefs, it may be you will agree with him, but before doing so one sure needs to know what they're standing for 1st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Seth told you in a way where to find it, he stated its in Mr. Ruckman's own writing. You can search the net, & you can even go to his very own web site, & find out the truth about this man. And if your really interested you will check him out thoroughly before standing up for him. And Seth was not slandering him, he is telling the truth, & he is just trying to help you. Sad many that you try to help slaps you in the face.

 

Plus you can search this forum. Many parts of his writing has been posted on here to prove what he teaches. And there's been several links to audio sermons posted so others could hear his teachings in person right from his mouth.

 

Of course, some of you have not been here long enough for me to know your beliefs, it may be you will agree with him, but before doing so one sure needs to know what they're standing for 1st.

I have read the majority of Ruckman's (quite voluminous) writings and never once have I seen him say that the Bible lost inspiration. I have a pretty good grasp on Dr. Ruckman's teachings and beliefs. Do you have any quote or reference proving the accusation that he teaches the Bible lost its inspiration?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

From David Cloud's book "What About Ruckman?" pg.10-11

 

The KJV Is Given by Inspiration

 

In The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship, pp. 271-272, Ruckman claims: “The King James Bible was given by inspiration of God.’”

 

This is to confuse inspiration--which is a process whereby the Scriptures were given through holy men of old--with preservation, which is the process whereby God has kept the Scriptures since their original inspiration.  2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the giving of the Scripture.

 

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

 

The process of inspiration is further described in 2 Peter 1:20-21:

 

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

 

These passages do not describe the copying of Scripture texts or the making of translations.  It is the doctrine of preservation that guarantees that the God would watch over the divinely-inspired Scripture to preserve it for future generations (Psa. 12:6-7; 100:5; Mat. 5:18; 24:35; etc.). This is the process whereby God preserved the Scripture in the Hebrew and Greek texts and in accurately translated versions.

Edited by LindaR
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The AV text is scripture and is therefore given by inspiration. ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration. The verse is certainly not referring to original manuscripts only.

It does not follow that Ruckman believes the Bible lost inspiration at any point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Seth told you in a way where to find it, he stated its in Mr. Ruckman's own writing. You can search the net, & you can even go to his very own web site, & find out the truth about this man. And if your really interested you will check him out thoroughly before standing up for him. And Seth was not slandering him, he is telling the truth, & he is just trying to help you. Sad many that you try to help slaps you in the face.

 

Plus you can search this forum. Many parts of his writing has been posted on here to prove what he teaches. And there's been several links to audio sermons posted so others could hear his teachings in person right from his mouth.

 

Of course, some of you have not been here long enough for me to know your beliefs, it may be you will agree with him, but before doing so one sure needs to know what they're standing for 1st.

Jerry, you really don't need to jump in this. I realize you think of yourself as the school marm in this form that has to keep the chicks in line but read Ruckman's books on the KJV issue and I know what he teaches concerning the KJV issue. I don't need to search the web for second hand opinions of misquotes of people who hate his guts.  Ruckman has never taught that the words of God were lost and then reinspired in the KJV. Never!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...