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

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.

Again, you are reading what David Cloud has to say about him. I've read Ruckman's books himself and David Cloud, like he has done with many other believers, is lying. No where is Cloud's quote does it say that the words of God were lost and then reinspired in the KJV

You also better take a closer read at II Timothy 3:16 because the inspired word of God Paul mentions there are copies of the originals.

 

If the KJV is the inspired scripture then it is given by inspiration according to II Timothy 3:16 since all is given by inspiration of God. And please don't say only the originals were given by inspiration because the scripture that Timothy new since a child were not the originals, only the original languages.

 

The heart of the matter is that you believe in inspired "languages". You believe that the word of God could only be inspired in a certain language, i.e. Hebrew and Greek, because the passage in II Tim. 3:16 is not speaking of originals but rather copies. The inspired scripture that Timothy had were not the originals but copies. Therefore, the argument can't be whether God's inspired word can be found in copies because the passage clearly teaches they can be. The problem is whether once the language gets outside of Hebrew and Greek does somehow these copies lose inspiration. You say they are preserved copies of the inspired scripture but that still leaves room open for errors in translation. Unless, of course, if the translators were translating under inspiration.

 

By the way, II Peter 1:20,21 says nothing about written words ("holy men of God SPAKE") and in of itself doesn't guarantee that the written words of God we have today are without error.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The KJB is the Word of God.

Exactly, John. What does it matter whether you say it was preserved or inspired when at the end of the day there is no difference and believing one way or the other doesn't effect a person's faith in it? I don't understand the division over this matter.

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.

Brother, I don't believe people have a correct understanding of what "inspiration" means. They equate it with "revelation" when they are not the same. So if you say that the KJV translators were inspired (Job 32:8) than you are suggesting that they are receiving a new revelation which is not true nor what we claim. Preservation can not occur without inspiration.

 

For some strange reason most believers today think that inspiration could only have occurred in a dead language nobody speaks or reads anymore. Yet, not one verse can be supplied to support this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I have my disagreements about several of things Ruckman teaches, but giving the man the benefit of the doubt, this is an issue I have corresponded with him about as well as spoke with him personally about twice. Much of the misunderstanding about Ruckman's position on this is based on his crude sense of humor and pejorative attacks on his critics. When Ruckman says that "the KJV corrects the Greek" this is his satirical way of correcting the scholars who think that only a Greek and Hebrew scholar can properly interpret the Bible. 

 

When he refers to "advanced revelations" he is making fun of the scholars for not noticing something in English that you won't find by digging through the "original Greek".

 

Do I think it's misleading to others who are not familiar with him? I would have to say I disagree with his tactics, but that's just the way he is, and as unfortunate as his attitude is, he's dead on about the KJV. For goodness sake the PBI teaches Greek and Hebrew as well as manuscript evidence and history so he's not against everything Greek or Hebrew.

 

I admit that reading Ruckman takes a lot (A LOT) of getting used to. There are things he teaches like peccability of Christ which some of YOU actually agree with that are opposed to Ruckman, and I think are way off the mark and a few other strange teachings. But for the most part, he's one of the smartest expositors I've ever read even though I wish he would tone it down. But, as much as I loathe his approach, I think God used him IN SPITE OF his harsh approach. Could the KJV issue have been more successful without him? Who knows, maybe; but his attitude was so obnoxious that it forced people to look at the issue. That doesn't mean his method should be condoned and regrettably many people have followed his mannerisms, but it woke a lot of colleges and preachers up and some in the process of trying to prove him wrong simply because he offended them became KJVO-I was one of them :)

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have my disagreements about several of things Ruckman teaches, but giving the man the benefit of the doubt, this is an issue I have corresponded with him about as well as spoke with him personally about twice. Much of the misunderstanding about Ruckman's position on this is based on his crude sense of humor and pejorative attacks on his critics. When Ruckman says that "the KJV corrects the Greek" this is his satirical way of correcting the scholars who think that only a Greek and Hebrew scholar can properly interpret the Bible. 

 

When he refers to "advanced revelations" he is making fun of the scholars for not noticing something in English that you won't find by digging through the "original Greek".

 

Do I think it's misleading to others who are not familiar with him? I would have to say I disagree with his tactics, but that's just the way he is, and as unfortunate as his attitude is, he's dead on about the KJV. For goodness sake the PBI teaches Greek and Hebrew as well as manuscript evidence and history so he's not against everything Greek or Hebrew.

 

I admit that reading Ruckman takes a lot (A LOT) of getting used to. There are things he teaches like peccability of Christ which some of YOU actually agree with that are opposed to Ruckman, and I think are way off the mark and a few other strange teachings. But for the most part, he's one of the smartest expositors I've ever read even though I wish he would tone it down. But, as much as I loathe his approach, I think God used him IN SPITE OF his harsh approach. Could the KJV issue have been more successful without him? Who knows, maybe; but his attitude was so obnoxious that it forced people to look at the issue. That doesn't mean his method should be condoned and regrettably many people have followed his mannerisms, but it woke a lot of colleges and preachers up and some in the process of trying to prove him wrong simply because he offended them became KJVO-I was one of them :)

You are exactly right although from what I've heard he is a very kind and gracious man in person. I've have written him on a few occasions and received a response each time and he has been very kind to me. Also, he recommends much material of those hate his guts when you would never find this the other way around. So he is more gracious in that matter. 

 

Ruckman has admitted his harshness and his reason for it (i.e. people tend to listen to those who are harsher in their approach rather than those who are more gentle). He also doesn't recommend to his students that they adopt his methods saying that even though he may have gotten away with it (i.e. his ministry has produced a lot of fruit) they may not get away with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Do you consider it 'a lot of fruit' when people avoid any reference to or association with a man because of his reputation for unScriptural harshness and crudeness?

Not any more than those who defend the fruit of pastors who have raped teenagers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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!

 

You need to leave that off, you do not have the ability to read my heart so that you can know how I feel about my self, only God can do that. Besides that's a personal attack & they should not be allowed.

 

Besides you should never tell any member where they can or cannot or should not  post. Every member of this forum including you & myself are free to post under any topic we have access to.

 

If you have a complaint about my post under this topic PM  Bro. Matt. Other wise keep it to your self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

 
 
I am sure plenty of quotes could be found where ruckman says essentially that. He will not say that the originals "lost inspiration" but he will say that nobody has the "originals" today. Of course in so doing he is playing a verbal game because when it suits his purposes he defines the "originals" as only the very first copies actually penned by the writers of the scriptures(which no one claims to have), where as just about everybody else defines the "originals" as the faithful copies of those first copies in the same languages with the same words that were given by God. Ruckman doesn't believe that the "originals" exist, in the sense of faithful copies in the same languages with the exact same words originally penned. He thinks everything currently in existence other than the KJV is corrupted to one degree or another. When someone tries to pin him down on that though he will say something along the lines of the "originals don't exist" by switching what is meant by "originals"  and defining "originals" very narrowly as only the copies penned by the first writers of scripture which of course is not what anyone else means by it. A strawman. From past experience I doubt you or any of his other supporters will be swayed though. 

The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)


We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 I am sure plenty of quotes could be found where ruckman says essentially that. 

Could you provide them? Your claim that he believes the Bible lost inspiration still remains unsubstantiated.

 

 

He will not say that the originals "lost inspiration" but he will say that nobody has the "originals" today. Of course in so doing he is playing a verbal game because when it suits his purposes he defines the "originals" as only the very first copies actually penned by the writers of the scriptures(which no one claims to have), where as just about everybody else defines the "originals" as the faithful copies of those first copies in the same languages with the same words that were given by God. Ruckman doesn't believe that the "originals" exist, in the sense of faithful copies in the same languages with the exact same words originally penned. He thinks everything currently in existence other than the KJV is corrupted to one degree or another. When someone tries to pin him down on that though he will say something along the lines of the "originals don't exist" by switching what is meant by "originals"  and defining "originals" very narrowly as only the copies penned by the first writers of scripture which of course is not what anyone else means by it. A strawman. From past experience I doubt you or any of his other supporters will be swayed though

Nobody does have the originals today. We can either attempt to hazard a guess at what the originals said by examining the extant manuscripts or we can trust the text God has placed his providential seal of approval on, the English text of 1611.

 

 

The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)


We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii).

I agree with both statements. Neither state that the Bible ever lost inspiration. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Could you provide them? Your claim that he believes the Bible lost inspiration still remains unsubstantiated.

 

I agree with both statements. Neither state that the Bible ever lost inspiration. 

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.

 

 

 

 

Nobody does have the originals today. We can either attempt to hazard a guess at what the originals said by examining the extant manuscripts or we can trust the text God has placed his providential seal of approval on, the English text of 1611.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It appears that you both agree that the KJV is the inspired Word of God.  Why argue over what some other person said?

 

Right now we have many Calvinist and other heretics infecting this forum with heretical teachings and they have us squabbling like school kids over points that we actually agree with.  This may not be a popular message but  there will always be people in a movement that we don't agree with, and chances are we are the only ones who will change our own minds, it is a simple fact of being human.  Some like Ruckman, some like Cloud, some dislike one or both.  Does not make the other person wrong.  

 

Let us join in fellowship and battle false doctrine, not each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It appears that you both agree that the KJV is the inspired Word of God.  Why argue over what some other person said?

 

Right now we have many Calvinist and other heretics infecting this forum with heretical teachings and they have us squabbling like school kids over points that we actually agree with.  This may not be a popular message but  there will always be people in a movement that we don't agree with, and chances are we are the only ones who will change our own minds, it is a simple fact of being human.  Some like Ruckman, some like Cloud, some dislike one or both.  Does not make the other person wrong.  

 

Let us join in fellowship and battle false doctrine, not each other.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It appears that you both agree that the KJV is the inspired Word of God.  Why argue over what some other person said?
 
Right now we have many Calvinist and other heretics infecting this forum with heretical teachings and they have us squabbling like school kids over points that we actually agree with.  This may not be a popular message but  there will always be people in a movement that we don't agree with, and chances are we are the only ones who will change our own minds, it is a simple fact of being human.  Some like Ruckman, some like Cloud, some dislike one or both.  Does not make the other person wrong.  
 
Let us join in fellowship and battle false doctrine, not each other.

 
Ruckmanism is not my friend to put it mildly. It is heresy. I put it in the same category as Calvinism and numerous other destructive false doctrines. The doctrinal statement for the IFB board was specifically crafted so that ruckmanites, and a few other groups, if they were honest, would not join the IFB board. I should know, I wrote it. :bonk: For the most part it has worked pretty well but since it is a honor based system if they ignore the fairly short doctrinal statement they are supposed acknowledge that they agree to before joining the IFB board then that can't be helped. We have had quite a few closet ruckmanites(IMHO) join in the last year or so and while I am not one to go on a "witch hunt" when they openly endorse it that turns it into a different situation.
 
rmstcb1611 has specifically stated that he agrees with these statements by peter ruckman:

"The King James test is the last and final statement that God has given to the world, and He has given it in the universal language of the 20th century ... The truth is that GOD SLAMMED THE DOOR OF REVELATION SHUT IN 389 BC AND SLAMMED IT SHUT AGAIN IN 1611” (Peter Ruckman, The Monarch of Books, Pensacola, 1973, p. 9)"

“We candidly and publicly confess that the King James text of the Old Testament (Authorized Version) is far superior to Kittel’s Hebrew text, Derossi’s Hebrew text, Kennicott’s Hebrew text or any Hebrew text that any of you are reading. We do not hesitate to state bluntly and openly that the King James text for the New Testament (Authorized Version) is superior to Erasmus’ Greek text, Aland’s Greek text, Metzger’s Greek text and any other that you are reading (or will read in the future)” (Ruckman, Problem Texts, page xii).

 

 
Those directly contradict this section of the doctrinal statement which he agreed to in order to join the IFB section of the board.
 
"We believe that the revelation of scripture was completed with the book of Revelation. Online baptist holds that the King James Bible is Gods preserved word for the English speaking peoples and does not permit using other versions on the forum. We reject the teaching of the double inspiration of the KJV and hold that the KJV retains the original divine inspiration of the scriptures through faithful translation and Gods divine preservation rather than being re-inspired in the English language in 1611."
 
If I were still a mod I would probably remove him from the IFB board at least for openly being in violation of the terms for joining it, but of course that is up to the current mods. Regardless I do appreciate he has not(so far anyway) resorted to the normal vitriolic approach the average ruckmanite joining this board typically  employs.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

  • Lady 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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 13 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...